Underestimating Youth’s Commitment to Schools and Society: Toward a More Differentiated View

7/30/2019 Underestimating Youths Commitment to Schools and Society: Toward a More Differentiated View

1/40

Social Psychology of Education 3: 139, 1999.

1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.1

Underestimating Youths Commitment to Schoolsand Society: Toward a More Differentiated View

THOMAS L. GOOD, SHARON L. NICHOLS and DARRELL L. SABERSUniversity of Arizona

Abstract. Many media reports contend that American youth are dangerous, self-possessed, and care

too little about their personal education or the broader society. Not only are youth criticized, but their

teachers and schools are subjected to exaggerated criticism. We argue that the average, undifferen-

tiated view of youth as presented by the media is inaccurate and pejorative. Researchers have added to

the chorus of unfounded negative assertions about youth and their schools. As an example, LaurenceSteinberg, in Beyond the Classroom, argued that American students levels of academic achievement

were woefully inadequate. He argued that students did not do enough homework, that they cheated,

and that pervasive, negative peer pressure undermined academic achievement. The purpose of our

study was to examine students attitudes and perceptions in three major areas cheating, homework,

and peer pressure. Using data from over 700 students drawn from one public high school and one

junior high school, our results indicated that students beliefs and norms concerning cheating, home-

work, and peer pressure varied widely in terms of gender, GPA, and school context. Our data failed

to replicate the findings from Beyond in that (a) our average findings were more positive than those

reported in that study, and (b) we showed that the reporting of average was highly misleading. Our

findings provided evidence that one cannot describe American students in a general, sweeping way.

Average statements about youth, especially adolescent youth, are apt to be very misleading.

Introduction

Recently, the media has been ravaged by claims of manufactured stories and

sloppy work in checking the accuracy of reported data. For example, reporters

writing for the Boston Globe and the New Republic have been fired for fabricating

stories, people, and quotations (McFeatters, 1998). In this paper, we deal with

one target of inaccurate media reporting youth and their education. According

to much of the media, American youth are dangerous, self-possessed, and care

too little about their personal education or the broader society. Descriptions of

youth are primarily negative and often present scathing critiques of their behavior

and attitudes (e.g., drug-use, physical violence). Contemporary media (televisionaccounts, films, newspaper and magazine articles, cartoons, etc.) often present

youth as lacking in morality and civic responsibility (Giroux, 1996; Youniss &

Yates, 1997). Youth are criticized about many aspects of their lives from poor

school achievement to low personal morality. Not only are youth criticized, but

their teachers and schools are subjected to exaggerated criticism. Although the


2/40

2 THOMAS L. GOOD ET AL.

medias excessive condemnation of teachers and schools constitutes an important

part of the contemporary social context, the major focus of this paper will be on

the representation of adolescents, especially adolescents in school.

In this paper, we first argue that an average, undifferentiated view of youth as

presented in the media is both inaccurate and pejorative. We then argue that these

undifferentiated views of youth and schools (largely negative in tone and presented

void of any context) are not only misleading characterizations but also lead to

inappropriate strategies for treating youth and school improvement. The systemic

communication of low expectations about the ability and commitment of youth,

teachers, and schools has unfortunate consequences for morale, performance, and

funding. Further, we examine illustrative examples to show how the media and

popular press sometimes present misleading depictions of youth that fly in the

face of research findings and illustrate how research reports may contribute to the

problem. As an example, we cite a book by Steinberg et al. (1996), Beyond the

Classroom, which illustrates problems of undifferentiated reporting. Finally, we

present findings from two studies we conducted that explore students perceptionsof and behavioral orientations toward schooling which challenge claims made in

Beyond the Classroom and illustrate how educational researchers and social scient-

ists can contribute to poor communication by relying too heavily on the concept of

average.

Average and Negative Depictions

YOUTH AND SOCIAL ISSUES

One columnist recently contended that television news programming has been in-

strumental in creating an inaccurate image making America appear to be under

siege by armies of teenagers (Jackson, 1997). The medias bias against youthwas illustrated in a recent report from the Berkeley Media Studies Group which

analyzed roughly 8,000 television newscasts from 26 different stations in Cali-

fornia during the Fall of 1993 (Dorfman, Woodruff, Chavez, & Wallack, 1997).

This group found that about 68% of the stories that focused on violence concerned

youth violence. Further, 84% of those studies focused on only the salient event

(the blood and gore) and provided no contextual information about the crime or

any societal issues possibly related to youth crime (e.g., the easy availability of

guns and alcohol; the absence of after-school programs).

Researchers have contended that the impact of media coverage of violence de-

pends on how stories are depicted. For example, Iyengar (1991) identified news

stories as either episodic (showing events without contextual information) or them-atic (placing incidents in context). Dorfman et al. (1997) described episodic stories

as containing mere facts, details, and narrow descriptions of the crime; whereas,

in contrast, thematic stories tend to include not only detailed information about

the crime but also information about the circumstances surrounding the incident

(e.g., was alcohol involved?) as well as information about public prevention and


3/40

UNDERESTIMATING YOUTH 3

community responses to future similar crimes. Clearly, how a story is reported

will differentially affect audience opinion about the crime and crime participants.

Indeed, Dorfman et al. (1997) stated that when reporting about youth and youth

violence, not only were there a plethora of negative, violent stories about youth,

but the episodic framing of the story lead audience members to blame youth.

