Education, Faculty of
Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Hogan, Marcia E.
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
Research shows that the level of self-esteem which students bring to the learning environment influences their receptiveness to instruction. While high self-esteem creates a climate of empowerment, low self-esteem leads to dependency. Authors of self-esteem programs believe students can be taught self-esteem. Empirical research has only begun to test the validity of such beliefs. This study investigated the effectiveness of an instructional program designed to enhance self-esteem. It predicted a greater increase in self-esteem for those students receiving self-esteem instruction than for those who did not, a greater increase for students who began the program with low self-esteem than for those with average or high levels, and a high correlation between student self-reports and teacher ratings of student self-esteem. The subjects in the study were 107 students in four intact classes, two of Grade 5 and two of Grade 7, at an elementary school in Surrey, B.C. There was one Treatment group and one Comparison group at each grade level. The repeated measures design included a pretest, treatment, and a posttest. Treatment consisted of a12-lesson (nine week) self-esteem instructional program, based on the work of Michele Borba, for the treatment group. The Comparison group received regular class instruction. A mixed model ANOVA found no differences in self-esteem for the main effects of treatment and grade, but a significant increase in self-esteem mean scores for both Treatment and Comparison groups. An ANCOVA found no significant difference for the Treatment group by level of self-esteem on the pretest adjusted mean scores. Ecological factors, such as teacher behavior, may have confounded treatment effect. Teacher ratings of student self-esteem showed a weak correlation with student self-ratings. Item analysis of the Piers-Harris Indicated some effect due to instruction and suggested qualitative measures may more accurately assess short-term interventions. The results of this study indicate lack of empirical support for the effectiveness of self-esteem enhancement through instructional interventions. Future research should determine the effect of teacher behavior, isolate the ecological factors which contributed to increased self-esteem, establish effective qualitative measures, and plan furlong term follow-up.
4338872 bytes
application/pdf
THE EFFECT OF AN INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ON THESELF-ESTEEM OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDRENbyMARCIA ELIZABETH HOGANB.Ed., The University of British Columbia, 1974A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESDepartment of Educational Psychology and Special EducationWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASEPTEMBER, 1993© Marcia Elizabeth Hogan, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature Department oThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate 9'3•/0 O( DE-6 (2/88)iiABSTRACTResearch shows that the level of self-esteem whichstudents bring to the learning environment influencestheir receptiveness to instruction. While highself-esteem creates a climate of empowerment, lowself-esteem leads to dependency. Authors of self-esteemprograms believe students can be taught self-esteem.Empirical research has only begun to test the validityof such beliefs. This study investigated theeffectiveness of an instructional program designed toenhance self-esteem. It predicted a greater increase inself-esteem for those students receiving self-esteeminstruction than for those who did not, a greaterincrease for students who began the program with lowself-esteem than for those with average or high levels,and a high correlation between student self-reports andteacher ratings of student self-esteem.The subjects in the study were 107 students in fourintact classes, two of Grade 5 and two of Grade 7, at anelementary school in Surrey, B.C. There was oneTreatment group and one Comparison group at each gradelevel. The repeated measures design included a pretest,treatment, and a posttest. Treatment consisted of a12-lesson (nine week) self-esteem instructional program,iiibased on the work of Michele Borba, for the treatmentgroup. The Comparison group received regular classinstruction.A mixed model ANOVA found no differences inself-esteem for the main effects of treatment and grade,but a significant increase in self-esteem mean scoresfor both Treatment and Comparison groups. An ANCOVAfound no significant difference for the Treatment groupby level of self-esteem on the pretest adjusted meanscores. Ecological factors, such as teacher behavior,may have confounded treatment effect. Teacher ratingsof student self-esteem showed a weak correlation withstudent self-ratings. Item analysis of the Piers-HarrisIndicated some effect due to instruction and suggestedqualitative measures may more accurately assess shortterm interventions. The results of this study indicatea lack of empirical support for the effectiveness ofself-esteem enhancement through instructionalinterventions. Future research should determine theeffect of teacher behavior, isolate the ecologicalfactors which contributed to increased self-esteem,establish effective qualitative measures, and plan forlong term follow-up.i vTABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT^TABLE OF CONTENTS^ ivLIST OF TABLES viLIST OF FIGURES^ viiACKNOWLEDGEMENT viiiDEDICATION^ ixCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION^ 1I)Rationale^ 1II)Problem Statement 4III)Purpose of the Study 6IV)Hypotheses 7A. Ancillary Question^ 7CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 9I)Terminology^ 9II)Developnent of Self-Esteem Theory^ 14III)Self-Esteem Enhancement—Ecological 23IV)Self-Esteem Enhancement--Instructional^ 25V)Review of Intervention Studies 30A. Omizo & Omizo--Self-defeating Behavior ^ 31B. Layden--Attributional Style Change^ 35C. Priest--Teacher Training^ 38D. Boessing & Sasseen--PositiveSelf-Concept^ 43E. Walker--Group Counseling 46F. Wasserman—Affective Behavior^ 50VI)Conclusion^ 54CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 57I)Purpose 58II)Instructional Procedures^ 59A. Treatment Group 59B. Comparison Group 62III)Instruments or Measures 63A. Piers-Harris Children'sSelf-Concept Scale^ 63B. Behavioral Academic Self-EsteemScale^ 65IV)Sample^ 67V)Design 67VI)Hypotheses^ 68A. Ancillary Question^ 68VII)Analysis 69CHAPTER 4: RESULTS^ 71I)Internal Consistency of Instruments^ 71II)Hypothesis 1--Differences in Self-EsteemScores 71A. Main Effect--Treatment^ 73B. Main Effect--Grade Level 73C. Main Effect--Occasion 74D. Interaction Effect--Treatment byOccasion^ 74III)Hypothesis 2--Effect of Initial Score onIncrease in Self-Esteem^ 74IV)Ancillary Question 1--Correlation BetweenStudent and Teacher Ratings 76V)Ancillary Question 2--Piers-Harris ItemDifferences by Occasion^ 77CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 82I)Discussion of Hypotheses^ 82II)Discussion of Ancillary Questions^ 85III )Conclusions^ 87IV)Limitations of the Study^ 88V)Implications for Education 89VI)Implications for Research 90REFERENCES^ 91Appendix A: Lesson Plan^ 98LIST OF TABLESv iTABLE 1 A Comparison of the stages ofSelf-Esteem Development^ 108TABLE 2 Summary of Intervention Studies 109TABLE 3 Piers-Harris Overall Means andStandard Deviations^ 111TABLE 4 Analysis of Variance of Self-Esteemby Treatment, Grade, and Occasion^ 112TABLE 5 Piers-Harris Mean Scores by Treatment,Occasion, and Grade^ 113TABLE 6 Piers-Harris Mean Scores by Grade,Treatment, and Occasion^ 114TABLE 7 Analysis of Covariance for Self-EsteemTreatment by Level 115TABLE 8 Pearson Correlation Coefficients ofStudent and Teacher Ratings forTreatment Group^ 116TABLE 9 Pearson Correlation Coefficients ofStudents and Teacher Ratings forComparison Group^ 117TABLE 10 Change in Group Responses to Piers-HarrisQuestions,^Itemized According toSelf-Esteem Components^ 118TABLE 11 Crosstabulation of Piers-Harris ItemResponses^ 120vi iLIST OF FIGURESFIGURE 1 REPRESENTATION OF COOPERSMITH'STHEORY OF SELF-ESTEEM^ 124viiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTI wish to acknowledge the members of my committeefor their many contributions during the course of thisstudy.I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Art More. Heoffered direction, yet allowed me to follow my ownchoices.I am grateful to Dr. Robert Conry for guiding methrough the statistical analysis. His assistancepermitted me to pursue a more thorough investigation ofthe data.I appreciate the help of Dr. JacquelynBaker-Sennet, who provided thoughtful feedback,effective praise, and enthusiasm for my topic.My thanks go to Dr. Barbara Holmes, who supervisedthe administration of the Piers-Harris and welcomed mystudy to Surrey School District #36.ixDEDICATIONI dedicate this thesis to my two sons, Chad Ryanand Troy James--who grew more independent, took overmany responsibilities at home, and understood whyI couldn't always be there--during the two years of thisstudy.1THE EFFECT OF AN INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ONTHE SELF-ESTEEM OF ELEXENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTSCHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTION I. Rationale The importance of self-esteem to the personal andsocial well-being of individuals and hence societyitself, has gained international attention.Governments, the business community, and educators havenoticed that "those in society who are burdened with theconviction that they are not worthy will take refuge inbehaviors that are unproductive, costly, deviant, anddangerous to society and will, by that measure,contribute disproportionately to serious problems"(Smelser, 1989, p. 1). High self-esteem, on the otherhand, creates a climate of personal empowerment whichallows us the freedom to enhance the quality of life forourselves and our community.The effects of self-esteem on our culture are sopervasive that the government of California convened astate-wide investigation into the connection betweenself-esteem and such societal ills as drug-abuse,2adolescent suicide, teenage pregnancy and school dropoutrate (Mecca, Smelser, & Vasconcellos, 1989). Otherstates are now following their lead. The CanadianCouncil for Self-Esteem has recently been established.Research in a variety of educational fields hasestablished that "self-esteem is a prerequisite foreffective learning" (Covington, 1989, p. 77). TheCanadian School Boards Association, in an attempt toestablish national educational goals, says "schoolsshould teach personal and social skills that promoteself-esteem, individual responsibility, and respect forothers" (Cato, 1992, p. 3). The British ColumbiaMinistry of Education shares this belief. Year 2000documents emphasize one aspect of self-esteem,self-concept. "An enabling environment that allows forthe achievement of learning goals and an enhancedself-concept is of prime importance" (Ministry ofEducation, 1990a, p. 36).The British Columbia Learning for Living curriculum(Ministry of Education, 1990b) focuses on the componentsof self-esteem in one third of its goals and indirectlyaddresses self-esteem in the other goal areas. Topicsinclude self-concept, interpersonal skills,problem-solving, goal-setting strategies and the3development of competence in dealing with these issues.James Beane states, "Self-esteem is learned andschools and other agencies have a moral obligation tohelp build it and avoid debilitating it. Self-esteem isa central feature in human dignity, and thus aninalienable human entitlement" (1992, p. 5). Clearly,the components of self-esteem must be carefullyconsidered when educational decisions are made.Educators must develop a repertoire of research-basedteaching strategies which effectively increase theself-esteem of at-risk students.My own classroom experience with students with lowself-esteem over the past three years has led to twoconclusions which are the foundation of this research.First, students need to develop a sense ofself-efficacy, to examine their strengths and weaknessesIn order to set realistic, achievable goals forthemselves. Second, opportunities to set these goalsand maintain personal records of their progress leads toa feeling of empowerment within the educational systemand sets the student on the road to intrinsicmotivation.4Problem Statement Self-esteem is very much the vogue phrase of theday and is used as a generic term in public literature.It is a handy catch-all explanation for the many illbehaviors challenging society today, from abuse toserial murders. Theorists have begun to suggesttreatment programs; however, a research base thatsupports the effectiveness of such programs has not yetbeen established.In his summary of research on self-esteemenhancement, Gurney (1987) described interventions whichhave been successful with elementary students in NorthAmerica and Britain. He categorized them as curriculum,those which alter academic subjects; special classroomprocedures, such as photography, drama or instruction;changing teacher behavior, including teachingtechniques; and changing pupil behavior. Both specialclassroom procedures and curriculum refer to a varietyof classroom activities which may, either indirectly ordirectly, increase self-esteem.The indirect approach encourages teachers toenhance the self-esteem of their students by creating anencouraging atmosphere (Black, 1991; Webber, 1990),using constructive praise (Hasentab, 1987), conducting5class discussions and planning sessions (Schilling,1986), special activities (Gurney, 1987), structuringcooperative rather than competitive lessons (Johnson,Johnson, & Rynders, 1981), and providing opportunitiesfor peer tutoring (Watts, 1982). All of thesestrategies are gaining popularity in the Canadian schoolsystem and the self-esteem of some students has beenenhanced by these experiences. However, many of theseinterventions are so diverse, the psychologicalfoundations on which they are based so questionable, andthe research so variant in design as to leave educatorsmore confused than clear on effective interventions.The direct approach to self-esteem instruction wascited in only 3 of the 16 studies reviewed by Gurney(1987). Direct instruction programs are soundly basedin the psychological literature and specificallydetailed to allow replication. All three studiessuccessfully implemented self-esteem enhancementprograms. The British Columbia Ministry of Education(1990b) supports the direct teaching method in theirLearning for Living document, where self-esteem isincluded in the program objectives.The Borba program is being introduced to teachersin British Columbia through workshops led by Dr. Michele6Borba and is being implemented in the many schools thathave chosen self-esteem enhancement as a school goal.However, there is a lack of empirical evidence of theeffectiveness of such curricula.The self-esteem of children less than nine years ofage is not considered stable (Coopersmith, 1967; Piers,1984). Thus intervention programs at this age would aslikely be due to chance as to treatment. Grade sevenstudents (12 and 13 year old children) have been foundto have more fragile self-esteem, which is lessresponsive to intervention, than that of 9-12 year oldstudents (Rosenberg, 1981). More research is needed tosupport this claim. Therefore, the specific problem ofthis study is to determine if there is a difference inself-esteem between grade five and seven students whoreceive direct self-esteem instruction and grade fiveand grade seven students who receive no self-esteeminstruction.III Purpose of the study Based on the Borba model of self-esteem, thepurpose of this study is to learn more about theeffectiveness of self-esteem instruction for differentgrade levels of intermediate students in one British7Columbia school district.IV. Hypotheses 1. It is hypothesized that there will be a greaterincrease in the mean total scores, from the pretest tothe posttest, on the Piers-Harris Children'sSelf-Concept Scale (Piers-Harris) for the Grade 5 andGrade 7 subjects who receive a 12-lesson self-esteeminstructional unit than for the Grade 5 and Grade 7subjects who do not receive self-esteem instruction.2. It is hypothesized that the increase inself-esteem scores for the Treatment group is dependenton pre-treatment status. Students with pretest scoresbelow the 50th percentile for norms on the Piers-Harris(low average) will show a greater increase in the meantotal posttest