Citation
A model for training migrant adolescents to assume the role of adolescent-educators with younger children

Material Information

Title:
A model for training migrant adolescents to assume the role of adolescent-educators with younger children
Creator:
Garcia, Ramon Lopez, 1937-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 93 leaves. : illus. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Adolescents ( jstor )
Analysis of variance ( jstor )
Child development ( jstor )
Child psychology ( jstor )
Control groups ( jstor )
Educational activities ( jstor )
Null hypothesis ( jstor )
Parents ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Siblings ( jstor )
Children of migrant laborers -- Education ( lcsh )
Curriculum and Instruction thesis Ed. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Curriculum and Instruction -- UF
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ed. D.)--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 90-92.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
Ramon L. Garcia.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
029478796 ( ALEPH )
14277931 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
A MODEL FOR TRAINING MIGRANT ADOLESCENTS TO ASSUME
THE ROLE OF ADOLESCENT-EDUCATORS
WITH YOUNGER CHILDREN
By
RAMON GARCIA
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE
COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1972




To
Beatrice Calderon Garcia




ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people contributed to this study, however,
there are some who gave much of their time to insure that the study developed as planned. The writer wishes to single out the following people for giving extra time and effort.
Professor C. G. Hass was most helpful in guiding the writer both before and after the study was completed.
Professor Doyle Casteel contributed suggestions and recommendations which made the writer more objective in approaching the study.
Professor John Newell's many recommendations on the research part of the study proved very helpful and made the study more meaningful.
Professor Bob Cage's direction of the statistical analysis and personal interest in the study were very helpful.
Mr. Martin Mills and Mrs. Mary Whitesides for
their assistance in obtaining the site and the population for this study.
The migrant adolescents of Haines City High School for participating and helping the writer stay abreast of the real world.
iii




My daughter, Kelly Rae, who served as a tester for many of the materials and ideas used in this study.
i-v




TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ..................................... vii
ABSTRACT ........................................... viii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION ............................... 1
Statement of the Problem ................ 1
Need for the Study ...................... 1
Description of the Model ................ 3
Definitions ............................. 4
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............... 6
Effects of Preschool Intervention ....... 7
Adolescents as Educational
Paraprofessionals .................... 11
Summary ................................. 14
III. OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES .................. 16
objectives .............................. 16
Hypotheses .............................. 16
IV. METHOD AND PROCEDURES ..................... 20
.Phe Sample and Design ................... 20
Instrumentation ......................... 22
Collecting the Data ..................... 25
Analysis of the Data .................... 26
Limitations of the Study ................ 26
V. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ....................... 28
Results Related to Hypotheses ........... 31
Additional Findings ..................... 58
Results Related to Objectives ........... 60
VI. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH .................... 62
V




TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued
Page
Summary ................................... 62
Discussion of Findings
(Adolescents) ......................... 63
Discussion of Findings
(Preschoolers) ........................ 70
Conclusion ............................... 71
Suggestions for Further Research ......... 72 APPENDIX A .......................................... 73
APPENDIX B .......................................... 86
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 90
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................. 93
vi




LIST OF TABLES
Table Page la How I See Myself Scale (School-Teacher) ......................... 32
lb How I See Myself Scale (Physical Appearance) .................... 34
lc How I See Myself Scale (Interpersonal Adequacy) ................. 35
ld How I See Myself Scale
(Autonomy Factor) ........................ 36
le How I See Myself Scale
(Academic Adequacy) ...................... 37
2 Social Reaction Inventory ................... 39
3 Attitude Toward Self ........................ 41
4 Attitude Toward Fellow Students ............. 42
5 Attitude Toward Parents ..................... 44
6 Attitude Toward Teachers .................... 45
7 Attitude Toward Guidance Counselors .......... 47 8 Attitude Toward School Principal ............ 48
9 Attitude Toward School ...................... 50
10 Attitude Toward Work ........................ 51
11 Attitude Toward Children .................... 53
12 Attitude Toward Police ...................... 54
13 Attitude Toward Government .................. 56
14 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test ............. 57
15 Raven Colour Progressive Matrix (cPM) ....... 59
vii




Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education
A MODEL FOR TRAINING MIGRANT ADOLESCENTS TO ASSUME
THE ROLE OF ADOLESCENT-EDUCATORS
WITH YOUNGER CHILDREN
By
Ramon Garcia
August, 1972
Chairman: Dr. C. Glen Hass Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction
This study was designed to develop and test an early childhood training model for training migrant adolescents to assume the role of adolescent-educatorswith younger children, especially those of preschool age. The study also sought to determine the effects that this training had on the adolescents and on the younger children. It was suggested that as a result of the training, changes in attitudes and self-concept would occur in the adolescents which would be significantly different from changes in the attitudes and self-concept in adolescents not trained. It was also suggested that changes in intellectual development would occur in the younger children who participated in the training program which would be significantly different from the intellectual development of younger children who did not participate in the training program.
viii




Procedure:
The How I See Myself Scale, the Social Reaction Inventory, and a Semantic Differential Scale were used in measuring self-concept, changes in locus of control, and attitudes of the adolescents. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) and the Raven Colour Progressive Matrix were used in measuring intellectual development of the younger children. These instruments were administered to subjects randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups.
Analysis of variance was used in analyzing the data collected in order to derive F scores. Where F's were significant at the .05 level for the interaction of treatment and pre- to posttest measurements, t-tests were performed to determine the probability of different posttest means (PI1 34 V2) occurring. In addition rank-order correlations of the Semantic Differential Referent Words for both groups of adolescents were also performed. Summary and Conclusions:
The statistical analysis of the data collected
on the adolescents and younger children permitted only one of the 15 null hypotheses to be rejected. This was the hypothesis dealing with change in the attitude towards children. However, notice was taken of the high rankorder correlation displayed by the experimental adolescent group.
ix




Although there were no other significant
differences related to the hypotheses, mean change did occur in every case. Examination of these changes revealed that the experimental adolescent group had a greater change in five of the five factors of the scale used to measure self concept and seven of the 11 attitudes measured by the Semantic Differential Scale.
In examining the changes in means from pre- to posttest by both groups these observations can be made. The experimental group showed gains in the expected direction in 14 of the 17 measures. The control group showed gains in the expected direction in five of the 17 measures. Both groups showed decrease in means from preto posttest in two measures. These were in their attitude towards police and government.
Both groups of younger children showed significant gains in the expected direction in one of the two measures of intellectual development. In the other measure, the control group showed an increase in mean in the expected direction while the experimental group showed a decrease in mean.
Suggestions for Further Research
These suggestions are offered for further research that would deal with the goals and objectives considered in this study:
X




1. Determine if preschoolers age 3.5--4.5 can be
trained to solve matrices similar to Raven
Colour Progressive Matrix.
2. Develope more refined instruments for
measuring the attitude of adolescents towards work, school, self, fellow students, guidance counselors, teachers, school principals, and
parents.
3. Develope instruments to measure the transfer
of learning from teacher to adolescent to
preschooler..
xi




CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Probtem
The purpose of this study was to develop an early childhood development training model for training migrant adolescents to assume the role of adolescent-educators with younger siblings, especially those of preschool age.
Need for the Study
Migrant adolescents are asked more and more to
assume the responsibility of adults, especially in the areas of teaching and rearing siblings as well as aiding in producing family income.
A large-scale study undertaken by the University of Miami on behalf of the Migrant Child Division of the Florida State Department of Education found that failure is what the school offers the migrant child in most cases. Failure was also what the school offered a generation earlier when the parents attended. Reconfirmation of their status as wretched people is not needed by migrants, but this reconfirmation is the greatest single effect the schools have on migrant children.




2
Parents cannot be counted on to assume the
responsibility for the education of their children since school is viewed as a day-care situation freeing them to work the fields without hindrance. As soon as the children are old enough to take care of themselves during the day, family pressure to attend school each day diminishes.
Thus the cycle continues: low educational level, low pay, hungry and neglected children, schools foreign to the language patterns and the culture of the children, early separation from school, and finally another generation of low pay and subsequent misery.
Congress recognized the urgency in developing
programs which will break the cycle of poverty and despair of the migrants as was evident in the H. R. Bill 6748, (Brademas Bill) which contained the following recommended action:
1. Sec. 102, (b), (11). services, including in-home
services, and training in the fundamentals of child development, for parents, older family
members functioning in the capacity of parents,
youth, and prospective parents.
2. Sec. 104, (a), (15). provides that, to the extent
appropriate, programs (for providing child development services) will include participation by paid paraprofessional aides and by volunteers,
especially parents and older children, and including
senior citizens, students, and persons preparing
for employment in child development programs.
This study sought to provide a' method for breaking the poverty cycle by training adolescents to assume the