The vilification of youth in the public media is mirrored by many citizens

pejorative views of youth. In a recent survey conducted by Public Agenda, Farkas

and Johnson (1997) reported that adult Americans primarily describe teenagers and

children negatively using the adjectives rude, irresponsible, and wild. Although

earlier generations have also been critical of adolescent youth, todays critiques not

only appear harsher but also have extended downward to include even children.

Although the media and citizen opinions might focus attention on youth poverty

and abuse and the minimal, unequal, educational resources that many youth are

afforded (Biddle, 1997; Good, 1996; Natriello, 1996; U.S. General Accounting

Office, 1995a, 1995b), the clear tendency is to blame youth not to understand

or to help. The Public Agenda survey makes it clear that many citizens do notworry about the limited resources and low investment in attention and opportunity

that youth receive; rather, many Americans worry most about youths character

deficits.

If such conclusions were rare isolated events advocacy for youth would

be unnecessary. However, many documents confirm that American citizens are

actively concerned about the moral values of youth. As a case in point, a 24-

member, non-partisan panel of leading citizens authored a 1998 report entitled, A

call to civil society: Why democracy needs moral truths (Associated Press, 1998).

Although this report decried a supposed general decline in the social morality of

Americans, part of its focus targeted a supposed lack of morality among American

youth. And to combat this, the report called for supporting charter schools, charac-ter education programs, and parental school choice. In contrast, the report did not

call for more direct investments in youth (e.g., expanded afternoon programs). As

suggested above, such depictions of youth are episodic in nature. A more thematic

approach might consider a range of social and contextual issues related to youth

and their supposed lack of morality.

Indeed, the recent saliency of youth crime as reported in the media from an

episodic perspective (e.g., the Jonesboro and Springfield murders of teens by teens)

suggests that teens are solely to blame for these heinous acts, thus youths morality

is rapidly declining. Although teens should be held accountable for their actions,

we also suspect that thematic issues lie behind such incidents (e.g., easy access to

guns, lack of parental supervision, and need for more school counselors). Thus,

attention is focused on youth as scapegoat targets rather than on issues one mightdo something about such as violence prevention, reducing gun accessibility, and

improving community resources.

Critics of youth have expressed concerns about youths many putative failings.

In particular, youths self-centeredness and irresponsibility have received notable


4/40


comment. However, we cannot find any data to support the claim that todays

youth, as a group, are more self-centered and irresponsible than youth of previous

eras. Indeed, the data, if anything, point to a different conclusion. Research evid-

ence, summarized by Youniss and Yates (1997), suggests that todays youth, when

given the chance, are actively involved in community service. These researchers

examined both early and contemporary studies concerned with community service

and the development of social responsibility in youth. They concluded that youth

are diverse and highly differentiatedin the ways they participate in their community

(i.e., some are altruistic and prosocial; others are not). Such a conclusion, based

on extant research, is both more differentiated and more positive than citizens

perceptions about youth as indicated by Public Agenda poll data we cited earlier.

Additionally, results from a New York Times/CBS News Poll (1998) reveal a

general commitment by youth to prosocial behavior. For example, when asked

how often they lie to their parents, 6% said never, 55% of the sample said hardly

ever, 33% said some, and only 4% said a lot. In terms of alcohol and drug use,

86% of the sample reported that they hardly ever or never drink alcohol, wine, orbeer. Similarly, 94% of the sample reported that they hardly ever or never smoke

marijuana or pot. This suggests that many youth do nothave a character deficit.

Needless to say, these results received scant attention in the national media.

Other data provide additional evidence that youth should not be described in

monolithic, negative terms. Other 1998 results from the joint New York Times/CBS

poll illustrate that students vary in their perceptions of various academic and social

attitudes by gender and age. For example, when students were asked whether they

thought growing up is harder, easier, or about the same for them than for their

parents, 55% of girls (in contrast to 43% of boys) reported that they thought it

was harder. When students were asked how positive or negative they felt about

themselves, 39% of girls (in contrast to 54% of boys) felt very positive while, atthe other extreme, 10% of girls (in contrast to only 2% of boys) reported feeling

very negative about themselves. When asked about cheating on an exam, 58% of

the total sample reported yes. However, this time students differed significantly,

depending on their age or gender. For example, 53% of girls versus 62% of boys

reported they had cheated on a test or an exam, and 52% of 1315 year olds

compared with 67% of 1617 year olds reported they had cheated on a test or

an exam.

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Indeed, the media have painted an unfair, negative, and monolithic picture of youthmorality. Another media attack on youth has centered on the supposed lack of

achievement motivation and school performance among young persons. At least

since the publication ofA Nation at Riskin 1983 (National Commission for Excel-

lence in Education, 1983), it has been popular to claim that students inadequate

performance in public schools constitutes a threat to national security. Sweeping


5/40


criticism of schooling was manifested in the National Education Summit of 1996

where policy makers (including President Clinton) and business leaders met to

discuss possible solutions to a supposed national decline in student achievement.

One general solution proposed by Summiteers was a call for higher standards

for all students (National Education Summit, 1996). However, as suggested by

Sabers and Sabers (1996), a call for higher standards for all students is misdir-

ected, and, as Biddle (1997) argued, the call for vague, higher standards fails

to address real, underlying problems for many students, such as unequal public

school funding. Media generalizations about students supposedly low academic

performance (which lead to sweeping and unsuccessful solutions) fail to consider

complex mediating variables of student achievement (such as SES and educational

resources) as well as wide variation among students. This general (monolithic)

and negative reporting on students achievement presents an inadequate picture of

students highly differentiated performance in American schools.

TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS

Youth do not stand alone as victims of a largely negative and often pejorative

press. Public schools and teachers are also characterized as inadequate by the

media. Various policy documents have characterized teachers and schools in terms

of average, and these undifferentiated portrayals are labeled and presented by

the media as inadequate characterizations embraced, indeed elaborated on, by

those media sources. This is unfair and inaccurate. Despite the popular press and

some researchers willingness to emphasize average findings, research evidence

repeatedly finds that the performance of American students, teachers, and schools

is widely varied (Brookover, Beady, Flood, Schweitzer, & Wisenbaker, 1979; Good

& Brophy, 1986; Rutter, 1983). To know one school or a few schools is not thesame as knowing all schools in America for contextual problems, student attend-

ance rates, and achievement vary notably from school to school, even in schools

that serve similar student populations. Some schools create high levels of student

achievement; some schools generate strongly positive attitudes among students;

some schools do both; some do neither (Goodlad, 1983). America has both horrible

schools (Kozol, 1991) and successful schools (Rose, 1995).

And if this were not a sufficient problem, the impact of individual teachers

on students achievement also shows wide variation (see, for example, Good &

Weinstein, 1986). But this is hardly surprising since teachers vary in the resources

and support they receive. Some teachers teach huge classes in unsafe, unattractive

buildings with inadequate supplies. Other teachers teach small classes in attract-ive settings with ample libraries, modern laboratories, and adequate technological

support. In some schools (both rich and poor) the efforts of individual teachers are

aided by a school climate of support and mutual concern for student learning, but

in other schools the collegial climate fosters isolation and negativism (Rosenholtz,

1989).


6/40


Although considerable evidence has appeared suggesting that the media have

greatly overstated the general failure of American students in comparison to those

in other countries (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Bracey, 1991; Sandia National Labor-

atories, 1993), today the media continue to focus on student problems while ignor-

ing student success. Indeed, as Berliner and Biddle (1998) argue, the media has

played an overarching role in societys negative and narrow perceptions of youth.

They outline specific instances wherein the media is guilty of episodic reporting,

not only by failing to comment on contextual issues specific to the story, but also by

failing to consider broader cultural and societal issues that have relevance to their

reports. Others, too, have commented upon the fact that the media, including even

government reports, focus on problems to such an extent that a fair appraisal of

American students and their schools is not presented to the public (Gough, 1994).

Indeed, an entire book has been published that bears tribute to the irresponsibility

of the press when it comes to education (Maeroff, 1998).

Although some writers have attempted to bring some of the successes of Amer-

ican education to public attention, the tendency to believe and to report theworst about American youth and their teachers continues. Indeed, some have ar-

gued that because of their unrelenting tendency to report only the negative qualities

of youth, schools, and teachers, the media have become allies of critics who

desire to tear down our public schools (Berliner & Biddle, 1998). Independent of

whether a conspiracy or an alliance exists, there are ample data to show that the

press is more likely to identify with negative rather than positive aspects of schools

and student performance (Rose, Gallup, & Elam, 1997). Further, some claim that

the medias distortion of the public school has a negative effect upon citizens

beliefs about schools in general but not the perception of schools in their immediate

area. Indeed, the authors of a recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll conclude that,

the low grades given the nations public schools are primarily media-induced.Whereas people learn first hand about their childrens schools, they learn about the

nations schools primarily from the media (Rose, Gallup, & Elam, 1997, p. 47).

Recently, the College Board released data which showed that students perform-

ance in math was strong and improving while their performance in reading was

essentially stable. However, the primary focus of the medias reporting of these

recent results has been primarily negative claiming that student performance,

although improving in mathematics, is not good enough for the modern world

and that grade inflation in American schools is rampant. Ironically, news stories

about grade inflation typically fail to report evidence that many youth appear highly

committed to academic achievement. To illustrate, the most recent results from the

College Board exams show that the number of youth taking and successfully

passing advanced placement exams is at an all-time high. And, in a recent newsarticle it was pointed out that since 1987 the proportion of students with A averages

had increased from 28% to 37% (Jameson, 1997). Later, in the same article it was

noted that 32,000 students were able to enter college as sophomores or juniors

because of their advanced high school work, and that a record 400,000 students


7/40


were entering college with advanced placement credits. Ironically, in this article,

no possible connection was made between students receiving As in high school

and their advanced placement progress. Is it possible that, in some cases, students

actually earned their higher grades? In fact, it seems probable that both things may

be true (i.e., there is grade inflation, and many students today are exceeding the

performance of yesterdays students on advanced placement tests). Yet, the media

appear unwilling to deal with complexity, and when they simplify matters, they

tend to favor reporting negative slants on youths achievement.

As another example of questionable reporting, we cite a headline that appeared

on September 1, 1997 in the Arizona Daily Star that preceded a story by Bill

Schackner on NAEP test scores which was reprinted from the Pittsburgh Post-

Gazette Although SAT scores fell, number of As increased (Schackner, 1997).

This article exhibited at least three problems. Despite its flagrantly negative head-

line, the article revealed that: (a) math SAT scores increased, and (b) reading SAT

scores stayed about the same. In addition, although the article discussed issues

of grade inflation extensively, it (c) failed to report that students made notableprogress on advanced placement tests. If we wanted to quibble further, we might

also note that high school students scores went up in their math assessment scores

(a subject that is taught in high school) and stayed the same in reading (a subject

not taught in most high schools). Nor was this the only negatively found media

report on the topic. Although some writers were more balanced in their approach

(Applebome, 1997), most news stories were decidedly critical in reporting these

NAEP results.