score on the Piers Harris than studentswith pretest scores above the 50th percentile (highaverage and above).A. Ancillary Question 1. Is there a significant correlation between thescores on the Piers-Harris student self-report measureand the Behavioral/Academic Self-Esteem teacher ratingscale?2. Are certain items on the Piers-Harris Children's8Self-Concept Scale more predictive of change inself-esteem following an instructional program whichtargets concepts of SECURITY, SELFHOOD, AFFILIATION,MISSION and COMPETENCE?It is intended that this study will provideinformation that will assist educators in identifyingand implementing effective interventions to enhance theself-esteem of elementary school students.9CHAPTER TWOREVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The literature on self-esteem is voluminous,reaching into all areas of our lives in an effort tounderstand success and failure. There are few articleson this topic that do not make reference to StanleyCoopersmith, Leon Festinger, Ruth Wylie, and AlbertBandura.This literature review addresses self-esteemterminology, describes the development of self-esteemtheory, categorizes current approaches to theenhancement of self-esteem and reviews empirical studiesof classroom interventions.I. Terminology In her book, Revolution from Within: a Book of Self-Esteem, Gloria Steinem (1992) traces the termself-esteem to the early 1600's where it was describedas a favorable opinion of oneself. Steinem found fewlanguages that do not use self-esteem terminology.Black notes more than 20 synonyms of self-esteem andconcludes, "The imprecise terminology contributes toconfusion, misunderstanding and misapplication of10findings" (Black, 1991, p. 29).In the theoretical literature, authors address themeaning of self-esteem in a variety of ways, but mootcomnonly use the term to designate the subjective,evaluative component of self. Self-concept describesthe person one believes oneself to be. Self-esteemevebsetes that description, assigning a positive ornegetive degree of worthiness to oneself, acoording to aself-chosen standard, that is expressed in the attitudesthe individual holds toward him/herself (Samuels, 1977;Battle, 1982; Burns, 1982; Borba & Borba, 1989;Smelser, 1989). Specifically, Coopersmith's definitionremains one of the most explicit:By self-esteem we refer to the evaluationwhich the individual makes and customarilymaintains with regard to himself: itexpresses an attitude of approval ordisapproval, and Indicates the extent towhich the individual believes himself to becapable, significant, successful, andworthy (Cooporsmith, 1987, p. 4-5).Self-esteem is based on personal values, unlikeself-concept which is based on a qualitative (good,mediocre, bad) assessment of performance (Beans & Lipka,111980). A description of self without a comparativevalue is called self-concept. For example, a golfer maydescribe himself as a poor golfer. That is hisself-concept. His self-esteem depends on the value heplaces on his performance asmember of a foursome of goodhe values and who place highgolfer's self-esteem will bea golfer. If he is agolfers, whose friendshipvalue on the game, the poornegative. If, however, hedoes not place a strong value on membership in thisgroup or perhaps feels more academically thanathletically inclined, his self-esteem will be neutralor even positive, despite his poor golfing.Purkey (1970) defined self-concept "as a complexand dynamic system of beliefs which an individual holdstrue about himself, each belief with a correspondingvalue". Several authors contend that self-esteem is acomponent of self-concept rather than the other wayround (Purkey, 1970; Samuels, 1977; Smith, Dockecki &Davis, 1977). However, more recently, researchers havetaken the opposite view: when a description is alsogiven a value self-concept becomes self-esteem (Borba &Borba, 1989; Reasoner, 1982; Smelser, 1989).Some researchers consider self-concept andself-esteem synonymous and interchangeable (Bean &12Lipka, 1980; Burns, 1982; Piers, 1984; Sheare, 1978;Wylie, 1979).Self-concept is composed of all the beliefsand evaluations you have about yourself.These beliefs (self-images) and evaluations(self-esteem) actually determine not onlywho you are, but what you think you are,what you think you can do and what youthink you can become (Burns, 1982, p. 1).Burns states that these terms will be regarded assynonymous.One of the frequently used instruments in the studyof self-concept and self-esteem is the Piers-HarrisChildren's Self-Concept Scale. Although this scale isdefined by the term self-concept, it focuses onevaluation of attributes and states "'self-concept., asused in this Manual, is interchangeable with the ternsself-esteem and self-regard" (Piers, 1984, p. 1).Additionally, authors have substituted the ternsself-perception, self-image and self-worth whendescribing self-esteem (Bear, Clever & Proctor, 1991;Kistner, Haskett, White & Robbins, 1987). Currentjournal reports of recent self-esteem research rarelydefine the term self-esteem, probably assuming that such13common terminology no longer requires explanation.Self-efficacy, like self-concept, is anothercomponent of self-esteem. It is the degree ofcapability which an individual brings to a task.Bandura (1977, p, 193) describes it as "the convictionthat one can successfully execute the behavior requiredto produce the outcomes". Burns (1982, p. 1) refers toself-efficacy as "what you think you can do". Festinger(1954) and Coopersmith (1987) call it "aspirations" toachieve.Locus of control is a term often associated withself-esteem. Bandura differentiated self-efficacy andlocus of control on the basis of causality. Locus ofcontrol is concerned with internal and externaldeterminants of outcome; self-efficacy, on the otherhand, describes what we do with the information webelieve to be true about the locus of causality. Thosewith little self-efficacy feel powerless and attributetheir experiences to external factors such as luck, theteacher, or the task. Those with high self-efficacy canset and achieve goals independently and can thus be saidto have an internal locus of control. This is the goalof self-esteem programs.Most authors of empirical literature use the term14self-concept, even when referring to evaluativejudgments of self. The term self-esteem is more popularin current educational journals and generalpublications, particularly newspaper and parentingarticles. In this paper the terms self-concept,self-efficacy, and locus of control will be placedwithin the hierarchical context of self-esteemdevelopment.II. Development of Self-Esteem TheoryThe body of research related to self-esteemdeveloped from the work of Leon Festinger and StanleyCoopersmith in the 1950s and 1960s. Festinger wasdeveloping a theory regarding the role "significantothers" play in determining an individual's self-esteem.Coopersmith theorized that one's self-esteem originatedin the home where the family could instill a sense ofcompetence, significance, virtue and power in itsmembers. Ruth Wylie (1979) summarized the research inthe late 1970s and Bandura (1977) added to the researchwhen he described a relationship between self-efficacy,anxiety, and self-esteem. Researchers of the 1980saccepted the etiology of these pioneers and branched outto examine between group differences according to such15variables as gender and ability, long term effects, suchas suicide, related to low self-esteem and self-esteemInterventions.Stanley Coppersmith is the "father" of self-esteemresearch. He draws from personality theories developedby psychologists and behaviorists such as Freud, Rogers,Homey and Erickson. Between 1959 and 1965 Coopersmithconducted extensive studies which allowed him todescribe the antecedent conditions contributing topositive and negative self-esteem. He theorized thatself-esteem operates within the family's definition ofand response to successes, ideals (including rolemodels), aspirations and the defenses used to deal withdisappointment and failures. Self-esteem increases asfeelings of competence, significance, virtue and powerdevelop.^(See figure 1.)Insert Figure 1 about hereCoopersmith (1967) stresses that self-esteem beginswithin the family, where parents do or don't set andconsistently enforce limits while showing warmth andrespect to their children. Explicit limits become16useful standards which assist children in making moreaccurate judgments of their successes. Children feelsuccess when they and their behaviors are significant tothose who are important to them. Behaviors areevaluated according to the values one holds. If a highvalue is placed on intelligence and social skills, thenthe intelligent and socially skilled child willexperience success and those who are not will experiencefailure. However, individual aspirations determineevaluations of success or failure. If failure istreated as an opportunity for improvement, then theevaluation need not be negative. When outcomes meetexpectations, then self-esteem is enhanced.Coopersmith believed the esteem we attribute toourselves is determined by our development in fourareas, which can each be positive or negative to varyingdegrees: (a) our sense of power, influence or controlover our lives; (b) the significance of our involvementin the lives of those around us--parents, siblings,friends, neighbors, co-workers, and staff at thebusinesses we support; (c) the virtues or standards wehave accepted and which guide our judgment ofbehaviors--our own and that of others; and (d) thecompetency of our performance. All are tempered by our17aspirations or personal ideals and our values. Thishelps explain the great variation in self-esteem amongindividuals under similar conditions.These four components must be filtered through adefense core enroute to successful esteem building. Ourself-esteem is constantly battered by anxiety overnegative events in our lives, such as put downs, change,or uncertainty. Therefore it is important to developeffective, varied, and flexible defenses to allow thechild to deal with anxiety in self-enhancing rather thanself-destructive ways, to develop a sense of control orpower in his universe. Solid lines of defense includeturning mistakes into tools for learning, accuratelyattributing failures to their external and internalcauses, and taking safe risks, secure in the knowledgeof proper boundaries and limits.Coppersmith developed the Self-Esteem Inventoryconsisting of 58 questions which characterized thesefour components of self-esteem: (a) competence, ODsignificance, (c) virtue, and (d) power. It was thefirst instrument in the field of self-esteem researchand is still used to assess self-esteem. Subsequentinstruments are similar in format and style.Several studies of self-esteem draw their18constructs from social comparison theory proposed byLeon Festinger (1954). Like Coppersmith, Festingerbelieves that a child's self-esteem is directly relatedto how children compare themselves to significant otherssuch as peers. In experimental settings, Festinger foundthat he could change a person's evaluation of self bycontriving positive or negative comparisons of opinionand ability. For example, subjects wrote their opinionon an issue and then were given a tabulation of thegroup opinion. Those who were told their opiniondiffered from the group were less attracted to thatgroup. Similarly, people do not tend to comparethemselves to others whose ability differs greatly fromtheir own. Struggling students do not usually comparethemselves with the top achievers in the classroom.However, if the discrepancy is considered reasonablethere is a drive to close the gap by improvingperformance. This drive increases in relation to thedesirability of group membership, be it family, gang, orclassroom. Understanding of optimal comparison groupsor affiliations is of critical importance to thedevelopment of self-esteem and, subsequently, theperformance of students (Rosenberg, 1973; La Greca,1990).19In 1979 Ruth Wylie analyzed nearly 1500 studies ofself-concept and found that research supported the workof Coopersmith and Festinger. She grouped the studiesaccording to variables influencing self-esteem (usedinterchangeably with self-concept), such as age,socioeconomic status, race, sex, family andpsychotherapy. Within these groups there was a mix ofability and age levels addressed. She found a weakcorrelation between these variables and self-conceptdue, in part, to weaknesses in methodology. This wasparticularly apparent when self-concept scores werereported without supporting documentation. For example,Wylie suggested that popularity scores becross-validated by sociometric scores and thatbehavioral scores be supported by observations.However, regardless of methodological weaknesses, shedid find tentative support for correlations betweenself-concept and family variables (Coopersmith, 1967),ability and self-concept, and significant others andself-concept (Festinger, 1954).Bandura (1977) was working in the oppositedirection, beginning with the individual who hasachieved success, rather than the individual within thecontext of family and friends. He described success as20self-efficacy and is often referenced in the empiricalliterature, particularly as it relates to the effect ofanxiety on self-esteem. Bandura elaborates onCoopersmith's work by exploring the relationship betweenself-efficacy and anxiety as they relate to self-esteemdevelopment; that is between competence achieved throughthe fulfillment of aspirations and defenses, which canbe used either to stall or fire-up action. In Bandura'sstudy, performance tasks were broken down intoindividual steps and subjects were asked to rate eachstep as to their expectation for completion, on a 100point probability scale. Bandura found that subject'sachievement matched their expectations. He determinedthat the efficacy we bring to a task is a product of ourevaluation of past performances, our evaluation ofothers' experiences in a similar situation, howconvincing others can be in talking us through the task,and our emotional response to the situation. Thesevariables differ in power, scope, and specificity, whichsuggests possibilities for intervention strategies.Wilson and Rotter (1986), for example, found thatcognitive treatment interventions such as anxietymanagement training enhanced self-esteem.Bandura described the very situations educators21encounter more and more in schools today and have begunto equate with low self-esteem. "The strength ofpeople's convictions in their own effectiveness islikely to affect whether they will even try to cope withgiven situations" (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). Chapman(1988) noted that "Failure-prone children tend to beexternally oriented in accounting for school success andfailure...when success does occur, they see it as beingcaused by a teacher's assistance or easy work" (p. 363).These students do not have a sense of self-efficacy andanxiety stalls action they might take, therebymaintaining an external locus of control and impedingdevelopment of self-esteem. Similarly, Samuels (1977)found that "high self-esteem people assimilate newinformation to maintain consistency and disregardirrelevant information, but low self-esteem people tendto conform passively to the influence of the persuasivefield" (p. 63). Further, "By conjuring upfear-provoking thoughts about their ineptitude,individuals can rouse themselves to elevated levels ofanxiety that far exceed the fear experiences during theactual threatening situation" (Bandura, 1977, p. 199).From their studies on anxiety, Margalit & Zak (1984)concluded, "Belief of unworthiness and22self-dissatisfaction has to be the focus of theeducational therapists' work combined with theirrelieving of the anxiety related to feeling like a pawn"(p. 539). This could be done if, as Bandura suggests,self-efficacy is a behavior that can replace anxiety.An advocate of social learning theory, Bandura takes theposition that such emotion might be channeled positivelyif the students were made aware of the effect of arousalon motivation and accomplishment. In one study hedescribed two strategies which can increaseself-efficacy--participant or vicarious modeling.Clemes and Bean (1986) also advocate the power ofmodels--human, philosophical and operational, in theenhancement of personal self-efficacy or competence.Research had begun to investigate how these self-esteemvariables can be applied to education.Topics of research included the correlation betweenacademic achievement and self-esteem (Battle, 1982;Chapman & Boersma, 