-3
role of adolescent-educators and, equally important, to prepare them for the role of prospective parents.
Description of the Model
The model described herein was for use in the training of migrant adolescents, ages 14-17, attending Haines City High School, Haines City, Florida. These adolescents were trained each week during a ninety minute session held after school hours on Tuesdays at the high school.
The adolescents who participated in this project
were paid a stipend amounting to one dollar per hour for the hours spent in training (one and one-half hours per week) and in performing the home learning activities (one and onehalf hours per week). In addition, sixty-five cents per hour was paid (three hours per week) for the maintenance of the various records, reports, and other written assignments essential to the training project. The stipend and record maintenance allowance were paid, in cash, every two weeks.
The training model was made up of four areas.
Activities developed from each of these four areas were covered during each training session.
Area 1: Training in Early Childhood Developement.
Lectures, printed materials, discussions,
personal experiences, audio-visual materials,
and role-playing were used. Source book:
Mussen,P. H., The psychological development of the child. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963.




-4
Area 2: Home Learning Activites. These were
activities which adolescents took into the
home environment and performed with their younger siblings. The learning activities
were performed on a one-to-one basis and
the adolescents were instructed how to
engage in these activities. The home
learning activities were patterned after
Gordon, I. J., et al., Child learning through
child play. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1972. Commercial materials were also used
for these activities. The adolescents also trained the younger siblings on the strategies and concepts prerequisite to solving the Raven Progressive Matrices Tests (RPM) (Raven,
1960). Guinagh (1971) showed that college
graduates could successfully train young children (age eight years) in strategies which led to increased RPM scores. The
present study sought to determine if high
school adolescents could successfully train
preschool age children.
Area 3: Self-Concept Developement and Value Clarification
Activities. These activities were patterned
after Raths, L. E., et al., Values and teaching,
Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing
Co., 1966, Chapter 6.
Area 4: General Information Activities. Included in
this area were such services as vocational counseling, health information by medical/
health personnel, social security information,
and school information essential to parents
and to the younger sibling. The services of
a guidance counselor, a nurse, a social
security office representative and a representative from the welfare office were used
in providing these activities.
D efin it ions
Adolescent: For the purpose of this study an adolescent is defined as a male or female between the ages of 14 and 17'years as of September 1, 1971.
Adolescent-Educator: An adolescent as defined above who is assigned to the experimental group, who receives




5
training with the training model, and who assumes the role of educator with a preschool sibling.
Intervention Environment: A set of conditions which allows for enhancing an individual's intellectual development by providing individually designed stimulating experiences.
Migrant Child: The United States Office of Education defines a migrant child as "a migratory child of a migratory agricultural worker is a child who has moved with his family from one school district to another during the past year in order that the parent or other member of his family might secure employment in agriculture or in related food processing activities." Public Law 90-247 amended the definition to include migrant children whose parents have established a permanent residence within the past five years.
Parent: A person who takes the role of father, mother, or mothering one, and who assumes some degree of responsibility for a child's welfare.
Parent Educator: A person employed by the schools as a paraprofessional who is a member of the low socioeconomic community being served by the schools.
Teacher: A person who assumes the role of teacher in a teacher-learner activity. He can be a professional, a paraprofessional, a parent, another adult, or an older sibling.




CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The belief that the biological mother is the best
caretaker for her children has largely determined the form of child rearing in the United States. Recently, however, more and more of these mothers have begun assuming alternative social roles and responsibilities. Foremost among these new roles is that of employee. There are already more than four million children below six years of age whose mothers work, and this number is increasing (Zener, 1971).
This new role for the mother requires that the responsibility for rearing young children be assumed by a member of the family, the extended family, or an institution such as a nursery or day-care center. The latter, however, stops too soon and the young child is released at five to a home where the parent is still at work or exhausted from the day's toil. For this reason other members of the family can be expected to assume a larger role in rearing the young children in the family. Today it is not enough that these other family members "baby-sit" with the preschoolers. What is needed, instead, is a planned continuum of services provided by such agencies as day-care
6