Or, to cite another example, the recent extraordinary good news that one-fifth

of American students entering college were eligible for credit through advanced

placement was so underreported in the press that we were prompted to obtain the

College Board press release on the topic to see if part of the medias interpret-ation/reporting was due to this primary document (College Board Press Release,

1996). In contrast to newspaper reports, the press release was generally positive in

tone. Indeed part of the press release title suggested that the numbers of students

obtaining advanced placement credit will increase by 50% by the year 2000. Ad-

ditionally, the press release included sections on College standards and no grade

inflation, Participation growing for women and minorities, and Positive role

models for teens. Information on these topics was strikingly absent from media

reports on students achievement. This suggests that in reporting on grade inflation

and student achievement, some media writers appear to work hard to recast the

news release from a positive and affirming story to one portraying a more negative

perspective of youth.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore in detail the motivation of apublic press that exhibits a selective bias for more negative reporting on youth, their

teachers, and their schools. This is a complex topic that merits extended treatment

elsewhere. Here, we examine only one possible factor that seems to be involved

the complexity of educational research and the way educators report their findings,


8/40


especially when they write for popular audiences. It would appear that the public,

press, and social scientists alike need to become more sensitive to diversity to

variations among students, teachers, and schools. Given these variations, when it

comes to education, the concept of average is often virtually meaningless.

To sum up, we have argued for two major conclusions regarding the media.

First, current media depictions of youth and education tend to be highly negative

in tone. Second, the media tend to describe youth and education in monolithic

terms; both are largely described as undifferentiated averages. In many contexts,

such depictions are highly misleading. When variability is strikingly large (i.e.,

when youth behavior is highly variable or there are many good schools and poor

schools as well as average schools) portrayals that report only average findings are

highly misleading.

Problems in Research Reporting: A Case Example

Unfortunately, it is not only policy makers and the media who make sweeping

and unfounded policy assertions about youth and their schools. Some researchers

also allow themselves to join this chorus of negativism. For example, Laurence

Steinberg, the major author of Beyond the Classroom (Steinberg et al., 1996)

henceforth referred to as Beyond argued that American students level of aca-

demic achievement is woefully inadequate (especially when compared with stu-

dents in other countries), and this is caused by parent apathy and a peer culture

that discourages achievement. Such a conclusion makes questionable assumptions,

is negative in tone, and ignores the possibility that youth, their parents, and their

peers might differ widely in such matters.

Indeed, the reporting in Beyond exemplifies the argument that we made earlier

about the inadequacies of episodic reporting. Steinberg inadequately describedcontextual variation within or among schools and students, and this led him to

argue that the policy recommendations he proposed should apply to all students and

schools. Thus, like the popular press, this publication glamorizes and reifies

the concept of average. For example, Steinberg wrote:

More than one-third of the students we surveyed showed signs of being emo-

tionally disengaged from school, as indexed by measures of mind-wandering,

lack of interest, or inattentiveness. Half of the students we surveyed say their

classes are boring. A third say they have lost interest in school, that they are

not learning very much, and that they get through the school day by fooling

around with their classmates. And remember, ours was a sample of aver-

age students in average American schools not a sample of high-riskyoungsters in high-risk school settings. (p. 71).

Although we found it difficult to believe that any sample based on only nine high

schools could represent average students in average American schools, we were

motivated to explore the technical details of the research sample, findings, and


9/40


methodology on which Beyond was supposedly based. Accordingly, we explored

all the cited articles found in an Appendix in Beyond, which, according to the

author, These articles contain technical details about the research design and data

analysis (p. 199). In our examination of all listed publications, we could not find

adequate descriptions of the sample or data analysis. In particular, we found no

detailed information about within- and between-school variations on the dependent

measures nor variation across types of students in different settings.

Although Beyond offered some general insights, we judge that its conclusions

and policy recommendations were strikingly unjustified and overgeneralized. How-

ever, despite our conclusion that the policy statements were too general, often

unsupported by data, and in some cases flatly wrong, the book quickly proved

to be attractive both to the media and educational policy makers (see, for example,

Leslie, 1996; Shanker, 1996a, 1996b). Indeed, we wonder if the averages reported

in the book describe any individual school in his sample adequately.

Unfortunately, claims made in Beyond often paraphrased negative and mono-

lithic judgments about youth that appear frequently in the media today. Whendescribing their supposed results about students cheating, for example, Steinberg

wrote:

Two-thirds of the students in our sample say they cheated on a school test

during the past school year. [And] nearly nine out ten students in our sample

say they copied someone elses homework some time during the past year.

(p. 18)

Such reporting is inherently misleading because there is likely to be variation

in both how students define concepts like cheating (e.g., letting someone copy

my test vs. copying someone elses test) and the degree to which they engage

in different types of cheating. In addition, they gloss over important definitional

issues. Do students define cheating the same way as adults? And does the typeof cheating engaged in differ markedly among students, as it does among adults

(who might cheat by underreporting earned income, not paying a parking ticket,

exceeding the speed limit, or engaging in seriously illegal or immoral acts). Thus,

to make sweeping claims about students cheating without investigating such vari-

ations seems irresponsible. Further, it seems likely that the degree of student cheat-

ing however defined will vary sharply from student to student, as well as from

school to school.