1979; Hansford & Hattie, 1982;Kistner et al., 1987; Purkey, 1970); special populations(Avazian, 1987; Battle, 1987; Bear et al., 1991;Boersma, Chapman & Battle, 1979; Cooley & Ayres, 1988;Rosenberg, 1973; Silverman & Zigmond, 1983), andinterventions to enhance self-esteem (Boessing &23Sasseen, 1980; Borba & Borba, 1989; Clemes & Bean, 1986;Gurney, 1987; Hasentab, 1987; Hoy, 1986; Johnson et al.,1981; Layden, 1982; Omizo & Omizo, 1987; Priest, 1988;Reasoner, 1982; Schilling, 1986; Searcy, 1988; Walker,1991; Wasserman, 1988; Webber, 1990).Intervention literature can be classified as eitherecological or instructional. Although not necessarilydiscrete, ecological refers to external arrangementssuch as establishing an encouraging atmosphere, allowingchoices and providing recognition. Instrucitonalinterventions require the children to assess and affectthe development of their own self-esteem, given thenecessary training.III. Self-esteem Enhancement - Ecological Ecological theorists, characterized by a comment byBlack (1991), support an encouraging atmosphere inwhich, "individuals are always respected and valued" (p.29) and teachers establish rapport, and a sense of trustand confidence with their students (Brennan, 1985;Paterson, 1989). Teacher feedback should consist ofpraise which is constructive, specific and task oriented(Hasenstab, 1987, p. 199). Those who take an ecologicalapproach also encourage teachers to create a democracy24rather than an autocracy (Beane, 1992), where learningis relevant (Brennan, 1985) and students have choices.Class meetings, parent involvement and student directedlearning opportunities, such as learning centers andindependent novel studies, are implemented to promoteclassroom democracy. The teacher should be a "guide onthe side, not a sage on the stage" (Peturson, 1989). Acooperative classroom structure is an ecologicalintervention that allows everyone to contribute and berecognized in their area of competency. Affiliationsare encouraged because students work in groups or withbuddies, rather than individually (Boessing & Sasseen,1980; Johnson et al., 1981; Paterson, 1989; Watts,1982; Webber, 1990). In a study of handicapped andnonhandicapped students participating in a bowlingactivity, Johnson et al. (1981) found, "those in thecooperative condition had higher self-esteem andperceived more personal acceptance from the teacher"(1981, p. 31). Peer tutoring opportunities have becomeone of the most popular prescriptions for enhancing thetutor's self-esteem. It creates self and peerrecognition of the tutor's abilities while providing thetutee with another opportunity to affiliate with a peer(Hoy, 1986; Watts, 1982; Webber, 1990). Some ecological25theorists advocate schoolwide programs for self-esteemenhancement (Borba & Borba, 1989; Friedland, 1992;Reasoner, 1982; Webber, 1990). Such programs begin withteacher training in esteem enhancement, a school missionstatement that makes self-esteem a high priority goalfor all--students, teachers, and parents--and acommitment by all constituents to implement their choiceof selected ecological interventions throughout theschool.IV. Self-Esteem Enhancement - Instructional Proponents of the instructional approach, areconvinced that, "Building self-esteem in children can beviewed as a sequential, step-by-step process" of conceptdevelopment (cited in Borba and Borba, 1989, p. 5)."Self-esteem is learned--if it's learned, you can teachit!" (Borba, 1982, p. iii). "Teachers must plan for theself-concept development of their students. It cannotbe left to chance" (Silvernail, 1985, p. 41). Theseauthors believe that the self-esteem of students can beenhanced by classroom instruction.Reasoner (1982) was one of the first to propose thefollowing hierarchy of developmental stages throughwhich individuals must progress in order to attain a26healthy self-esteem.A sense of SECURITY meets basic needs of food,shelter and a belief that there are people in our liveson whom we can depend. It is the foundation on whichall the other stages are built and which is testedregularly in a society where separation, moves, workingmoms and disasters are a part of our daily lives.Research shows that the most effective way to achievesecurity is a home environment where reasonable limitsand rules are set and consistently and calmly enforced(Coopersmith, 1967; Ramsey & Walker, 1988). Knowing thefoundations of their security empowers students toassess their needs.Only when feelings of security are established canchildren develop their sense of self. SELFHOOD, orself-concept, gives us a picture of our self--ourattitudes, preferences, interests, attributes andphysical characteristics which we use to describeourselves. "An important first step involves teachingthe child about his own strengths and weaknesses" (Hoy,1991, p. 13). At this stage it is particularlyimportant for children to learn to identify and expressemotions. For at-risk students this is often a taskrequiring direct instruction, including knowledge of27body language and the role of feelings in our lives.Once children have a satisfactory understanding ofwho they are, they begin to look beyond self and seekAFFILIATIONS; to feel accepted in a group, to recognizetheir relationship to significant others in their livesand to initiate friendships. Social comparisons arecritical to the development of affiliations, but may bedeemed positive or negative by society. After all,youth gang membership may enhance an individual'sself-esteem because of a sense of affiliation, butgenerally does not lead to constructive contributions tosociety. Children need to learn standards by which theycan judge their affiliation choices.Encouraging and supportive affiliations contributeto the determination of purpose or MISSION in a child'slife. As children develop most become self-motivatedand able to accept responsibility for their actions.The locus of control becomes internal, rather thanexternal. Students can be taught to set goals andidentify consequences. Hoy (1991) believesself-advocacy training develops one's ability to setrealistic goals. Such training may include problemsolving and decision making skills, brainstorming togenerate alternate responses and bibliotherapy. A28skilled goal setter handles tasks competently.COMPETENCE, or self-efficacy, is the feeling thatone is capable because problems have been dealt withsuccessfully. Children are aware of individual andfamilial strengths and weaknesses, believe in themselvesand view mistakes as tools for learning. At this stagechildren can be taught to evaluate progress, profit frommistakes and redefine goals accordingly, therebyestablishing an effective sense of self-esteem.Coopersmith, Festinger, Bandura, Reasoner, Clemes &Bean, and Borba use different terns to describe similarstages of self-esteem development. The foundation ofself-esteem is the security provided by a loving family.Coopersmith uses the term "power", meaning the securityto develop control through independence. This stage wasnot part of Festinger or Bandura's research. Clenes andBean do not identify a security stage while bothReasoner and Borba use the term "security". As the childgrows, a realistic individual identity is fostered.Coopersmith refers to this stage as "virtue", when thechildren develop standards of behavior for themselves.Neither Festinger nor Bandura described this stage.Reasoner calls it "identity", Clenes and Bean use"uniqueness" and Borba refers to "selfhood". The29develop as the individual acquiresfriendships and social skills through experiences inschool and the community. Coopersmith and Festingerdiscuss "significance" and "significant others" whileReasoner, Clemes and Bean, and Borba use the terms"belonging", "connectedness", and "affiliation" to referto relationships with others. Bandura does not addressthis stage. With growing independence personalaspirations are voiced, a sense of purpose is developed,and goal setting skills are practiced. To Coopersmithand Bandura this of "competence" and "locus of control".To Reasoner, Clemes and Bean, and Borba it is "purpose","models", and "mission". When realistic goals arecompetently planned and executed the highest self-esteemlevel, self-efficacy, has been achieved. To Coppersmithand Bandura this is part of "competence" and"self-efficacy". Reasoner and Borba call this stage"competence" and Clemes and Bean call it "power".Although these five components of self-esteem arehierarchical in the developmental stage we all revisitthe stages as we experience highs and lows in our livesor challenges to our self-esteem. Those who have builtthe strongest foundations will be best equipped tosurvive the passages.30Insert Table 1 about hereV. Review of Intervention Studies Gurney (1987) investigated treatment interventionsand their effectiveness in his review of researchfindings. He reported on 25 studies conducted inCanada, the U.S., and the U.K. between 1965 and 1983,which sought to enhance self-esteem by experimentalmeans. Although some studies were omitted due toweakness in design, it is clear that this area ofself-esteem has received little research attention.Gurney defined four types of classroominterventions that are both ecological andinstructional: (a) curriculum, (b) special procedures,(c) changing teacher behavior, and (d) changing pupilbehavior. He concluded that teachers should: (a) directextra attention to low self-esteem students, (b) beknowledgeable about each student's background, (c) movestudents from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation, <d)involve the parents in intervention programs, <e) planschoolwide interventions, and (f) praise themselves tomaintain their own self-esteem.However, the research literature remains31inconclusive regarding both type and effectiveness ofinstructional interventions for elementary schoolstudents in their natural environment. The six studiesthat are discussed here exemplify current research andprovide some support for Gurney's classifications andconclusions. The treatments cover a range ofinterventions--from counseling to praise--and theresults vary. Some studies are more stringent thanothers, suggesting cautious interpretation of theresults.This review updates Gurney's findings, critiqueseach study, and discusses implications for futureresearch. The studies are grouped according to Gurney'sclassifications.Insert Table 2 about hereThe first two studies describe interventions whichattempt to change student behavior throughself-instruction. Gurney (1987) reviewed severalstudies which found this method to be effective and topersist over time.32A. Omizo & Omizo self-defeating behavior study.Previous research by Sabatino, Miller, & Schmidt,(cited in Omizo, 1987) indicated that learning disabled(LD) students possessed self-defeating attributes whichcontributed to low self-esteem and an external locus ofcontrol. Building on research in the 1970s, this studydetermined how counseling, to eliminate self-defeatingbehaviors, affected the self-esteem and locus of controlof LD children.The 52 boys and 8 girls, between the ages of 12 and15, had been identified as learning disabled. Thesevolunteer participants came from a suburban schooldistrict of predominately lower- to middle-classfamilies in the United States.Subjects were randomly assigned to threeexperimental groups of 10 and one control group of 30,following an experimental design (McMillan & Schumacher,p. 318). The three experimental groups were eachassigned a different trained counselor, in order toassess intercounselor effect. The CoppersmithSelf-Esteem Inventory (SEI) and the Locus of Inventoryfor Three Achievement Domains (LOCITAD) were eachadministered pre- and post-treatment. Validity andreliability data for each instrument were included.33Group differences prior to treatment were not discussed.The seven treatment sessions lasted one and one-halfhours each, once a week. As the sessions progressed,students were counseled to select and graduallyeliminate a self-defeating behavior, such as fighting,daydreaming, or homework avoidance. The posttest wasadministered one week after the final counselingsession.A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) wasused to determine differences between the experimentaland control groups on the self-esteem and locus ofcontrol measures. For the experimental group, positivechanges in mean self-esteem scores were significant atthe p<.05 level. Changes in locus of control meanscores were significant (p<.05) for success and failurein the intellectual domain and failure in the socialdomain. There were no significant changes in meanscores on either measure for the control group. Inother words, the experimental group had begun to believethat intellectual outcomes and social failures wereconsequences of their actions and therefore under theircontrol. The researchers concluded that this programcould be generalized to other facilitators as there wereno significant differences between the three34experimental groups.External and internal threats to validity werecarefully considered for this study. Instrumentationreliability and validity were reported; mortality wascontrolled by design (McMillan & Schumacher, p. 318).Experimenter bias was controlled by the use of threefacilitators. Any reactive effects of testing would bea further indication of the subjects' ability to applyinformation to enhance their self-esteem. Furthermore,the effects of history and maturation were controlled bythe short (seven week) duration of the treatment.The use of a MANOVA to analyze this data may skewthe results in favor of statistical significance when amore stringent analysis might not support such results.This is because the researchers have divided the LOCITADmeasure into six subscales and treated these as distinctvariables. Rather than examining differences insubscale results, intervention research should try toestablish changes in individual results. The former mayprovide suggestions for change in instrumentation whilethe latter may provide useful information fordevelopment of intervention strategies which considerindividual differences.Due to the small sizes of the treatment groups,35these results cannot be generalized to the classroomwhere class sizes range from 25 to 30. This studyindicated a possible relationship between self-esteemand locus of control, since the same treatment broughtpositive changes in both. Self-esteem enhancementprograms should consider inclusion of locus of controlsessions. The effectiveness of self-esteem instructionis supported by the results of this study.B. Layden attributional style change study.Layden's study (1982) looked more closely at therelationship between self-esteem and locus of control,based on earlier research by the author (cited inLayden, 1982) that found those with low self-esteem tendto externalize success and internalize failure, which isjust the opposite of persons with high self-esteem. Sheinvestigated the efficacy of attributional style changesin low self-esteem and high depression subjects (othersubject information was not reported) by asking them toattribute an experience to the opposite cause. That is,students attributing failure on a Math test to theteacher (external locus of control), would be asked tolist seven things they might have done to contribute tothe failure (internal locus of control). Layden36assigned each subject an attributional style and a taskdesigned to evoke changes in internal/external locus ofcontrol. The control group received no treatment.Because there was no indication of random selection,this design can be characterized as quasi-experimental(McMillan & Schumacher, p. 322-3).Four instruments were used in the pretest: (a)Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, (b) 26 Dot (aself-esteem scale), (c) D-30 (a measure of depression),and (d) ASQ (Attributional Style Questionnaire). Anadditional measure, the Beck Depression Inventory, wasused for the posttest.Three attributional styles were defined andsubjects were placed in a treatment condition whichrequired that they assume an attributional style similarto persons with high self-esteem. That is, Group 1 (IEcondition) was required to record sevem positive eventsand attribute internal causes to the success, thenrecord seven negative events and attribute externalcauses to the failure. Group 2 (I condition) recordedseven positive events and seven negative events andattributed internal causes to both. Group 3 (Econdition) recorded seven negative and seven positiveevents and attributed external causes to both. Analysis37was conducted with a Least