7
centers and which range from child care during the day to home visitations by health and educational personnel to the development of home learning activities which involve the entire family. This study sought to show that older siblings can be trained to assume the role of adolescenteducators who can aid in providing these services especially in their own homes. This belief that adolescents can assist
in the rearing and educating of preschoolers was supported by Palmer (1972) who showed that younger children who were exposed to a setting where older children tutor them for at least two hours per week for eight months-be it a "structured" setting or a "discovery" setting-showed significantly better performance than the control group.
Effects of Preschoo4 Intervention
The effects of the environment, especially of the low socioeconomic environment, appear to be greatest in the early and more rapid periods of intellectual development and least in the later periods of development. The evidence so far available suggests that marked changes in the environment in the early years can produce greater changes in intelligence than will equally marked changes in the environment at later periods of development.
This makes it more difficult for the individual and for society to bring about a particular type of




development later in life than early in the history of, the individual. If remedial action and therapy are less effective at later stages in the individual's development, can we wait until it is too late?
Levenstein (1970) found that the general and verbal intelligence of low-income two- and three-year-old children increased in those preschoolers exposed to home-based stimulation of verbally oriented play activity between them and their parents. The goal of the study was to make the very young child's own parent the ultimate agent of his cognitive enrichment.
Gray and Klaus (1969) reported that
the most effective intervention program for preschool
children that could possibly be conceived is not a form
of innoculation whereby the child forever after is
immune to the effects of a low-income home and of a
school inappropriate to his needs. While these intervention programs may be expected to make some relatively
lasting changes, such programs, however, cannot be
expected to carry the whole burden of providing adequate
schooling for *children from deprived circumstances.
What these programs can do is provide a basis for future
progress in schools and homes that can build upon that
early intervention.
Bronfenbrenner (1969) reasoned that any program seeking to meet the educational needs of disadvantaged children must address itself not only to the development of cognitive competence but also to patterns of motivation and behavior appropriate to a productive, cooperative society. One effective form of environment intervention is exposure to models exhibiting the desired behavior patterns such as
members of his family or older children whom the child admires.




9
Schaefer (1969) confirmed the importance of verbal development during the second and third year of life for the intellectual development of the child. The fact that approximately four hours of tutoring per week can produce sizeable differences in test scores between the group which was tutored and the group that was not tutored suggested that mental growth during this period was highly related to the amount of intellectual stimulation provided infants whose parents did not have the time, talent, motivation, or resources to provide an adequate educational environment for their children.
It is during the transitional years from the
preschool period through the elementary school years that the child is first subject to the influence and the requirements of the broader culture. It is then that two environments are present for him: the home environment and the school environment. But it is also in these transitional (and especially in the pretransitional) years that the preschooler is most malleable. Thus, this is the point at which efforts might best be initiated to provide an intervention environment. This intervention should start before the child enters school and continue until he has made the transition into the school environment. Such intervention aids in the reconciliation of the home and school environments which is required especially for a




- 10
child from a disadvantaged background because there are wide discrepancies between the home and school milieu (Deutsch, 1966). The school and home are linked through the use of paraprofessionals who assume the role of parent educators. This paraprofessional spends half of her time working in the classroom developing educational material with the assistance of the classroom teacher and other school resource personnel. The other half of the time is spent visiting the homes of the children in the classroom.
Radin and Weikart (1967) suggested that a more
crucial aspect of the home visit part of the intervention environment may not be the parental involvement, but the opportunity provided for programming a curriculum to the individual needs of each child. It-is during these home visits made by the parent educator that the school is brought into the home. Armed with ideas for learning activities the parent educator instructs the parent in the techniques of teaching which will assist the parent in becoming a teacher in the home environment. The teacher, that is, the parent or other adult in the home, then has the needed freedom to present the next small step in the learning process and to provide the necessary reinforcement by working with only one student, her own child.
The Institute for the Development of Human
Resources' Home Learning Center Approach to Early Stimulation Project (Gordon, 1967) demonstrated the effectiveness




- 11
and practicability of a home center technique for cognitive language and personality development of children based upon the use of parent and child educators who were themselves members of the population to be served.
The Institute for the Development of Human Resources' Florida Parent Education approach (Gordon, 1971) has been used as a program model for Follow Through and Head Start Planned Variation Programs. The concept of the paraprofessional parent educator as the link between home and school has worked well as used by eleven communities in ten states. Further, the curricular and parent educator role has been adapted by several of the Parent and Child Centers serving families which have children between birth and three years of age.
Adolescents as Educational Paraprofessionals
Vidal A. Rivera, Chief of the Migrant Bureau, USQE,
(1970), challenged educators in those areas where the migrant is employed to establish a continuum in the educational structure of the migrant preschooler. The continuum allows for migrant children to be able to move from school to school without having to either repeat or miss schooling materials because the schools would pick up such students at the point where they left off in the last school they attended whether in Florida or Texas. In this manner