Cheating is but one example of the many factors that Steinberg used in exploring

youths attitude toward school (other of the many issues raised included students

excessively cutting school, parents failure to press students for good grades, low

rates of student academic engagement, too little homework, etc.). Another conclu-sion reached by Steinberg was that the peer culture (as studied in nine American

high schools) did not support student achievement, and there was little that parents

or schools could do about the situation. Steinberg wrote, The adolescent peer

culture in contemporary America demeans academic success and scorns students

who try to do well in school. Schools are fighting a losing battle against a peer


10/40


culture that disparages academic success (p. 19). As part of the data provided to

defend this argument, Steinberg argued:

Fewer than one in five students say their friends think it is important to get

good grades in school. Less than one-fourth of all students regularly discusstheir school work with their friends ... nearly 20% of all students say they do

not try as hard as they can in school because they are worried about what their

friends might think. (p. 19)

To conclude that peer groups exert an almost intractable and pernicious effect on

students achievement seemed to us both premature and likely wrong. Studies of

schools as learning communities have consistently shown wide variation in how

students perceive and react to school environments (Battistich, Solomon, Watson,

& Schaps, 1997; Shouse, 1996; Solomon, Battistich, Dong-Il, & Watson, 1997).

Serious scholarship on peer groups and peer cultures has provided clear evidence

that peer cultures have important influences on student attitudes toward school

and academic work. But, peer attitudes toward school work do not constitute a

monolithic and unalterable set of forces. Bank (1997), in a comprehensive review

of youth in school settings, argued that peer cultures take different forms and that

youth are also influenced by parents and by schools.

On the basis ofBeyond, many media sources endorsed policy recommendations

for schooling and adolescents we thought to be misguided (Leslie, 1996; Shanker,

1996a, 1996b). Thus, it seemed important (a) to examine possible variability in

adolescents attitudes toward school more closely, and (b) to assess whether Stein-

bergs pejorative descriptions of youths attitudes and academic behavioral patterns

could be supported.

Purpose of This Study

The purpose of our study was to examine students attitudes and perceptions in

three major areas of focus including cheating, homework, and peer pressure. In

Beyond, Steinberg claimed that students do not do enough homework, they cheat,

and that pervasive inappropriate peer pressure undermines high student achieve-

ment claims that mirror negative judgments about youth frequently made in

the media. These claims seemed to us to be overly negative and to ignore vari-

ability associated with such forms of youth behavior. Nor were these claims the

only examples of negatively toned, overly simple generalizations to be found in

Beyond. Indeed, Appendix A provides other examples from Steinberg illustrating

these types of claims. We could not take up all of these issues, however, but we

decided to assess Steinbergs claims about youth cheating, homework completion,and susceptibility to peer influence with a new sample of students and high schools.

In our study, we addressed two research questions. First, to what extent do the

negative conclusions reported by Steinberg about homework, cheating, and peer

pressure apply in the new schools we studied. Second, would we find significant

and substantial variations for these issues among students who differed by schools


11/40


they attended as well as by common demographic features frequently found in

research on youth.

Our choice of independent variables for our study was straightforward. As noted

earlier, considerable evidence has appeared suggesting that youth conduct differs

among schools, so we chose two, different schools for our study. In addition, we de-

cided to focus on two demographic variables gender and level of prior academic

achievement. Reasons for these latter decisions should be set forth.

GENDER RELATED DIFFERENCES

For some time it has been well known that students attitudes toward school differ

as a function of gender. Tenenbaum (1940) collected essays on the topic, Do you

like school? from 639 sixth- and seventh-grade students. The findings indicated

that, in general, students liked school; but girls reported more positive affect to-

wards school than boys. Roughly two-thirds of girls had distinctly positive attitudes

towards school as compared to slightly less than one-half of the boys. Similar

gender findings have continued to be reported over time (e.g., Jackson, 1968).

Further, related findings have suggested that female students find schools fairer

than do males (e.g., Nichols & Good, 1998). In marked contrast to female students

more favorable perceptions of school, a substantial literature has suggested that

female students, as a group, receive less academic support from teachers than do

male students. Given that researchers continue to find different patterns of teacher

feedback to students and different forms of assigned academic tasks on the basis

of student gender, studies that wish to explore students perceptions of schooling

should certainly examine gender as a mediating factor (see Jones & Gerig, 1994;

Jones & Wheatley, 1990).

PRIOR ACHIEVEMENT

Oddly, despite the obvious fact that some students are consistently more likely

to experience academic success, strong relationships between student satisfaction

with school and academic achievement have been difficult to establish. In part,

this may reflect the fact that academic success is but one source of satisfaction

in schools. Students are more than academic learners, they are also social beings

(McCaslin & Good, 1996). Indeed, in some cases, a students academic success

may come at the expense of social relationships (e.g., complying with the teachers

request to correct a friends wrong answer may irritate the friend). Similarly, some

high-success students may become bored in school, etc.Jackson (1968) tried to explain the absence of a relationship between school

satisfaction and achievement this way: Perhaps were attitudes to interact with

achievement, they may have to be extreme, and extreme attitudes, either positive

or negative, may be much rarer than is commonly thought" (p. 81). However,

as Jackson also noted, the lack of a documented relationship between academic


12/40


success and school satisfaction merits our continued attention because it appears

to contradict our common sense. And, although the relation between student sat-

isfaction and student achievement may be complex, a substantial field of research

has appeared exploring the effects of student aptitude and achievement on numer-

ous school-related dispositions (see, for example, Gustafsson & Undheim, 1996;

Snow, Corno, & Jackson, 1996). This suggested that differences in prior achieve-

ment among students will mediate students beliefs and behavior if one asks about

specific aspects of school rather than general, normative statements about school

and schooling. When students school experiences are placed in a specific context,

students behaviors and perceptions (e.g., peer support for academic activity) may

be sharply mediated by prior achievement status.