Significant Differences Testand improvement in self-esteem was statisticallysignificant for all three groups. The results indicatedthat self-esteem was more responsive to treatment thanwas depression. Changes in locus of control were notmeasured. This study provides evidence that changes inattributional style, over a 5-week period, can enhanceself-esteem.It is impossible to assess threats to internalvalidity posed by maturation, selection and mortalitywithout information about the subjects, the controls,the environment or the selection process. Selection isthe most serious threat to a quasi-experimental design(McMillan & Schumacher, p. 324). Instruments were namedbut no additional information was provided; however, theCoopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory is well-known to havehigh validity and reliability. Analysis by a LeastSignificant Differences Test may be less stringent thanthe data an ANOVA would provide (McMillan & Schumacher,p. 358), and might falsely inflate the results. Dataanalysis is difficult to assess when the number ofsubjects is unknown. Results of this study wouldsupport the inclusion of similar locus of controlactivities in a self-esteem enhancing program.38The following study describes an interventiondesigned to change teacher behavior. Teacher traininginterventions have proven effective in enhancing studentself-esteem as, next to parents, teachers are the mostsignificant influence on student self-esteem (Boessing &Sasseen, 1980). Teacher behavior is as crucial asprogram selection to the implementation of self-esteeminterventions (Brennan, 1985; Clemes & Bean, 1988;Gurney, 1987; Purkey, 1970; Sarokan, 1986).The next study addressed changes to teacherbehavior.C. Priest teacher training program.Priest (1988) reported on a teacher trainingprogram designed to increase teacher awareness of therole of self-esteem in child development. Priest'srationale developed from work by Berliner (1985), whofound that teacher interactions with students directlyinfluence student self-esteem. As a grade two teacherIn an inner city school, Priest noticed negativeattitudes of teachers toward their work, their students,and minorities. She felt the teachers were unaware ofthe effect their attitude had on their students and thatthey lacked understanding of child development theory.39Although no specific research question was stated, thepurpose appears to be to improve the knowledge,attitudes and teaching techniques of the subjects and,as a result, enable them to enhance the self-esteem oftheir students.Ten primary grade teachers from one school in a lowincome, predominately Spanish/Black communityvolunteered to participate in the study. There is nodescription of the gender or experience of thevolunteers. The treatment consisted of ten 45-minutetraining sessions.Two instruments (criterion referenced tests) weredeveloped by the researcher, based on the curriculum tobe taught in the training sessions. The Test ofDevelopmental and Cognitive Levels of Primary GradeChildren consisted of 10 questions which assessed theteacher's knowledge of Erikson's (1963) theory ofpsychosocial development in children. The Test ofTeaching Techniques measured knowledge of classroomtechniques which raise self-esteem. Additionally, anobservation checklist, completed before and after thetraining, recorded actual change demonstrated in theclassroom. An attendance record was kept and subjectswere required to complete a training session evaluation.40A detailed outline of each treatment session isgiven in the report of the study. It is based onprinciples defined by Sarokan (1986), who found that aschool can enhance pupil self-esteem when: (a) thestaff identifies factors related to low and highself-esteem, (b) teachers are trained in positivereinforcement, (c) student participation in athletics,music, and drama is increased, and (d) all studentaccomplishments are demonstrably recognized.The specific goals for Priest's training sessionswere to increase teacher: (a) awareness of theimportance of self-esteem development in students, (b)awareness of their use of esteem enhancing techniques inthe classroom, and (c) knowledge of the developmentalstages and cognitive level of primary grade students.Priest's instructional sessions included a definition ofsome of the characteristics of self-esteem, the value ofa sense of self, family and friendship for the pupil,the development of significance/security, disciplinepros and cons, and the parent/teacher partnership.Data analysis was conducted by marking the tests.Pre and posttest raw scores were then compared. Resultsindicated an increase in raw scores for the group. Datawas supported by Priests' observations of teaching41techniques in the classroom and the completion of achecklist on each observation. Recommendations includedsuggestions for improvements in the workshops, such asincreasing the time spent on each session.This pre-experimental, one group, pretest-posttestdesign (McMillan & Schumacher, 1989, p. 312-314) cannotbe considered a well-designed study, but rather anexploratory investigation requiring further development.Lack of subject information restricts interpretation andgeneralization of the results and the use of volunteersthreatens to present a selection bias ()lcMillan &Schumacher, 1989, p. 313). Internal consistency,test-retest reliability and validity of the instrumentswas not established. Although results were reported tohave been cross-validated by classroom observations,Priest did not state whether or not the high achieverson the test were also those found to be most successfulin the classroom during the observations. Becausepretest scores were not included in the report,comparison with posttest scores is not possible.Considering the vocation of the subjects, it is highlylikely that retesting alone would increase scores on theposttest (McMillan & Schumacher, p. 313). Theresearcher did not attempt to measure increases in42self-esteem in students. It would be valuable for thisstudy to focus on transference to the classroom. Thereis little doubt that teachers can learn new information;it is the effect of this information on teachers'behavior that must be examined.Although research has determined that teacherbehavior is an important factor in student self-esteem(Clemes & Bean, 1988; Gurney, 1987; Purkey, 1970;Reasoner, 1982; Sarokan, 1986; Wasserman, 1988), thisstudy did not report on the changes in teacher behavioras a result of the training sessions. The conclusionsdrawn by Priest were not consistent with the purpose ofthe study. They addressed considerations for improvingthe workshop, not suggestions for furthering teacherawareness of self-esteem enhancement in the classroom.Without a control group, causation of change due to thetreatment can only be tentative (McMillan & Schumacher,p. 312). Reliable instrumentation, a larger number ofsubjects and a control group would increase the validityof this study.The next study illustrates special procedures toenhance self-esteem. Boessing and Sasseen (1980)developed an intervention which implemented esteem43enhancing strategies in a grade four classroom. Theirwork is based on research which has determined acorrelation between self-esteem and school performance(Byrne, 1984; Byrne & Shavelson, 1986; Hansford &Hattie, 1982; Shavelson & Bolus, 1982; Silvernail,1985).D. Boessing & Sasseen positive self-concept study.The treatment program consisted of a variety ofspecial classroom procedures based upon recommendationsin the self-esteem literature, although actualimplementation procedures are unclear. Praise,stickers, a compliments box, a happiness book,autobiographies, student of the week and the DUSOprogram were included in classroom procedures during thestudy. Each morning began with a self-enhancingactivity from the above selection. The teachercirculated during math class, praising and recognizingstudent success. Peer tutoring was part of the mathprogram. The subjects were 16 low ability, Caucasian,math students: 10 males and 6 females. Apre-experimental design was used (McMillan & Schumacher,p. 312).Although four instruments were reviewed, theresearchers selected the How I See Myself Scale for44students because it measures five aspects ofself-concept: physical appearance, interpersonal,teacher/student, academic ability, and autonomy.Validity and reliability criteria were not mentioned.The HISMS consists of 40 items answered on a five pointscale.To analyze the data the researchers examined thepercentage of correct student responses by item andcompared pretest and posttest results. There was anincrease in correct scores for 25 questions, a decreasefor 14 questions and one question remained stable. Theauthors concluded that the attitude of the subjects"seemed to improve" (Boessing & Sasseen, 1980, p. 12)because "most students made positive changes" (Boessing& Sasseen, 1980, p. 12). Continuation and expansion ofthe program, with ongoing evaluation and modification,was recommended. Boessing and Sasseen suggested that ayear-end follow-up administration of the HISMS would addpower to their results.Several concerns raised by Boessing & Sasseen intheir problem statement and literature review were notaddressed in the discussion. Although the statedrationale noted the relationship between self-esteem andperformance, achievement was not measured in this study.45The Florida Key was examined as a teacher observationreport; however teacher observations never became partof the study. History and testing are the most seriousthreats to this study, due to the absence of a controlgroup and the use of repeated measures. Validity andreliability data were not reported. Neitherexperimental hypothesis nor research question wasstated. Information regarding the relationship betweenself-esteem and math classes and why it is important asan area of study was not presented. Rather thancomparing mean scores in a t-test (McMillan &Schumacher, p. 354-5), the authors simply reported that25 more questions received a positive response. Thisinformation does not allow conclusions about thesignificance of the results. No conclusions are drawnregarding the benefits of the program to the emotional,behavioral or intellectual well-being of the child.Surprisingly, the authors conclude that the students'"attitude seemed to improve" (Boessing & Sasseen, 1980,p. 12) without applying any parameters to thisconclusion. The variety of treatment activities cannotbe explained individual differences; this study lacksprecision. Further studies should measure theinteraction between the variables of praise,46recognition, and programming.The final two studies are examples of curriculuminterventions. Previous research in curriculuminterventions (Gurney, 1987) concentrated on remedialreading sessions, social skills training, and esteemenhancing programs such as DUSO (DevelopingUnderstanding of Self and Others).E. Walker group counseling study.Walker (1991) conducted a year-long study whichinvestigated counseling interventions with at-riskstudents who had had two grade retentions. The authordeveloped her rationale from previous research by theU.S. Offices of Educational Research and Improvement(cited in Walker, 1991) which suggested that at-riskstudents have negative self-concepts and thatinterventions tend to be late in the student's historyand reactive rather than proactive. Therefore, Walkerimplemented self-esteem enhancing programs in groupcounseling situations for elementary level students. Herinvestigation examined relationships between self-esteemand achievement, proactive interventions and attendancein at-risk students, utilizing a true experimentaldesign (McMillan & Schumacher, p. 318).47The sample was selected from 30 elementary schoolsin Newark, New Jersey. All had two grade retentions andwere performing below grade level, deeming them'at-risk'. The grade three through eight students, wererandomly assigned into treatment (n=270) and control(n=183) groups. One-quarter of the sample was Hispanicor Portuguese, three-quarters were Black, and themajority (68-71%) were male.Treatment consisted of individual and groupcounseling for 40 minutes each week. During groupcounseling the Toward Effective Development and PUMSYprograms were used with grades three through six. TheAmerican Guidance Services Transition System was usedwith the sevens and eights. Parents participated inSystematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP)workshops to help them learn how to enhance theirchild's self-esteem at hone. The CoopersmithSelf-Esteem Inventory (SEI) was used to assess changesin self-esteem. The California Test of Basic Skillsassessed achievement. Pretest scores on theseinstruments indicated that the treatment and controlgroups were similar on variables of attendance,self-esteem scores and achievement scores. Attendanceand participation, by both students and parents, were48also assessed.Analysis of covariance was conducted to determinedifferences in self-esteem between the adjusted posttestmean scores of the treatment and control groups.Maintaining achievement as a covariate, differencesbetween the two groups was also assessed. Correlationsbetween achievement and self-esteem were measured.The pretest means showed that the at-risk studentswere indeed below those of similar subjects in otherstudies which used the SEI. Within group analysisdetermined the most significant effect of treatment wasfor Hispanics and males, with p<.01 in each case and forthe Grade 3/4 group at p<.05. Other grade leveldifferences were not significant. Attendance bad asignificant negative correlation with poor readers(especially Grade 7/8 students) while achievementdifferences were not significant. Social self-esteemrated higher than hone or school self-esteem, suggestingthat a negative academic self-concept may be compensatedby a positive social self-concept. Further, thestructure of self-concept differed among the populationvariables of gender, grade and ethnicity. From thesetwo findings, the author suggested that interventionsmay more effectively enhance self-esteem if they begin49with the individual's successes, such as high socialself-esteem, and then expand to academic and behavioralprogram goals. This is especially important for theGrade 7/8 students.Walker concluded that counseling may enhance ormaintain some aspects of self-esteem, in spite ofacademic failure, but it does not directly affect thelearning environment or academic self-concept. At thegrade seven and eight level interventions should beIntense, enduring and motivating.This appears to be a strong study in terms ofdesign, instrumentation and length. Although historyand maturation (McMillan & Schumacher, p. 318) areprobable threats to a year-long study, the presence ofcomparison and control groups, along with randomization,generally controls for this possibility. To reducediffusion of treatment threats (McMillan & Schumacher,p. 318), subjects were selected from different gradelevels (6) and different schools (30). All results havebeen published, which allows readers to draw their ownstatistical conclusions and to assess generalizability.It is difficult to determine the influence ofexperimenter bias (McMillan & Schumacher, p. 319), asthere is no description of either Walker's or the50counselor's qualifications or the treatment program. Arival hypothesis might be the attention subjects receiveat the individual counseling sessions. Such interactionhas been shown to enhance self-esteem also. Althoughthe Hawthorne effect may be evidenced in this study, itis not a threat to self-esteem intervention research.The purpose of the intervention is to make studentsaware of self-esteem and how it is affected. Knowingabout the treatment is essentially the treatment. Thisstudy provides some support for the effectiveness ofself-esteem instruction with a Black/Hispanicpopulation. Studies with different populations andwithin regular learning environments are needed.F. Wasserman affective behavior study.Wasserman's (1988) classroom study implements theReasoner self-esteem program, a forerunner of the Borbamodel. Trudy Wasserman conducted a pre-experimental• (McMillan & Schumacher, p. 312) study of grade onestudents at a private school in Florida. One of thegoals of the school was to develop a positive self-imagein the students in order to eliminate low self-esteembehaviors such as fighting, withdrawal and frequentvisits to the school nurse. Prior to the study, the51school had no systematic program of self-esteemenhancement and no formal method of evaluation.E. J. Forte (cited in