- 12
migrants would have ten full months of school per year instead of several one-month periods depending on the frequency of moves made by their parents. Rivera admitted that the challenge is an insurmountable task because our thinking in education has been geared around a stable community, with schedules, teacher assignments, and a school year of nine and one-half months. our thinking, thus, must become as mobile as these migrant children. To accomplish this new way of thinking, according to Rivera, we need to "overwork our imagination and creativity."
Reiff (1968) stated that the most important reason for using indigenous nonprofessionals is that they can be the mechanism for extending the educational process from thi school to the home, from the teacher to the mother, and from the school-aged child to the infant.
Bronfenbrenner (1970) believed that Head Start Programs bypass the most important aspect of family involvement-engaging parents and older children in new and more mutually rewarding patterns of interaction with the young. Particularly valuable in this connection are activities that involve and require more than one person in a pattern of interaction with the child; t hat is, not just the teacher and/or the mother but also the other adults and older children in the family.
Fowler (1971) reported that the marked and
general advances of high school adolescents in competence




-.13
and sensitivity to infant care and education through a one-year program of coordinated, theory-based and practical training argued well for the establishment of large-scale education programs for adolescents which will help meet the accelerating demand for infant care and education.
Cage et al. (1971) investigated the process of using adolescent-educators with preschool siblings in a pilot program at ZolfoSprings, Florida, during the winter and spring, 1971. Adolescents were employed to work with younger siblings as well as with other preschool children in the immediate neighborhood. The relationship proved very satisfactory with parents accepting it and at times voluntarily participating in the teaching of the schoolhome learning activities brought into the home by the adolescents. During this pilot program, these adolescents showed significant increase in the interpersonal adequacy factor of the "How I See Myself" Self-Concept Scale (Gordon, 1968).
The Texas Agricultural Extension Service (1971)
used a Spanish version of Gordon's (1967) games and ideas for infant learning. These games and ideas are being used by "Teen Teachers" and parents in a program to help their babies learn more effectively.
Since 1969 the high-schools of Odessa, Texas, have offered a Teacher Experience Program (1969). in which




- 14
selected high school seniors may enroll in a high school course in educational theory and work half days for a semester as teacher aides in elementary schools. The purpose of this program was to give interested high school seniors opportunities to relate with elementary school children in teaching and learning situations. Participation in this course allowed students to become involved in active life experiences in learning and teaching from which they will be better qualified to make intelligent decisions in regard to careers in education. Further, this program provided to some extent an end to the student's isolation from the world of work by combining school work outside the regular classroom situations as a part of the education experience.
The Education Development Center, Cambridge,
Massachusetts (1971), designed a program to teach adolescents how to assume responsible roles in caring for young children. A major aim of the program was for adolescents to master concepts in child development and to increase school and student contact with parents, community representatives, and day-care centers.
Summary
The research reported in this chapter showed that
it is worthwhile to develop further programs of home-oriented




- 15
early childhood education in which paraprofessionals are the main teachers. In this study this approach was adapted to migrant adolescents.




CHAPTER III
OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES
Objectives
The main objective of this study was to develop
and test a training model whereby migrant adolescents were trained to assume the role of adolescent-educators with younger siblings, especially those of preschool age. A second objective was to determine the effects that this training had on the adolescents. The third objective was to determine the effects that this training had on the younger siblings.
Hypotheses
The first hypothesis which follows will be used to determine the effects of this training on the self-concepts of the adolescents. The second hypothesis will be used to determine the eff-eQts of this training on the locus of control of the adolescents. The next eleven hypotheses will be used to determine attitudes of the adolescents studied toward each of the referent words presented in each part of the Semantic Differential Scale. The last two hypotheses will be used to determine the effects the adolescents had on the intellectual development of the preschooler as a result of the training received by the child.
- 16 -




- 17
1. There will be no significant differences (as
measured by the How I see Myself Scale) between
the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the subjects in the experimental
and control groups on the five factors of the
scale. The five factors are:
a. Teacher-School
b. Physical Appearance
c. Interpersonal Adequacy
d. Autonomy
e. Academic Adequacy
2. There will be no significant difference (as
measured by the Social Reaction Inventory) between
the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the locus of control of the subjects
in the experimental and control groups.
3. There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between
the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward self of the subjects in the experimental and control groups.
4. There will be no significant differences (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between
the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward fellow students
of the subjects in the experimental and control
groups.
5. There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between
the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward parents of the
subjects in the experimental and control groups.
6. There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between
the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward their teachers
of the subjects in the experimental and control
groups.