To summarize then, in the research we report, we examined how students in a

new sample of schools responded to questions about homework, cheating, and peer

pressure and how those responses varied depending on the school they attended,

their gender, and the level of their prior achievement.

Method

PROCEDURES

Data for the study were collected in two public schools in a Southwestern city

one a junior high, the other a senior high school and similar techniques were used

for gathering data in the two venues.

High School. The data we gathered were part of a larger study exploring youths

attitudes. Four questionnaires were developed to obtain a wide range of information

from students (and to assess how variations in asking questions might influence

student responses). The items we now report appeared on one of the four formsthat were distributed.

Permission to conduct the study was obtained from both the principal of the high

school and the superintendent of the school district. Parents were informed about

the questionnaire study in writing and given the opportunity to refuse their childs

participation, and less than 1% did so. Each student was asked to fill out only one

form, and procedures were set so that forms were assigned to students randomly.

Students were also given Scantron answer sheets to be used for indicating their

answers. All questionnaires were handed out on a Thursday morning during second

period, because this was reported to be one of the peak attendance times during

the week. Upon administration, students were asked to provide honest, thoughtful

responses to all questions.Junior High School. In contrast to the high school study, one questionnaire was

used that explored students attitudes on a variety of topics including cheating,

homework, and peer pressure. Permission was obtained from the principal and the

superintendent of the school district. Parents were informed about the questionnaire

study in writing and given the opportunity to refuse their childs participation, and


13/40


less than 1% did so. Teachers were given the questionnaire and Scantron answer

sheets with a four-day time period to administer it to their students.

PARTICIPANTS

High School. In all, 347 students out of approximately 1,750 students in the school

provided data for this study. Student participants were enrolled in Grades 9 through

12. Fifty-two percent were female, and 48% were male. Approximately 4% were

African-American, 6% were American-Indian, 3% were Asian-American, 23%

were Hispanic-American, 50% were Caucasian-American, 6% were Inter-racially

mixed, and about 8% of the students reported their ethnicity as other. Students

socioeconomic status was estimated by how they paid for lunch: 46% reported they

paid full price, 6% paid reduced price, 15% received a free lunch, 6% brought their

lunch, and 25% reported other.

Junior High School. Participants included 358 students from the junior high

school which was the feeder school for the high school also used in this study.

Students ages ranged from 12 to 15 years. Fifty-two percent were male, while

48% were female. Four percent indicated their ethnicity as Black, 25% Hispanic,

2% Native American, 63% White, and 6% reported other as their ethnicity. We

again used how students paid for their lunch as a general indicator of SES, and

43% of the students reported that they paid full price, 10% paid reduced price, 25%

received a free lunch, 8% brought their own lunch, and 14% indicated other.

INSTRUMENT

Although the questionnaires given to high school and junior high school samples

differed in other respects, items analyzed for purposes of this study were the samein both surveys. Items included in the analyses pertained to homework, cheat-

ing, and peer pressure perceptions. Specifically, there were seven homework items

which probed students for information regarding various ways they might define

homework as well as their behavior patterns pertaining to (including the value

they placed on) homework see Appendix B (e.g., How many hours per day

[on average] do you spend on homework?; It is still considered homework when

I finish assignments during school time; If I dont finish homework, it is usually

because I dont have time). Similarly, students were asked to indicate how they

defined cheating as well as their behavior regarding cheating based on six items

see Appendix C (e.g., It is cheating if I copy someone elses test; It is cheating

if I copy someone elses homework; I usually cheat on my homework assign-ments). Lastly, students were asked to indicate their level of agreement based on

six items relating to peer pressure see Appendix D (e.g., I am not doing as well

as I could because my friends would make fun of me; If I spend a lot of time

doing homework, my friends will make fun of me; In terms of academics, I feel

pressure to perform in school like my friends). As indicated in the Appendices,


14/40


most questions were to be answered by choosing a response from a four-category,

Likert-type scale.

Identity of the school in which respondents were enrolled was generated by

study-design information. Information about gender was provided by students in

response to a questionnaire. Junior high school students were asked to indicate their

average prior grade in school (GPA) and were given the five choices of A, B, C,

D, or Below D. High school students were asked to indicate their prior cumulative

GPA, and these were transcribed into the following ranges: 3.6 to 4.0 = A; 3.1 to

3.5 = B; 2.6 to 3.0 = C; 1.5 to 2.5 = D; and Below 1.5 = Below D.

ANALYSIS

Central Tendencies and Variations. To examine central tendencies and variations

in responses, we computed mean scores for each relevant category of respondents.

These are displayed in the tables to be found below. The degree of variation in

responses may be difficult to judge from these tables, however, so we also pre-

pared figures for three crucial variables which display that variation. These are

also provided below.

Main Effects. We examined the data for interactions but did not find any beyond

chance levels; therefore, only main effects are discussed here. For both schools,

independent sample t tests were conducted to compare female and male responses

to items regarding homework, cheating, and peer pressure. One-way analysis of

variance tests were conducted to compare students who differed by prior GPA

across all dependent variables.

Effect Size. We used two different measures of effect size to represent the mag-nitude of our findings for variation. The first, Cohens d, was used to assess the sizes

of standardized mean difference between the two categories of gender. The second

was one of two roughly equivalent measures of covariation, the point-biserial cor-

relation, r, and eta. When assessing the independent variable of gender, this second

measure was the point-biserial correlation (r) between gender and the dependent

variable. When assessing the independent variable of academic achievement, more

than two response categories were involved, so we used eta to represent effect size.