Wasserman, 1988) has proposedthat the younger the child the more rapid the effect ofa self-esteem enhancement program, due to theinstability of self-esteem prior to age nine or ten(Coppersmith, 1967; Piers, 1984; Rosenberg, 1981).Another researcher, I. Forte (1983), concluded thatself-esteem can be effected simply by exposure to theeducational process. Others have established a positiverelationship between improved behavior and an increasein self-esteem (Friedland, 1992; Mecca et al., 1989).Wasserman sought to establish five behavioral outcomeswhich would be indicative of enhanced self-esteem:student initiative, social attention, success/failurerelationships, social attraction, and self-confidence.Subjects were 67 grade one students attending aprivate school in Florida. Treatment was based on theBuilding Self-Esteem Program developed by Reasoner(1982). The 10-week program began with an introductionand ended with a career day which summarized the fiveobjectives. The Identity lesson examined the child'sunique self; Belonging studied affiliations andfriendships; Security reviewed concepts of realistic52limits, consistent rules, self-respect andresponsibility; Purpose taught goal setting; andCompetence practices decision making andself-evaluation.The Behavioral Academic Self-Esteem Scale(Coopersmith, 1979) was administered to the subjects'parents. The Self-Observation Scale, developed byKatzenmeyer, was administered to the subjects. Bothscales met the author's criteria of behavioral focus,ease of administration and grade one applicability.Validity and reliability criteria were not mentioned.Wasserman reported pretest and posttest results forevery student. T-test analysis of mean gains indicatedthe changes were not statistically significant.However, Wasserman felt that the percent increase inscores on both parent and subject measures indicatedgains of practical significance supported by the schoolnurse's report of fewer incidents related topsychosomatic and anxiety symptoms. These conclusionsare not supported by the empirical results of theresearch.The author recommended implementation of aself-esteem program of extended scope and duration.That is, it should be ongoing, open-ended and part of a53K-12 curriculum in order to significantly improve theresults. The establishment of parent workshops wouldcapitalize on the parental role in the child'sself-esteem development. Ongoing assessment of theprogram should be mandatory. Additionally, she proposedtracking this group through the grades and setting up acontrol group for comparison.The validity of this study is seriously threatenedby non-validated instrumentation and the lack of acontrol group. Although the subjects were chosenbecause self-esteem is not considered stable forchildren under nine years of age, this very reasonproposes a threat to internal validity due tomaturation, all the more so when there is no controlgroup. That is, increased self-esteem scores could beas reasonably attributed to maturation as toinstruction. On the other hand, the instability of thisage group may be the reason that significance was notattained; there may be too much fluctuation to movestrongly in one direction. The decrease in visits tothe nurse may have been caused by history and thesubjects growing familiarity with their new environment.The researcher controlled for threats to testing,Instrumentation (no reliability and validity54information) and bias by gathering data from multiplesources, using two instruments and by referencingreported scores to behavioral outcomes. Moreover, thepremise and context of the study was clear, the datadescription was precise and thorough and researcherqualifications were listed. Although not stated, asingle group pretest-posttest design was used. As notedearlier, this design is not as powerful as one with acontrol group or with random selection of subjects.Further, this study loses generalizability due to thesubject selection criteria. Parents paid over $4,000per year in registration fees and the majority wereprofessionals. Although the school accepted low to highability students and was heterogeneous, the authorstated that the enrollment is not reflective of societyin general. Ten subjects dropped out of the program andthe possible effect was not described. To increasegeneralization, further studies should include provenstandardized instrumentation, a more representativepopulation and a control group.VI. Conclusion Inconsistencies in the design of these studieslimit interpretation and generalization of the results55but does provide direction for future research. Togeneralize these studies to regular educationalsituations, they should be conducted in the naturallearning environment--the classroom. The researchershould select public school classes with a range ofabilities which closely reflect the general population,choose a sample size which allows more precise dataanalysis through the use of inferential statistics, andinclude a control group to reduce the plausibility ofrival hypotheses. In addition, the researcher shouldensure that analysis is appropriate to the questionasked and the data obtained in the study.Of the self-esteem interventions reviewed here, thethree counseling studies reported the most significantresults. Effects for intervention treatment and gradelevel differed. Commonalities between these studies andthose reviewed by Gurney (1987) are: (a) the teacherswere motivated, (b) the students were given extraattention, (c) four studies trained students toself-monitor and self-reinforce, and (d) parents weredirectly involved in two studies. It appears thatresearchers are beginning to achieve consensus oneffective interventions.Student self-awareness training, such as that of56the counseling interventions, is the basis ofself-esteem programs designed by several authors (Borba& Borba, 1989; Canfield, 1976; Clemes & Bean, 1990;Dembrowsky, 1979; Reasoner, 1982). From their work,combined with ecological interventions emphasizingteacher behavior, this researcher prepared am empiricalstudy of instructional self-esteem enhancement in aclassroom setting.57CHAPTER THREEMETHODOLOGY Past research has shown a direct relationshipbetween self-esteem and success, both academic andsocial. Thus it is of vital concern to educators. Thedevelopment of self-esteem can be seen to parallel ourgrowth through childhood toward independence.Researchers have plotted the path of self-esteem fromthe security of home and family, the acknowledgement ofindividuality, affiliations with significant others, thedevelopment of aspirations and the independence ofself-efficacy. We know its roots. Now we must learnhow to promote its growth.Educational researchers of the 1990s must establishthe stability of self-esteem. Can it be influenced byinterventions, either ecological or instructional or acombination of both? Piers (1984) and Coopersmith(1967) believe self-esteem is a relatively stableconcept that is established by the age of eight or nine.Rosenberg (1981) suggests that early adolescence is whena child's self-esteem is at its lowest with 12 and 13year old children (Grade 7) being the most susceptible.Does that mean that high self-esteem is never shaken and58low self-esteem will never recover? Are adolescentsprime candidates for intervention? Research isbeginning to establish effective interventions (Gurney,1987). Based on previous work (Canfield 1976;Coopersmith, 1967; Reasoner, 1982), Michele and CraigBorba (1989) developed a self-esteem curriculum whichthey deemed effective with students in California. TheBorba curriculum is thorough in scope and sequence,designed for implementation in grades 4 through 10,comprehensive in lesson variety, and criterionreferenced to their own assessment instrument. Borbabelieves that "self-esteem can be changed--regardless ofage! As an educator... you have the power to start thecycle and turn the tide of a student's life by helpinghim reach his potential as a learner" (1986, p. iii).I. Purpose As indicated in Chapter Two, more research isnecessary to establish the effectiveness ofinstructional interventions. Although many authors ofself-esteem curricula claim the effectiveness of theirapproach, there is mixed support for these claims in theresearch literature. Based on the Borbas' model, thepurpose of this study was to investigate the59effectiveness of self-esteem instruction for differentgrade levels of intermediate students in one BritishColumbia school district.II. Instructional Procedures The Piers-Harris was administered by the researcherto Treatment and Comparison groups each composed of 27Grade 5 students and Treatment and Comparison groupseach composed of approximately 27 Grade 7 students. Themeasure was administered separately to each group intheir own classroom on two occasions, the first time wasprior to the 12-lesson instructional sessions and thesecond time was at the end of the treatment sessions.As suggested in the manual, each statement in themeasure was read aloud and the students progressedthrough the items as a group, to reduce the possibilityof misunderstanding due to reading or reasoning ability.Questions were answered and unfamiliar terminology wasexplained. Administration of the instrument tookapproximately 15 minutes.A. Treatment Group The treatment began one week after theadministration of the pretest. The self-esteem programof 40-minute lessons was taught to the Treatment groups60twice a week over 9 weeks. The total program wascompleted in 12 lessons <see Appendix A). Some activityideas were drawn from Borba (1986, 1989), Reasoner(1982), and Dembrowsky (1979). Others were created bythe researcher. The treatment program differed from allthose mentioned above in that it developed studentawareness of the concept and developmental stages ofself-esteem through direct instruction rather than in aseries of isolated activities which do not instruct thestudents in the purpose of the lessons.The treatment consisted of a set of seven topicsdesigned to familiarize the subjects with the conceptand components of self-esteem. It was piloted in agrade five classroom prior to the research study inorder to refine activity choices, timeliness andteaching techniques. Instruction began with anintroductory lesson to familiarize students with thedefinition and components of self-esteem. Eachcomponent unit started off with a self-evaluation of thecomponent being addressed. A topical introductory storyelicited discussion, followed by a short group activityand then an individual/buddy assignment. Quotes whichreflect the component theme were discussed in smallgroups as part of each lesson. The group was required61to analyze the language and meaning of the quote andthen relate it to the topic under discussion. Closurewas attained when the students evaluated the storycharacter's self-esteem, using the student'sself-evaluation as a guide. The final lesson reviewedand summarized the program and concluded with adiscussion of empowerment.Lesson 1 - INTRODUCTION -PURPOSE: The students will gain an understandingof the five components of self-esteem andits definition.What is self-esteem? - How I feel about whoI amThe components are - a)SECURITYb)SELFHOODc)AFFILIATIONd)MISSIONe)COMPETENCELessons 2 & 3 - SECURITY - Who can I trust?PURPOSE: The students will recognize that securitydevelops when their basic physiologicalneeds are met and trusting relationshipshave been establishedLessons 3 & 4 -bELFHOOD - How am I unique?62PURPOSE: The students will develop an appreciation oftheir uniquenessLessons 5 & 6 - AFFILIATION - What are my friendshipskills?PURPOSE: Students will begin to recognize someadvantages of affiliation and examinebehaviors which enhance the development ofhealthy relationships.Lessons 7, 8, & 9 - XISSION - What are my goals?PURPOSE: Students will begin to understand how theycan take charge of their lives by developinggoalsLessons 0, 10, & 11 - COMPETENCE - How can I becomeaware of my accomplishments?PURPOSE: Students will learn how to profit frommistakes, evaluate their progress, andeliminate self-defeating behavior.Lesson 12 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONPURPOSE: Students will look at self-esteemholistically and develop a self-empoweringplan.B. Comparison Group The Comparison group was told they were part of aresearch project on self-esteem and was then asked to63complete the pretest. They then received instruction ina core curriculum subject, determined in consultationwith the classroom teacher and taught by the researcher.The Grade 5 Comparison group worked on writing skillsby developing response journals. The Grade 7 Comparisongroup was introduced to independent research on thesubject of Mesopotamia. The lessons consisted oftwenty-four 40-minute lessons, twice a week, over aperiod of 9 weeks and followed objectives outlined inthe Intermediate Program document (Ministry ofEducation, 1990a).III. Instruments or Measures A. The Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale The dependent measure of self-esteem was The Way I Feel About Myself: The Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale (Piers-Harris) (Piers & Harris,1969), The Piers-Harris is an 80 item self-reportinventory, which requires a yes or no response toquestions such as, "I am an important member of myclass" and "I give up easily". The measure yields acomposite score and six cluster scores (Behavior,Intellectual and School Status, Physical Appearance andAttitudes, Anxiety, Popularity, and Happiness and64Satisfaction). Cluster scores were not examined in thisstudy. The total score was used because it is the mostreliable measure and the one with the best researchsupport (Shavelson et al., 1976; Piers, 1984).The Piers-Harris was selected for a number ofreasons. First, it uses self-reports. Some researchershave concluded that the evaluation of self-esteem issubjective and can be best assessed by self-reporting,as it involves either one's own assessment ofperformance or one's interpretation of others'assessment of oneself, both in relation toself-appointed ideals and culturally learned standards(Burns, 1982; La Greca, 1990). Second, it ispsychometrically sound and considered to be one of thebest measures of self-concept currently available(Hughes, 1984; Jeske, 1988). Third, the instrument isdesigned for use with children ages 8 to 18 and is,therefore, suitable for the age range of the sample.Fourth, it has been researched extensively and found tohave high content validity (Shavelson, Hubner & Stanton,1976; Winne, Marx & Taylor; 1977), and a moderaterelationship to other measures, depending on their focus(Piers, 1984).Based on studies with various subgroups, as65reported in the Revised Manual (Piers, 1984), technicaldata on the Piers-Harris indicate that test-retest totalscore reliabilities range between .42 and .96.Researchers that have investigated internal consistencyreported reliability coefficients of .88 to .93 (Winneet al., 1977). Since the current study uses repeatedmeasures, it is important to note that "Changes in groupmeans on a retest (up to 5 points) have been found to beconsistently in the direction of a higher score ... evenif no treatment or manipulation has taken place" (Piers,1984, p. 57). Two factors that will affect mean scoreson a retest are regression to the mean and thetest-retest condition. The Piers-Harris results supporta regression to the mean factor for scores below themean but negate such a factor for students scoring abovethe mean on the pretest. Results reported by Piers(1984) are consistent with the test-retest condition.Thus, it is important to include a comparison group whenthis scale is used to measure change.B. The Behavioral Academic Self-Esteem Scale An adaptation of The Behavioral Academic Self-Esteem Scale (BASE) (Coopersmith, 1979) wascompleted for each student by the classroom teacher atthe end of the treatment sessions. This measure66consists of 16 items, marked on a five-point scalerelated to self-esteem. Questions include, "This childis sought by peers" and "This child deals with mistakesor failures easily and comfortably". It is based on theBehavior Rating Form (BRF) which Coopersmith developedin 1967."The behaviors to be rated were selected after aseries of observations of child behavior in and outof the classroom, repeated interviews withteachers, principals, and a clinical psychologist,and evaluations and discussions with a researchcommittee. On theoretical and empirical grounds,the behaviors were assumed to be an externalmanifestation of the person's prevailingself-appraisal" (Coopersmith, 1967, P. 10-11).The