Presenting Cohens dand rtogether in Tables 1, 3, and 5 (concerned with gender)

enables the reader to interpret the effect sizes for Tables 2, 4, and 6 (concerned

with prior GPA) when Cohens d is not appropriate. Although eta and r are not

strictly comparable because they involve differing formulas (see Murray & Dosser,1987), the interpretations of these two statistics are close enough to Cohens cri-

teria. Cohen (1988) suggested that one may use the same standards for interpreting

the size of eta and r, namely: small = .1, medium = .243, and large = .371. These

conventions correspond to the values of .2, .5, and .8 respectively for the dstatistic

that was also developed by Cohen.


15/40


strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Percent

50

40

30

20

10

0

sex: % response

M: 52.2%

F: 47.8%

Figure 1. Response Distribution of Homework by Gender in JHS: If I dont finish my

homework, its because I dont care.

Results

HOMEWORK

Table 1 reports means and standard deviations for males and females in both the

high school and junior high school for the seven homework items, and Table 2

reports the same data broken down by categories of prior GPA. These tables reveal

two major effects: average responses to questions about homework were a lot less

negative in tone than those claimed by Steinberg; and those responses varied a

good deal as a function of school, gender, and prior GPA. It may be difficult to seethese effects in Tables 1 and 2, however, so we have also drawn up four figures that

display response distributions for one of the homework variables, If I dont finish

homework, its because I dont care. (see Figures 14)

In addition, Tables 1 and 2 display statistics that access the directions and sizes

of differences among mean responses we found for types of students. To illustrate,

female students reported that they spent significantly more time doing homework

than did males in both schools. Of the remaining six items, males and females

differed significantly on two items in junior high and four in high school. Within

the junior high, males indicated a higher level of agreement than did females for

item H4 (If I dont finish my homework, it is usually because I dont care), while

females indicated a higher level of agreement on item H5 (Homework helps melearn). Within the high school sample, females indicated a higher level of agree-

ment on items H3 (If I dont finish my homework, it is usually because I dont

have time) and H5 (Homework helps me learn). In contrast, males reported a

higher level of agreement on item H4 (If I dont finish my homework, its because

I dont care). Finally, in the high school sample, although both males and females


16/40

Table I. Homework Responses: Means, Standard Deviations, Cohens d, and Point Biser

Junior high

Female Male Female

(N = 160) (N = 179) (N = 175)

M SD M SD d r M SD

H1: How many hours per day do you

spend on homework 2.26 1.19 1.99 1.05 .246 .177 2.17 1.14

H2: It is considered homework when

finished during school time 2.82 .79 2.88 .95 .061 .031 2.83 .80

H3: If I dont finish homework, its

because I dont have time 2.90 .93 2.76 1.01 .144 .072 2.98 .86

H4: If I dont finish homework, itsbecause I dont care 1.78 .89 2.15 1.02 .385 .189 1.97 .84

H5: Homework helps me learn 2.90 .87 2.67 1.07 .247 .122 2.86 .84

H6: Ill get good grade if I do my

homework 3.31 .76 3.21 .84 .119 .060 3.20 .71

H7: If I was assigned better homework

I would learn more 2.58 .93 2.45 1.12 .124 .062 2.39 .83

Note: Item H1 is based on the scale 1 = less than 1 hr, 2 = about 1 hr, 3 = about 2 hrs, 4 = about 3 hrs, 5 = over

strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree. Independent samples t tests (two-tailed) were con

means within each school where p < .05; p < .01; p < .001. Cohens d = [XF XM] / [SDpooled].


17/40

Table II. Homework Responses by Reported Academic Grades: Means, Standard Deviation

Junior high school

Grade A B C

(N = 94) (N = 123) (N = 91) (N

Means and standard deviations M SD M SD M SD M

H1: How many hours per day do you spend on homework 2.41 1.26 2.13 1.05 1.99 1.06 1.5

H2: It is considered homework when finished during school time 2.90 .87 2.94 .78 2.71 .94 2.9

H3: If I dont finish my homework, its because I dont have time 2.92 .92 2.86 .95 2.69 .97 2.7

H4: If I dont finish my homework, its because I dont care 1.65 .86 1.92 .91 2.18 .91 2.5

H5: Homework helps me learn the material 3.08 .87 2.79 .92 2.66 .99 2.

H6: I will get a good grade if I do my homework 3.35 .83 3.29 .69 3.31 .74 2.9

H7: If I was assigned better homework I would learn more 2.57 .97 2.48 1.01 2.48 1.06 2.

High school

Grade A B C

(N = 63) (N = 116) (N = 81) (N


H1: How many hours per day do you spend on homework 2.40 1.17 2.08 1.14 1.84 1.03 1.8

H2: It is considered homework when finished during school time 2.98 .77 2.87 .98 2.87 .93 3.0

H3: If I dont finish my homework, its because I dont have time 3.00 .98 2.87 .94 2.65 .94 2.7

H4: If I dont finish my homework, its because I dont care 1.92 .89 1.98 .87 2.23 .97 2.4

H5: Homework helps me learn the material 2.78 .82 2.76 .87 2.57 .92 2.6

H6: I will get a good grade if I do my homework 3.11 .73 3.13 .72 3.02 .75 3.

H7: If I was assigned better homework I would learn more 2.41 .83 2.32 .85 2.35 .94 2.6

Note: Item H1 is based on the scale 1 = less than 1 hr, 2 = about 1 hr, 3 = about 2 hrs, 4 = about 3 hrs, on the scale 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree. One-way analysis of va

GPA where p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.


18/40


strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Percent

50

40

30

20

10

0

sex: % response

M: 48.7%

F: 51.3%

Figure 2. Response Distribution of Homework by Gender in HS: If I dont finish my

homework, its because I dont care.

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Percent

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Cum GPA: % response

< D: 2.0%

D: 6.3%

C: 27.3%

B: 36.1%

A: 28.4%

Figure 3. Response Distribution of Homework by GPA in JHS: If I dont finish my homework,

its because I dont care.

generally agreed with item H6 (Ill get a good grade if I do my homework),

respectively, females agreed more strongly than males.Within the junior high school, students differed with respect to reported grades

on items H1, H4, H5, and H6. Students with higher GPAs indicated that they (a)

spent more hours per day on their homework, (b) more strongly disagreed that if

they did not finish their homework, its because they did not care, (c) more strongly

agreed that homework helps them learn the material, and (d) more strongly agreed


19/40


strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

Percent

50

40

30

20

10

0

Cum GPA: % response

< D: 4.3%

D: 18.6%

C: 24.1%

B: 34.2%

A: 18.8%

Figure 4. Response Distribution of Homework by GPA in HS: If I dont finish my homework,

its because I dont care.

that they will get a good grade if they do their homework. Within the high school,

students differed significantly by prior GPA category on items H1, H3, H4, H5, and

H7. In comparison to students with lower GPAs, students with higher GPAs said

they (a) spent more time on homework, (b) more strongly disagreed that if they did

not finish their homework, it is because they did not care, (c) more strongly agreed

that homework helps them learn the material, and (d) more strongly disagreed

that if they were assigned better homework, they would learn more. Furthermore,

students who indicated their average grade was an A or Below D more strongly

agreed that if they did not finish their homework, it was because they did not havetime.

CHEATING

Means and standard deviations calculated for six cheating items are reported for

gender in Table 3 and prior GPA in Table 4. In addition, Figures 5 through 8

display response distributions for one of the cheating variables, I usually cheat

on exams. As can be seen again in these tables and figures, the cheating responses

we found were far less negative in tone and far more variable than findings claimed

by Steinberg.

In addition, within both schools, students differed according to gender on itemsC2 and C3 (see Table 3). In both cases, female means were higher than male means

indicating a stronger level of agreement by females that it is cheating if they copy

someones elses test (C2) and if they let someone else copy their test (C3).

Students in junior high school with higher prior GPAs also agreed more frequently

with items C1, C2 and C3 (It is cheating if I copy someone elses homework;


20/40

Table III. Cheating Responses: Means, Standard Deviations, Cohens d, and Point Biser

Junior high High

Female Male Female

(N = 164) (N = 175) (N = 176

M SD M SD d r M SD

C1: Cheating if I copy someone elses homework 3.07 .80 2.91 .91 .181 .090 2.90 .81

C2: Cheating if I copy someone elses test 3.52 .70 3.35 .87 .213 .106 3.62 .65

C3: Cheating if I let someone else copy my test 3.25 .85 2.96 .97 .305

.151 3.29 .80C4: Cheating if I let someone copy my homework 2.86 .88 2.76 .97 .106 .053 2.75 .88

C5: I usually cheat on tests 1.60 .77 1.73 .87 .156 .078 1.59 .78

C6: I usually cheat on my homework assignments 1.81 .81 1.97 .95 .177 .088 1.94 .82

Note: Items C1-C6 are based on the scale 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly

t tests (two-tailed) were conducted to compare female and male means within each school where p

.001. Cohens d = [XF XM] / [SDpooled].


21/40

Table IV. Cheating Responses by Reported Average Grades: Means, Standard Deviations

Junior high schoolGrade A B C

(N = 95) (N = 123) (N = 88) (N


C1: It is considered cheating if I copy someone elses homework 3.11 .76 3.00 .81 2.99 .87 2.7

C2: It is considered cheating if I copy someone elses test 3.59 .68 3.48 .69 3.38 .82 3.1

C3: It is considered cheating if I let someone else copy my test 3.40 .75 3.00 .90 3.02 .95 2.9

C4: It is cheating if I let someone else copy my homework 3.01 .81 2.66 .96 2.81 .92 2.8

C5: I usually cheat on exams 1.40 .61 1.69 .79 1.70 .85 2.1

C6: I usually cheat on homework assignments 1.68 .75 1.90 .91 2.00 .89 2.3

High school

Grade A B C

(N = 64) (N = 117) (N = 82) (N


C1: It is considered cheating if I copy someone elses homework 2.96 .84 2.88 .84 2.83 .85 2.6

C2: It is considered cheating if I copy someone elses test 3.83 .42 3.53 .75 3.36 .88 3.1

C3: It is considered cheating if I let someone else copy my test 3.35 .76 3.19 .89 3.00 .97 3.0

C4: It is cheating if I let someone else copy my homework 2.69 .88 2.73 .88 2.65 .93 2.6

C5: I usually cheat on exams 1.33 .59 1.52 .77 1.84 .88 1.8

C6: I usually cheat on homework assignments 1.77 .81 1.82 .73 2.16 .79 2.1

Note: Items C1-C6 are based on the scale 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongl

variance calculated by reported GPA where

p

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	yugesh-d-panday
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Underestimating Youth’s Commitment to Schools and Society: Toward a More Differentiated View

Documents