BASE was selected because it closelycorresponds to the questions on the Piers-Harris,addresses issues raised in the treatment sessions, andcross-validates the students' self-ratings withindependent observations of the behavioralmanifestations of their beliefs about self.Validity and reliability data are not available. AHoyt (Nelson, 1974) estimate of reliability wasconducted during data analysis to address this problem.67IV. Sample The sample included four classes with a total of107 students at a middle-class, elementary school inSurrey, B.C. The two grade five classes had 27students; one grade seven class had 27 students and theother grade seven class had 26 students. The studentswere predominantly Caucasian, however, approximately 8%of the school population received instruction in Englishas a second language. While established classes weremaintained, the classes to receive treatment were chosenat random. The subjects were assigned to their classeson the recommendation of their former classroom teachersin order to obtain a balance in academic ability, workhabits, and to accommodate any special needs of thestudents.V. Design This was a quasi-experimental study, which usedIntact classes randomly chosen for treatment. Thenonequivalent groups in this pretest-posttest comparisongroup design were established by student placement atthe school level. There was one Treatment group and one68Comparison group at each grade level. Data was analysedto determine: (a) if there was a difference in pretestand posttest self-esteem scores for grade five and gradeseven students, following a treatment program of 12self-esteem lessons, each consisting of two 40-minutesessions, (b) if there was a difference in pretest andposttest self-esteem scores for grade five and gradeseven students who did not receive self-esteeminstruction, (c) the differences between the two groups,(d) the pretest scores which showed the greatestincrease on the posttest, and (e) which questions on thePiers-Harris were least stable for the Treatment group.VI. Hypotheses 1. It was hypothesized that there would be agreater increase in the mean total scores, from thepretest to the posttest, on the Piers-Harris Children'sSelf-Concept Scale for the Grade 5 and Grade 7 classeswho receive a 12-lesson self-esteem instructional unitthan for the Grade 5 and Grade 7 class who do notreceive self-esteem instruction.2. It was hypothesized that the increase in,self-esteem scores for the Treatment group would bedependent on pre-treatment status. Students with69pretest scores below the 50th percentile on norms forthe Piers-Harris would show a greater increase in themean total posttest score on the Piers-Harris thanstudents with pretest scores above the 50th percentile,beyond the usual five point increase on a retest (seeInstruments or Measures p. 66).A. Ancillary Question 1. Is there a significant correlations betweenstudent self-report scores on the Piers-Harris andteacher ratings of student self-esteem on the BASE?2. Are certain items on the Piers-Harris morepredictive of change in self-esteem following aninstructional program which targets concepts ofSECURITY, SELFHOOD, AFFILIATION, MISSION and COMPETENCE?VII. Analysis Data analysis was conducted using a mixed modelanalysis of variance (ANOVA) (Hopkins, Glass & Hopkins,1987). The data were collected and organized into athree dimensional design consisting of treatment (T) xgrade (G) x occasion (0). There were two levels oftreatment (self-esteem instruction and regularcurricula), two grade levels (grade five and gradeseven), and two occasions (pretest and posttest). Main70effects, simple main effects, and interaction effectswere tested at the .05 level of confidence.To test the second hypothesis, individualdifferences in scores between the pretest and posttestoccasions for the Treatment group were analyzed by ananalysis of covariance (Myers & Well, 1991), with thepretest scores as the covariate, for three levels ofscores - high (67-80), medium (53-66) and low (0-52).The Pearson Product Moment correlation (Hopkins etal., 1987) determined the relationship between thePiers-Harris and the BASE scores by combining treatmentlevel, grade level, and instrumentation.A multi-way contingency analysis determined whichquestions on the Piers-Harris showed the greatest changefrom pretest to posttest in order to respond to theancillary question.71CHAPTER FOURRESULTS The purpose of this study was to learn more aboutthe effectiveness of a program of self-esteeminstruction for different grade levels of intermediatestudents in one British Columbia school district.I. Internal Consistency of the Instruments Hoyt internal consistency reliabilities weredeveloped using LERTAP (Nelson, 1974). The Hoytestimate of reliability for the Piers-Harris pretest was0.92 and for the posttest was 0.94. Reliability for theBASE was 0.93.II. Hypothesis I--Differences in Self-Esteem Scores A mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) of thedependent variable (self-esteem scores) for repeatedmeasures was conducted using BMDP8V (Dixon, 1985), toinvestigate the differences between the Treatment andComparison groups on change from pretest to posttestscores at Grade 5 and Grade 7. The pretest scores ofthe Treatment and Comparison groups were tested forhomogeneity of variance and were found to differ by only'721.1 points, 63.58 for the Treatment group and 62.48 forthe Comparison group. The standard deviations were alsosimilar, 11.15 for the Treatment group and 12.62 for theComparison group. These results can be found in Table3.Insert Table 3 about hereSince cell sizes were unequal and the computerprogram required equal cell sizes, a table of randomnumbers was used to eliminate one score from each of thethree larger cells. The result was an "n" of 26 foreach cell.The results of the analysis of variance ofself-esteem scores by treatment, grade, and occasion arepresented in Table 4. The mean self-esteem scores bytreatment, grade, and occasion are listed in Table 5.Insert Table 4 about here73Insert Table 5 about hereA. Main Effect--Treatment From the pretest to the posttest, Piers-Harris meanscores for the combined Treatment group increased from63.58 to 67.10, as shown in Table 5. Similarly, cellmean scores for the combined Comparison group increasedfrom 62.48 to 65.83. As shown in Table 4, there was nosignificant main effect for treatment where F(1, 104) =0.27, R = 0.60.B. Main Effect--Grade Level Mean scores for the combined Grade 5 classes were63.71 on the pretest and 67.08 on the posttest, as shownIn Table 6. Mean scores for the combined Grade 7classes were 62.35 on the pretest and 65.85 on theposttest. There was no significant main effect forgrade level where F(1, 104) = 0.32, R = 0.57, as shownin Table 4.Insert Table 6 about here74C. Main Effect--Occasion The combined pretest mean score of all subjects was62.36, as shown in Table 5. The combined posttest meanscore was 66.47. There was a significant increase inself-esteem scores for both the treatment and comparisongroups from the pretest to the posttest F(1, 104) =17.33, R = 0.00. This is reported in Table 4.D. Interaction Effects--Treatment x Occasion Pretest/posttest score differences for theTreatment group were similar to those for the Comparisongroup, as shown in Table 3. Indeed there was not asignificant difference between Treatment and Comparisongroups as shown by the Treatment x Occasion interactionof F(1, 104) = 0.01, R = 0.91, as shown in Table 4.III. Hypothesis II--Effect of Initial Score on Increase in Self-EsteemComparison of pre- and posttest scores supportPiers' observation (Piers, 1984, p. 57) that scoresabove the mean tend to increase on the posttest and donot regress to the mean. This suggested furtheranalysis to determine which pretest scores show thegreatest increase on the posttest.The distribution of individual scores was examined;75both pre- and post treatment distributions of scoreswere found to be negatively skewed. An apparent ceilingeffect, and the high correlation between pre- andposttest scores supported a three-way analysis ofcovariance (ANCOVA). Such analysis also addressed thesecond hypothesis, that the lowest scores would show thegreatest increase, for the Treatment group. Pretestscores of the Treatment and Comparison groups were eachdivided into three levels--high, medium, and low. Thehigh level included the above average scores of 67 (84%)or more; the medium level represented scores that wereaverage or slightly above at 53-66 (50%+); the low levelincluded scores at or below the mean, from 0-52 (50% orless). Analysis was conducted using adjusted pretestscores as the covariate, as shown in Table 7.Insert Table 7 about hereThe main effect for treatment was F (1, 104) =0.16, p = 0.69 and for level was F (1, 104) = 0.04, p =0.96. Interaction effect (Treatment x Level) was F (1,104) = 1.02, p = 0.36. These effects were not76significant.IV. Ancillary Question 1--Correlations Between Student and Teacher Ratings The Behavioral Academic Self-Esteem Scale (BASE)was completed by the teacher of each class to create acomparison between self-rating and second party rating,based on external behaviors. A Pearson correlationcoefficient was determined separately for the Treatmentand Comparison groups, as presented in Tables 8 and 9.For the Treatment group the BASE correlated .02with the pretest and .13 with the posttest. For theComparison group the BASE correlated .20 with thepretest and .30 with the posttest. Teacher ratings hada weak correlation with student self-ratings. They weremore closely aligned to the normal curve, while studentratings were negatively skewed and showed a highercorrelation with their own pretest ratings. Teacherratings showed a higher correlation to posttest thanpretest ratings for both the Treatment and Comparisongroup. The self-ratings of the Comparison group showeda higher correlation with teacher ratings than did theratings of the Treatment group on both the pre- andposttest.77Insert Table 8 about hereInsert Table 9 about hereV. Ancillary Question 2--Piers-Harris Item Differences by Occasion To discover the items on the Piers-Harris whichshowed the greatest change following treatment, amulti-way contingency table analysis was conducted usingSPSS-X (1983). Prior to analysis, all questions weresorted under the self-esteem instructional sessionheadings to which they corresponded: SECURITY, SELFHOOD,AFFILIATION, and MISSION/COMPETENCE, as reported inTable 10. Questions that referred to family wereclassified under SECURITY. Descriptive characteristicquestions such as shyness and strength were placed underSELFHOOD. Questions which dealt with relationships were78listed under AFFILIATION. Questions that discussedself-evaluation were filed under a combinedMISSION/COMPETENCE heading because they suggested bothassessment for goal setting and strategies forproblem-solving, issues that were dealt with in separatesessions. Six questions referred solely to behavior.These questions were excluded.Insert Table 10 about hereQuestions on the Piers-Harris were then compared toself-esteem instructional categories to establishwhether some lessons were more predictive of change thanothers. The crosstabulation of item results found theTreatment group changed to a low self-esteem response on9 of the 80 items while the Comparison group changed tothe low self-esteem response on 19 of the 80 items. Allother changes were in a positive direction, as indicatedin Table 11. The number of subjects who changed theirresponse ranged from 0% to 22.6% for the Treatment groupand 0% to 18.5% for the Comparison group.79Insert Table 11 about hereDifferences in response changes from the pretest tothe posttest were assessed. The Treatment group had thetop five net changes on items: (a) 8 <20.7% change), (b)60 and 62 (16.9% change), (c) 71 (15.2% change), and (d)20 (14.9% change). These items came from all fourInstructional components. The Comparison group sharedfifth spot with a 14.9% change on item 55, followed by73 (14.8% change), and 32 (14.6% change). The Treatmentgroup scored a 13.3% net change on item 63 and 11.3%change on items 18 and 66.^A 12.9% net change wasrecorded on item 42, 11.2% on item 77, 11.1% on items 49and 54, and 11.0% on item 33 for the Comparison group.All other net changes were less than 10.0%.Response changes for the Treatment group werescattered over all components, as shown in Table 10. Nochanges were made on items 1, 13, 16, 25, 28, 34, 49,52, 59, 73, and 75. These items were concentrated inthe SELFHOOD component.The greatest changes occurred on SECURITY andAFFILIATION items. This indicates some response to the80instruction. The SECURITY items that changed suggestgeneralization of instruction to the hone situation.The AFFILIATION items that changed are directlyresponsive to the lessons that discussed ways to meetfriends and that elicited the characteristics of a goodfriend. On the Piers-Harris posttest the Treatmentgroup felt it was now easier to make friends, fewerwanted their own way, and more wished to work in agroup, rather than alone. More subjects in theTreatment group indicated "When I grow up I will be animportant person" (Piers & Harris, 1969, item 9) andfewer would give up easily. This response change mayreflect the lesson that taught the students to empowerthemselves by assessing their needs, setting goals, andsolving problems. They also indicated, "I am differentfrom other people" (Piers & Harris, 1969, item 77).Although this is considered a negative response, theself-esteem lessons asked the subjects to viewthemselves as unique individuals and it appears to havebeen effective.Unlike the Treatment group, the Comparison groupchanges were concentrated in the SELFHOOD andMISSION/COMPETENCE components, as presented in Table 10.No changes were made on items 1, 3, 4, 14, 22, 35, 46,8150, 59, and 67. These items were concentrated inAFFILIATION and none were from MISSION/COMPETENCE.The greatest change occurred on item 32, a behaviorItem. Several of the large net change questions for theComparison group were on items that overlapped; theirresponse changes were not as varied as Table 10 appearsto indicate. Two of the overlapping questions askedabout body shape (SELFHOOD) and three asked whether ornot they had good ideas.The Comparison group increased the number of highesteem responses, on the MISSION/COMPETENCE component,to items such as worrying about tests, working slowly,and daydreaming. Distribution of change for thiscomponent was fairly equal between the two groups.This study contributes additional information tothe self-esteem literature. Group differences were notsignificant for treatment, grade, or level. Teacherratings of self-esteem showed a weak correlation withstudent self-ratings. Piers-Harris item responsedifferences indicate instruction contributed to changesin the subjects' views of SECURITY and AFFILIATION, andprovided some insight into group dynamics during thestudy.82CHAPTER FIVESUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The British Columbia Ministry of Education, in itsYear 2000 documents, emphasizes the importance ofenhancing self-esteem in the classroom (Ministry ofEducation, 1989, 1990a, 1990b). Several schools inSurrey have selected the topic of self-esteem for theirprofessional development studies, and many teachers haveattended workshops which suggest programs that helpteachers build self-esteem in their classrooms. Thisstudy provides empirical evidence of the effectivenessof such programs.I. Discussion of Hypotheses The results of this study indicate that there wasno significant increase in self-esteem scores for theGrade 5 and Grade 7 students who participated in a12-lesson program of self-esteem instruction or for theat-risk, low self-esteem students. Correlations betweenstudent and teacher measures were weak. Therelationship between the instructional components anditems on the Piers-Harris suggested that instructioncontributed to the response changes on the posttest.83The analysis of variance indicated there was asignificant increase in self-esteem for both theTreatment and Comparison groups on the posttest. Meanscore increases for both groups indicates self-esteem isnot stable over the short term--it can be influenced byexternal factors. Although the increase in mean scoresis not a result of the instruction, it may be attributedto several explanations. The increase may be the resultof testing--the pretest may have initiated change,independent of treatment effects.^Piers (1984) foundthat both high and low scores on the Piers-Harris tendto increase by about five points on the retest, ratherthan regress to the mean. The increase may be theresult of ecological influences such as setting, teacherbehavior, school atmosphere, or home environment. Thestudy began at the end of September, after the studentshad one month to settle into their new setting, yetwithin the timeframe for adjustment to new teachers andnew routines. The increase in scores may be areflection of normal fluctuations in self-esteem duringthat adjustment tine. The common element in all fourclassrooms was the teacher and in each case she plannedfor an encouraging atmosphere, effective praise, andrecognition of success. The school had a reputation as84an environment in which students were respected andvalued. The students came from fairly stable,middle-class homes where they were generally encouragedand supported by their parents.Mean scores for the combined Grade 5 classes werenot significantly different from those of the combinedGrade 7 classes. These findings contradict otherstudies (Rosenberg, 1981; Walker, 1991) which found theself-esteem of young adolescents became lower and lessstable than the self-esteem of their younger peers.Additional research is needed to clarify thisdiscrepancy between studies.The median scores on the pre- and posttest for theTreatment group and for the Comparison group were allabove average on the Piers-Harris norms, Such healthyself-esteem scores may have left little room forimprovement following treatment, except for thosestudents whose self-esteem is at risk. The results ofthe ANCOVA indicated no statistically significantdifferences for level of self-esteem. Therefore, we canconclude that the instructional intervention did nothave a greater effect for those subjects with pretestscores below the average than for those subjects withpretest scores above the average.85The lack of significant differences for theTreatment group may be partly attributable to certainquestions on the Piers-Harris which conflict with theintent of the instructional program, such as: "I amlucky", or "I am different from other people" (Piers &Harris, 1969). The program taught the Treatment groupthat empowerment comes from effort and persistence,rather than luck. It also taught students to valuetheir uniqueness. Those responses which reflected suchteachings would decrease the student's self-esteemscore.II. Discussion of Ancillary Questions Teacher ratings of the behavioral component ofstudents' self-esteem showed a very low correlation withstudent self-ratings. This suggests that the twoinstruments are not measuring the same thing, eventhough they appear to be very similar. For example, theBASE asks teachers if the student, "readily expressesopinions" or "initiates new ideas" (Coopersmith, 1979).While such behaviors are regarded as evidence of highesteem in an educational setting, some students do notaspire to or value these behaviors. Consequently, theteacher will not observe them and the student's score86will reflect a lower self-esteem than a peer who doesvalue them. The BASE appears to measure only one aspectof self-esteem while the Piers-Harris appears to be ameasure of generalized self-esteem.These gaps between teacher and student ratings alsosuggest that teachers do not see students as studentssee themselves. Itskowitz, Navon & Strauss (1988) foundthat "Clinical work with elementary school teachersfrequently reveals a striking gap between theirperceptions of pupils' self-image and that reported bythe children themselves" (p. 337). Several researchersbelieve self-ratings to be the best assessment of one'sself-esteem (Burns, 1982; La Greca, 1990). Thedifferences in teacher and student ratings should beexamined more closely to assess whether teachers remainas consistent with their ratings as the students and todetermine why their ratings are so weakly correlated.Examination of individual Piers-Harris itemresponses offers a more definitive explanation of theeffect of an instructional intervention. Changes fromlow esteem to high esteem responses were noted acrossthe program components for the Treatment group. Thismay indicate a greater understanding of the concept andtherefore greater opportunity for reaching and87maintaining healthy self-esteem in the future. Whilethe Comparison group changed responses tied to their owncharacteristics (SELFHOOD), the Treatment group changedresponses on their view of themselves in relationshipswith others (AFFILIATIONS). These response changesindicate that instruction, particularly those componentstaught first--SECURITY, SELFHOOD, and AFFILIATION, mayhave begun to enhance the self-esteem of the Treatmentgroup. Perhaps the assessment of the latter lessons waspremature. These results support ongoing interventions.III. Conclusions The hypotheses of this study must be rejected. Theconclusion can be drawn that a 12-lesson self-esteemprogram does not have a significant effect on theself-esteem of Grade 5 and Grade 7 students. Theprogram had no greater effect for the at-risk studentsthan for those with healthy self-esteem. Differencesbetween Treatment and Comparison group responses toitems on the Piers-Harris suggests fledgling support forinstructional programs which they provide students withthe information they may need later in life, to makechoices which will enhance their self-esteem.Ecological factors, such as teacher behavior, may have88contributed to the increased self-esteem of the subjectsin this study.IV. Limitations of the Study Some limitations to the study should beconsidered when interpreting these results. Althoughthe study introduced information which would usuallycover a four month time span in a regular classroom, itmay take much longer for students to internalize thistraining. Self-esteem is thought to be relativelystable (Coopersmith, 1967; Piers, 1984) and change maynot be detected within the time limitations of thisstudy. The effects of a more extensive program, onewhich would allow the students more time to practice theskills introduced in the treatment program, may achievesignificance. Second, it is probable that ecologicalfactors, such as teacher behavior (Boessing & Sasseen,1980; Priest, 1988), school atmosphere (Black, 1991,Borba & Borba 1989), hone environment, or peers (Walker,1991) may have confounded the results. Finally,quantitative measures such as the Piers-Harris and theBASE may not be sensitive enough to detect significantchanges in self-esteem. Differences in item responsessuggest the immediate effect of instruction might be89more efficiently measured through interviews--with thestudents, the teachers, and the family--combined withindependent observations.V. Implications for Education The findings of this study indicate thatself-esteem instructional programs, such as thosecurrently on the market, do not have empirical supportof their effectiveness. Nevertheless, teachers feelsuch programs are beneficial to students, especiallyteachers of at-risk students. They may be right. We donot know the long term effects of self-esteem training.It may be that individuals will call upon their trainingat a time in their life when they are facing assaults totheir self-esteem, something they may not face aselementary school students. Current published programsare certainly effective guides to the teaching ofindividual skills such as goal setting, appropriaterisk-taking, and problem solving at a time when manychildren require more training in the acquisition ofthese skills. Educators must weigh the benefits withthe concerns when deciding whether self-esteeminstruction can be an effective component of theircurriculum.90VI. Implications for Research Replication of this study with other populations,such as inner city, multiracial schools and subjectsfrom schools in less stable neighborhoods is warrantedbecause the results of this study only generalize topopulation samples similar to those of the subjects ofthis study. Further research should investigate theeffect of teacher behavior and isolate ecologicalfactors which contribute to increased self-esteem. Longterm follow-up should be planned. Ideally, the studymight continue for an entire school year, with testing ayear after instruction, to assess generalization overtime. A locus of control measure, such as those used inthe counseling studies, may be a more discriminatingmethod of substantiating the results of the self-esteemmeasures. Qualitative measures of self-esteem should beincluded.The importance of self-esteem to the intellectual,personal, and social well-being of the students in ourschools mandates the continued quest for effectiveinterventions.91REFERENCESAvazian, K.L. (1987). The effects of learningdisabilities on a child's self-concept.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. CA.: BiolaUniversity. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiveNo. ED290 281)Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifyingtheory of behavioral change. Psychological Review,84, 191-215.Battle, J. (1982). Enhancing self-esteem & achievement:A handbook for professionals. Seattle, Wash.:Special Child Publications.Battle, J. (1987). 9 to 19 crucial years for self-esteem in children & youth. Seattle, Wash.:Special Child Publications.Beane, J.A. & Lipka, R.P. (1980). Self-concept andself-esteem: a construct differentiation. Child Study Journal, 10(1), 1-6.Beane, J.A. (1992). Self-esteem and social relationsintertwined. Education Leader, 5(8), 5.Bear, G.G., Clever, A., & Proctor, W.A. (1991).Self-perceptions of nonhandicapped children andchildren with learning disabilities in integratedclasses. The Journal of Special Education,24(4), 409-426.Berliner, D. (1985). Can we help children stayenthusiastic about school? Instructor, 95, 12-13.Black, S. (1991). Self-esteem sense and nonsense. TheAmerican School Board Journal, July, 27-29.Boersma, F.J., Chapman, J.W., & Battle, J. (1979).Academic self-concept change in special educationstudents: some suggestions for interpretingself-concept scores. The Journal of Special Education, 13(4), 433-441.Boessing, L. & Sasseen, B. (1980). Building positive self-concepts in fourth grade students.Unpublished manuscript. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 212 366)92Borba, M. & Borba, C. (1989). Esteem builders: A K-8 self-esteem curriculum for improving student achievement, behavior and school climate. RollingHills Estates, CA.: Jalmar Press.Brennan, A. (1985). Participation and self-esteem: a- test of 6 alternate explanations. Adolescence,20(78), 445-446.Burns, R. (1982). Self-concept development and education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Byrne, B.M. (1984). The general/academic self-conceptnormological network: a review of constructvalidation research. Review of Educational Research, 54(3), 427-456.Byrne, B.M. & Shavelson, R.J. (1986). On the structuresof adolescent self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(6), 473-481.Canfield, J. & Wells, H. (1976). 100 ways to enhance self-concept in the classroom: a handbook for teachers and parents. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.Cato, J. (Ed.) (1992). School boards' group seeksnational consensus on education goals. Education Leader, 5(9), 3.Chapman, J.W. (1988). Cognitive-motivationalcharacteristics and academic achievement oflearning disabled children: a longitudinal study.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3),357-365.Chapman, J.W. & Boersma, F.J. (1979). Academicself-concept in elementary learning disabledchildren: A study with the student's perception ofability scale. Psychology in the Schools, 16(2),201-206.Clemes, H. & Bean, R. (1986). How to raise children's self-esteem. Los Angeles, CA.: Price/Stern/SloanPublishers.Cooley, E.J. & Ayres, R.R. (1988). Self-concept andsuccess-failure attributions of nonhandicappedstudents and students with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(3), 174-178.93Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem.San Francisco: Freeman.Coopersmith, S. (1979). Behavioral academic self-esteemscale. Consulting Psychologists Press.Covington, M.V. (1989). Self-esteem and failure inschool: analysis and policy implications. In A.M.Mecca, N.J. Smelser, & J. Vasconcellos (Eds.), Thesocial importance of self-esteem (pp. 74-89).Berkeley: University of California Press.Dembrowsky, C. (1979). Affective skill development for adolescents. Lincoln, NE: Selection Research.Dixon, W.J. (Ed.) (1985). BMDP statistical software [Computer Program Manual]. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and Society. N.Y.: W.V.Norton.Festinger, L.A. (1954). A theory of social comparisonprocesses. Hunan Relations, 2, 117-140.Forte, I. (1983). The me I'm learning to be.Nashville, TN.: Incentives Publications, Inc.Friedland, S. (1992). Building student self-esteem forschool improvement. NASSP Bulletin, January,96-102.Gurney, P.W. (1987). Self-esteem enhancement inchildren: a review of research findings.Educational Research, 29(2), 130-136.Hansford, B.C. & Hattie, J.A. (1982). The relationshipbetween self-esteem and achievement/performancemeasures. Review of Educational Research, 52(1),123-142.Hasentab, J.K. (1987). Approval: a mighty motivator.Teaching Today, Mar./Apr., 13-14.Hopkins, K.D., Glass, G.V., & Hopkins, B.R. (1987).Basic statistics for the behavioral Sciences.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Hoy, C. (1986). Preventing learned helplessness.Academic Therapy, September, 11-18.94Hughes, H. (1984). Measures of self-concept andself-esteem for children ages 3-12 years: a reviewand recommendations. Clinical Psychology Review,4, 657-692.Itskowitz, R., Navon, R., & Strauss, H. (1988).Teachers' accuracy in evaluating students'self-image: effect of perceived closeness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 337-341.Jeske, R. (1985). Review of Piers-Harris children'sself-concept scale (The way I feel about myself).In J. Mitchell (Ed.), The Ninth Mental Measurement Yearbook (pp. 960-961). Lincoln: The BurosInstitute of Mental Measurements.Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W., & Rynders, J. (1981).Effect of cooperative, competitive, andindvidualistic experiences on self-esteem ofhandicapped and nonhandicapped students. TheJournal of Psychology, 108, 31-34.Kistner, J., Haskett, M., White, K., & Robbins, F.(1987). Perceived competence and self-worth of LDand normally achieving students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 37-44.La Greca, A.M. (1990). Through the eyes of the child: obtaining self-reports from children and adolescents. Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.Layden, M. (1982). The effect of attributional style change on self-esteem and depression. Unpublishedmanuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 227 432)McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher, S. (1989). Research in education a conceptual introduction. Glenview,Ii.: Scott, Foresman.Margalit, M. & Zak, I. (1984). Anxiety and self-conceptof learning disabled children. Journal of LearninKDisabilities, 17(9), 537-539.Mecca, A.M., Smelser, N.J., & Vasconcellos, J. (1989).The social importance of self-esteem. Berkeley,CA.: University of California Press.Ministry of Education (1989). The Primary programdraft. Victoria: Province of British Columbia.95Ministry of Education (1990a). Intermediate program: Learning in British Columbia response draft.Victoria: Province of British Columbia.Ministry of Education (1990b). Learning for living: primary-graduation curriculum guide. Victoria:Province of British Columbia.Myers J.L. & Well, A.D. (1991). Research design and statistical analysis. N.Y.: HarperCollins.Nelson, L.R. (1974). Guide to Lertap use and interpretation [Compurter Program Manual].Dunedin, N.Z.: University of Otago Press.Omizo, M.M. & Omizo, S.A. (1987). The effects ofeliminating self-defeating behavior oflearning-disabled children through groupcounselling. The School Counselor, March,283-288.Paterson, K. (1989). The withdrawn student. Classroom,May/June, 41-42.Peturson, R. (Speaker) (1989, March). Celebrating.Science. Toronto.Piers, E. (1984). Piers-Harris children's self-concept scale revised manual. Los Angeles: WesternPsychological Services.Piers, E. & Harris, D. (1969). The way I feel about myself: The Piers-Harris children's self-concept scale. Los Angeles: Western PsychologicalServices.Priest, D. (1988). Increasing teacher awareness of the importance of self-esteem in primary grade children through training sessions. Unpublished manuscript.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 293 653)Purkey, W.W. (1970). Self concept and schoolachievement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. :Prentice-Hall.Ramsey, E. & Walker, H.M. (1988). Family managementcorrelates on antisocial behavior among middleschool boys. Behavioral Disorders, 13(3),187-201.96Reasoner, R.W. (1982). Building self-esteem: teacher's guide and classroom materials. Palo Alto, CA.:Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.Rosenberg, M.S. <1973). Which significant others?American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 829-860.Rosenberg, M.S. (1981). The self-concept: socialproduct and social force. In M.S. Rosenberg & R.H.Turner (Eds.). Social psychology: sociological perspectives (pp. 593-624). N.Y.: Basic Books.Samuels, S.C. (1977). Enhancing self-concept in early childhood, theory and practice. New York, N.Y.:Human Sciences Press,Sarokan, P. (1986). Student self-esteem: a goaladministrators can help to achieve. NASSP Bulletin, 70(487), 1-5.Schilling, D.E. (1986). Self-esteem: concerns,strategies, resources. Academic Therapy, 21(3),301-307.Searcy, S. (1988). Developing self-esteem. Academic Therapy, 23(5), 453-460.Shavelson, R.J. & Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: theinterplay of theory and methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 3-17.Shavelson, R.J., Hubner, J.J., & Stanton, G.C. (1976).Self-concept validation of constructinterpretations. Review of Educational Research,46(3), 407-441.Sheare, J.B. (1978). The impact of resource programsupon the self-concept and peer acceptance oflearning disabled children. Psychology in the Schools, 15(3), 406-412.Silverman, R. & Zigmond, N. (1983). Self-concept inlearning disabled adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16(8), 478-482.Silvernail, D.L. (1985). Developing positive student self-concept. Unpublished manuscript. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 314 208)97Smelser, N.J. (1989). Self-esteem and social problems:an introduction. In A.M. Mecca, N.J. Smelser, & J.Vasconcellos (Eds.) , The social importance of self-esteem (pp. 1-10). Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.Smith, M.D., Dokecki, P.R., & Davis, E.E. (1977).School-related factors influencing theself-concepts of children with learning problems.Peabody Journal of Education, 54, 185-195.SPSS-X. (1983) [Computer Program Manual].McGraw Hill.Steinem, G. (1992). Revolution from within:self-esteem. Toronto: Litle, Brown.The Schwarzkopf message. (1992, June 15).Post, p. 10.Toronto:a book ofFinancial Walker, E. (1991). Changing self-esteem: the impact of self-esteem changes on at-risk student's achievement. Newark, NJ.: Board of Education.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 334 304)Wasserman, T. (1988). Improving first grade students' affective behavior through implementing a self-esteem program. Unpublished manuscript.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 327 274)Watts, W.J. (1982). Enhancing self-concept of LDadolescents: one approach. Academic Therapy,18(1), 95-101.Webber, C.F. (1990). Building students' self-esteem.The Canadian School Executive, March, 6-13.Wilson, N.H. & Ratter, J.C. (1986). Anxiety managementtraining and study skills counseling for studentson self-esteem and test anxiety and performance.TheSchool Counselor, September, 19-31.Winne, P.H., Marx, R.W., & Taylor, T.D. (1977).^Amultitrait-multimethod study of three self-conceptinventories. Child Development, 48, 893-901.Wylie, R.C. (1979). The self-concept. Vol. 2, Theory and research on selected topics. Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press.98APPENDIX ALESSON PLAN Lesson 1 - INTRODUCTION -PURPOSE: The students will gain an understandingof the five components of self-esteem andits definition.What is self-esteem? - How I feel about whoI amThe components are - a)SECURITYb)SELFHOODc)AFFILIATIONd)MISSIONe)COMPETENCEwhole groupa)generate ideas regarding esteem componentsindividualb)students will begin a title page whichmust include the component terms and thedefinition as well as appropriate pictureswhole groupc)teacher will lead a discussion duringwhich students will differentiatestatements reflecting low/high self-esteem99as the teacher reads them from Clemes &Bean (1986, p. 6 & 7)d)students will gain an understanding ofbehaviors associated with low self-esteem(such as alcoholism, drug abuse, droppingout of school and suicide) and highself-esteem (such as higher education,personal successes, citizenship, andaccepting safe challenges)Lessons 2 & 3 - SECURITY - Who can I trust?PURPOSE: The students will recognize that securitydevelops when their basic physiologicalneeds are met and trusting relationshipshave been establishedwhole groupa)complete security evaluationb)listen to story of Teddy RooseveltWhat made him feel that he could followhis interests?- basic needs satisfied- given clear limits- family support/acceptance- he was allowed choicessmall group100c)quote activityindividuald)students will make a List of People I Can Depend On (Borba & Borba, 1989, p. 71)(NB-pace of change in today's societyaffects security- information, jobs, locations,technology)e)students will list family strengths andweaknesses on an outline of a child whichthey will draw in their books. These mayinclude:- physical strengths and weaknesses- academics/athletics- abilities/interests- traits/beliefsCONCLUSION: Review the security evaluation with regardto insight gained from the aboveexercises.Lessons 3 & 4 -SELFHOOD - How am I unique?PURPOSE: The students will develop an appreciation oftheir uniquenesswhole groupa)complete selfhood evaluation101b)students will listen to a story of RosaBonheur and discuss her self-concept withregard to:- background- physical characteristics- roles/attitudes- personality traits- interests/capabilitiessmall groupc)quote activityindividuald)students will construct of ladder of thesuccesses in their lives (that issomething they succeeded at due to theirown effort)e)students will have the option ofcompleting a RESUME (Borba & Borba, 1989,p. 135) which documents their uniquetalentsCONCLUSION: Review the selfhood evaluation with regardto insight gained from the aboveexercises.Lessons 5 & 6 - AFFILIATION - What are my friendshipskills?102PURPOSE: Students will begin to recognize someadvantages of affiliation and examinebehaviors which enhance the development ofhealthy relationships.whole groupa)complete affiliation evaluationb)students will listen to a story about MarkTwain and discuss the characteristics of agood friend:- shares interests- considerate- cooperative- loyal- thoughtful- keeps secretsand the importance of a friendship:- gives a sense of belonging- reinforces beliefs while maintainingindividualitysmall groupc)quote activityd)What is a Friend? (Borba & Borba, 1989,p. 198) groups will list and rankfriendship characteristics103e)Friendship Openers (Borba & Borba, 1989,p. 200) groups will list statements thatinitiate conversationsCONCLUSION: Review the affiliation evaluation withregard to insight gained from the aboveexercises.Lessans 7, 8, & 9 - MISSION - What are my goals?PURPOSE: Students will begin to understand how theycan take charge of their lives by developinggoalsindividuala)complete mission evaluationwhole groupb)listen to a story about George WashingtonCarver. Discuss his goals and developgoal-setting guidelines:aim^- to learn botanical namessteps - read speller, then Bible,then go to schoolnow^- can't read at allfuture - to be a good readerGOAL - to read botany bookstime^- 1 yearc)read the Schwarzkopf message (Financial104Post, 1992, p. 10):- have a mission- write down five aims daily- fix problems now- don't repaint the flagpole- set high standardssmall groupd)quote activityindividuale)My Own Report Card (Reasoner, 1982, p.323). Students will complete aself-evaluationf)Weekly Goal Card (Borba & Borba, 1989,p. 255) Students will set a goal,following all the above steps, which canbe achieved in one week. Discuss ways todeal with problems with interfere withsuccess.CONCLUSION: Review the mission evaluation with regardto insight gained from the aboveexercises.Lessons 9, 10, & 11 - COMPETENCE - How can I becomeaware of my accomplishments?PURPOSE: Students will learn how to profit frommistakes, evaluate their progress, andeliminate self-defeating behavior.individuala)complete competence evaluationwhole groupb)listen to a story about Thomas AlvaEdison. Discuss his reaction hismistakes:- tools for learning or- reasons for quittingc)Challenges (Reasoner, 1982, p. 295)Students will evaluate their approach tochallengesd)Discuss self-defeating behavior- run away- make excuses- powerless thinkinge)How do you disown it?- acknowledge it- deal with the fear- set a goal- handle the stress- use power thinkingf)Develop a Winner's Risk Plan (Dembrowski,1051061979) Students will formulate a plan(Using the above five steps) to develop acompetency in an educational areapreviously untried, unsuccessful orunderdevelopedg)Now Hear This (Borba & Borba, 1989, p.312)Students complete a list of the pastweek's successes.small grouph)quote activityCONCLUSION: Review the competence evaluation withregard to insight gained from the aboveexercises.Lesson 12 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONPURPOSE: Students will look at self-esteemholistically and develop a self-empoweringplan.whole groupa)Empowerment Cycle (Borba & Borba, 1989, p.421)Students will explain the cycle, withexamples from their experience.b)Students will evaluate their own self-esteem level, based on information gainedduring the sessions, and list thingsthey can do to enhance or maintain it.107108TABLE 1A COMPARISON OF THE STAGES OF SELF-ESTEEM DEVELOPMENTFESTINGER^COOPERSMITH powervirtuesignificant others^significancecompetenceBANDURAlocus of controlself-efficacyREASONER^CLEMES/BEAN^BORBA security securityidentity^uniqueness^selfhoodbelonging connectedness affiliationpurpose^models^ missioncompetence power competenceTABLE 2SUMMARY OF INTERVENTION STUDIESAUTHOR(S)^SUBJECTS^TREATMENT^INSTRUMENT DEPENDENT RESULTSDATE^GROUP^GR./AGE^N^TYPE^TIME VARIABLESBOESSING^low math gr.4^16^instruction 8wks How I See^self-^.25+Re SASSEEN OX0^Myself^conoePt^17=(1980)^ 14-LAYDEN^low s-est^grp counsig 5wks SEI (Coop) self-est IEp‹.005(1982)^high depr. OmanipX0^26DOT,D-30 depressn I p‹.0050^0^Attr.Oues.^E p‹.025Beck Depr.Onizo ee^LD^12-15yrs 60^grp counsIg 7wks SEI (Coop)^self-est^pes.01Onizo OX0^LOCITAD^loous of(1987)^ OM controlPriest^teachers primary 10^instruction lOssns Dev. & Cog self-est^inorsd(1988) OX0^45min Lvls-Priny^scoresTchg Tech.WALKER^at-risk^gr.3-8 2701 grp counslg lyr^SEI (Coop)^self-est Gr.2-4p‹.05(1991) CIES (CA)^achievnt Hispanp‹.010 0^ attndrice males p‹.01Wasserman private^gr.1^67^instruction lOwks BASE(Coop)^self-est not sign.(1988)^school OXO^(parents)Self-Obser(Katzen-meyer)111TABLE 3PIERS-HARRIS OVERALL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONSOCCASION^MEANS^ S.D.TREATMENT COMPARISON^TREATMENT COMPARISONPRETEST 63.58 62.48 11.15 12.62POSTTEST 67.10 65.83 12.01 13.35112TABLE 4Analysis of Variance of Self-Esteem Scoresby Treatment, Grade, and OccasionSOURCE^OF^SUM OFVARIANCE^SQUARESDEGREESFREEDOMMEANSQUARETotal 871920 1 871920 3220.00 0.00**Between subjects (S)Treatment (T)^72.74 1 72.74 0.27 0.60Grade (G) 87.62 1 87.62 0.32 0.57TG 190.39 1 190.39 0.70 0.40S(TG) 27076.00 100 270.76Within subjectsOccasion (0)^612.74 1 612.74 17.33 0.00**TO .39 1 .39 0.01 0.91GO .24 1 .24 0.01 0.93TGO 17.89 1 17.89 0.51 0.47SO(TG) 3535.20 100 35.35* p<.05^**p<.01113TABLE 5PIERS-HARRIS MEAN SCORES BY TREATMENT,OCCASION, and GRADEPRETEST^POSTTESTTREATMENT^GRADE 5^64.92 68.96GRADE 7 62.23^65.23COMBINED^63.58^67.10COMPARISON^GRADE 5^62.50^65.19GRADE 7 62.46 66.46COMBINED^62.48^65.83TOTAL COMBINED^62.36^66.47114TABLE 6PIERS-HARRIS MEAN SCORES BY GRADE,TREATMENT and OCCASIONPRETEST^POSTTESTGRADE 5^TREATMENT^64.92 68.96^COMPARISON^62.50^65.19COMBINED^63.71^67.08GRADE 7^TREATMENT^62.23^65.23COMPARISON^62.46^66.46COMBINED^62.35^65.85115TABLE 7Analysis of Covariance forSelf-Esteem Treatment by LevelSOURCE OFCOVARIANCE,SUM OFSQUARESDF MEANSQUARECovariate 2624.97 1 2624.97 39.10 0.00**Total 182.55 1 182.55 2.72 0.10Treatment 10.43 1 10.43 0.16 0.69Level 5.01 2 2.51 0.04 0.96TL 135.80 2 68.40 1.02 0.36Error 6511.88 97 67.13*p<.05^**p<.01116TABLE 8Pearson Correlation Coefficients of Studentand Teacher Ratings for Treatment GroupRatings^1. Pretest^2. Posttest^3, Teacher1. Student 0.73**^0.02Pretest2. Student^ 0.13Posttest3. TeacherRating*p<.05, **p<.01117TABLE 9Pearson Correlation Coefficients of Studentand Teacher Ratings for Comparison GroupRatings^1. Pretest^2. Posttest^3. Teacher1. StudentPretest2. StudentPosttest3, TeacherRating0.81**^0.200.30*p<.05^**p<.01118TABLE 10CHANGE IN GROUP RESPONSES TO PIERS-HARRIS QUESTIONSITEMIZED ACCORDING TO SELF-ESTEEM COMPONENTSSECURITY SELFHOOD AFFILIATION MISSION/COMPETENCET-04-CZ 02 TZ-01-CZ T-0717 04-CZ T-03-CZ T-09T-38 T-05 T-18 10-CT-44 T-06 27 TZ-1347 T-08 33-C TZ-16-CTZ-59-CZ 15 T-40 T-19T-62 TZ-28 42-C T-2072 29-C T-46-CZ 2174 T-36 48 T-2337 TZ-49-C 2441 T-51 26-C50-CZ 56 30TZ-52-C 57 31-C54-C T-58 3955-C 65 43T-60 67-CZ 45-C64 69 5368-C73-CTZ-75T-79T-717661T-63T-667077-C78-C11980NOTE. T=Treatment Group change of more than 5%C=Comparison Group change of more than 5%TZ=Treatment Group change of zeroCZ=Comparison Group change of zero120TABLE 11CROSSTABULATION OF PIERS-HARRIS ITEM RESPONSESITEM^TREATMENT^CHANGE^COMPARISON^CHANGEPRE^POSTYES/NOPRE^POSTYES/NO1 5/48 5/48 0.0 7/47 7/47 0.02 50/3 48/5 -3.8 53/1 49/5 -7.43 8/45 5/48 +5.8 5/49 5/49 0.04 8/45 10/43 -3.8 9/45 9/45 0.05 46/7 51/2 +9.4 48/6 50/4 +3.76 21/32 19/34 +3.8 17/37 18/36 -1.97 21/32 12/41 +17.0 18/36 13/41 +9.28 14/39 6/47 +15.1 6/48 9/45 -5.69 48/5 52/1 +7.5 44/10 45/9 +1.910 14/39 10/43 +7.5 23/31 15/39 +14.811 10/43 7/46 +5.6 15/39 12/42 +5.612 48/5 50/3 +3.8 47/7 50/4 +5.613 6/47 6/47 0.0 4/50 6/48 -3.714 2/51 5/48 -5.6 5/49 5/49 0.015 35/18 41/12 +11.3 38/16 45/9 +13.016 49/4 49/4 0.0 45/9 50/4 +9.217 51/2 49/4 -3.8 52/2 51/3 -1.918 19/34 12/41 +13.2 18/36 17/37 +1.912119 39/14 45/8 +11.3 33/21 42/12 +16.720 6/47 2/51 +7.5 7/47 11/43 -7.421 50/3 51/2 +1.9 47/7 50/4 +5.622 4/49 2/51 +3.8 4/50 4/50 0.023 40/13 41/12 +1.9 31/23 35/19 +7.424 34/19 36/17 +3.8 31/23 33/21 +3.725 4/49 4/49 0.0 2/52 3/51 -1.926 17/36 15/38 +3.8 20/34 13/41 +13.027 34/19 39/14 +9.4 37/17 44/10 +13.028 9/44 9/44 0.0 9/45 10/44 -1.929 41/12 42/11 +1.9 34/20 38/16 +7.430 32/21 40/13 +15.1 29/25 36/18 +13.031 7/46 10/43 -5.7 11/43 9/45 +3.732 19/34 17/36 +3.8 29/25 19/35 +18.533 44/9 45/8 +5.7 42/12 51/3 +16.734 7/46 7/46 0.0 7/47 4/50 +5.635 43/10 48/5 +9.4 48/6 48/6 0.036 41/12 44/9 +5.7 43/11 42/12 -1.937 20/33 14/39 +11.3 22/32 16/38 +11.138 11/42 9/44 +3.8 11/43 13/41 -3.739 47/6 48/5 +1.9 46/8 49/5 +5.640 15/38 13/40 +3.8 13/41 15/39 -3.741 43/10 45/8 +3.8 42/12 45/9 +5.642 42/11 43/10 +1.9 35/19 43/11 +14.812243 8/45 6/47 +3.8 10/44 7/47 +5.644 43/10 48/5 +9.4 45/9 47/7 +3.745 13/40 12/41 +1.9 11/43 5/49 +11.146 17/36 13/40 +7.5 18/36 18/36 0.047 7/46 8/45 -1.9 8/46 11/43 -5.648 4/49 2/51 +3.8 6/48 2/52 +7.449 41/12 41/12 0.0 37/17 43/11 +11.150 7/46 5/48 +3.8 7/47 7/47 0.051 45/8 48/5 +5.7 49/5 48/6 -1.952 46/7 46/7 0.0 46/8 49/5 +5.653 4/49 3/50 +1.9 6/48 3/51 +5.654 36/17 37/16 +1.9 34/20 41/13 +13.055 51/2 50/3 -1.9 46/8 53/1 +13.056 8/45 7/46 +1.9 8/46 6/48 +3.757 42/11 44/9 +3.8 40/14 42/12 +3.758 8/45 7/46 +1.9 10/44 12/42 -3.759 2/51 2/51 0.0 3/51 3/51 0.060 34/19 41/12 +13.2 46/8 44/10 -3.761 12/41 8/45 +7.5 13/41 11/43 +3.762 17/36 11/42 +11.3 10/44 13/41 -5.663 18/35 27/26 +17.0 20/34 22/32 +3.764 10/43 7/46 +5.7 9/45 5/49 +7.465 5/48 3/50 +3.8 9/45 8/46 +1.966 10/43 5/48 +9.4 10/44 11/43 -1.967 48/5 50/3 +3.8 51/3 51/3 0.012368 15/38 14/39 +1.9 18/36 12/42 +11.1069 42/11 47/6 +9.4 36/18 40/14 +7.470 41/12 44/9 +5.7 41/13 44/10 +5.671 21/32 9/44 +22.6 19/35 15/39 +7.472 42/11 45/8 +5.7 45/9 48/6 +5.673 35/18 35/18 0.0 37/17 45/9 +14.874 9/44 10/43 -1.9 10/44 9/45 +1.975 6/47 6/47 0.0 4/50 3/51 +1.976 51/2 53/0 +3.8 50/4 52/2 +3.777 28/25 32/21 -7.5 33/21 31/23 +3.778 9/44 5/48 +7.5 9/45 2/52 +13.079 13/40 10/43 +5.7 12/42 14/40 -3.780 50/3 51/2 +1.9 54/0 53/1 -1.9NOTE. + indicates correct responses- indicates incorrect responsesi nap .opr latei sks..„.--tuccess< successsuccessaspira ionsv. uesdefencesasp rationsva ue sasp rationsva uesasp ationsa I ue sdefences2compl'idsonsdefencesanx etyFIGURE 1 A Representation of Coopersmi th s Theory of Serf-Esteemoh an e
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
The effect of an instructional program on the self-esteem of elementary school children
Text