-18
7. There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between
the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward guidance
counselors of the subjects in the experimental and
control groups.
8. There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between
the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward their school
principal of the subjects in the experimental and
control groups.
9. There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between
the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward school of the
subjects in the experimental and control groups.
10. There will be no significant difference (as
measured by Semantic Differential Scale) between
the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward work of the subjects in the experimental and control groups.
11. There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between
the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward children of
the subjects in the experimental and control groups.
12. There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between
the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward police of the
subjects in the experimental and control groups.
13. There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between
the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward government of the subjects in the experimental and control
groups.
14. There will be no significant difference (as
measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test) between the means of the premeasurement and the
postmeasurement of the intellectual development of
the preschool subjects in the experimental and
control groups.




- 19
15. There will be no significant difference (as
measured by the Raven Colour Progressive Matrix) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the intellectual development
of the preschool subjects in the experimental
and control groups.




CHAPTER IV
METHOD AND PROCEDURES The Sample and Design
The population for this study was made up of migrant adolescents, ages 14-17, who were enrolled at the high school level, grades 10-12, in Polk County, Florida.
Polk County lies in South Central Florida. The county's school population is 57,386, of which 6,500 are classed as migrants. The county's main industry is citrus and citrus by-products. It is this industry that attracts the large number of Black and Mlexican-American migrants.
The identified migrant adolescents were placed in one of two groups: (1) those who had a younger sibling under six years of age and (2) all others. Group (1) was further divided into a subgroup (la), comprising those adolescents whose younger siblings were between the ages of 3.5 and 4.5. The large number (30) of adolescents in group (la) enrolled in Haines City High School led to the selection of this school as study site.
Twenty of the 30 adolescents in subgroup (la)
above were randomly selected using a table of random numbers (Glass & Stanley, 1970), and assigned to the training (experimental) group. The remaining ten adolescents
- 20 -




-21
together with ten adolescents randomly selected from group
(1) were assigned to the nontraining (control) group.
Thus, there were two groups of adolescents between the ages of 14-17, experimental and control. There were also two groups of younger siblings: (1) the experimental group made up of 20 younger siblings of the experimental adolescent group and (2) the control group made up of ten younger siblings of ten of the control group adolescents. Only 12 of the 20 siblings in the experimental group were enrolled in a preschool setting. The remaining eight were either kept by a relative or a neighbor while the mother worked. Only eight of the ten siblings in the control group were enrolled in the same preschool setting as the experimental group.
For evaluation purposes the study was conducted
in the following manner: (1) the 12 siblings enrolled in the preschool setting composed the experimental group and
(2) the control group was comprised of the eight siblings enrolled in the preschool setting and four other siblings randomly selected from the same preschool setting. The 20 adolescents assigned to the experimental group engaged in home learning activities with their younger siblings whether these youngsters were enrolled in the preschool setting or not.
The design for this study was the "Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design" (Campbell & Stanley, 1963).




- 22
Instrumentation
Both groups of adolescents were pre- and posttested with (1) the How I See Myself Scale; (2) the Social Reaction Inventory; and (3) a Semantic Differential Scale. The preschoolers were pre- and postested with (1) the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) and (2) the Raven Progressive Colour Matrix (CPM).
The "How I See Myself" Scale (HISM) (Gordon, 1968) was used to measure what effect, if any, the participation in this project had on the adolescents' self-concept. The scale contains five factors: (1) teacher-school; (2) physical appearance; (3) interpersonal adequacy; (4) autonomy; and (5) academic adequacy, relating to the self-concept. The scale consists of 40 opposite statements with five spaces in between. The subject reads both statements and then decides which of the two statements describes him the best or where in the five-point continuum he falls. The reliability coefficient for age groups similar to the one in this study was reported as .87,which is acceptable because the instrument was used for comparison of groups and not individual diagnosis. A copy of the HISM is included in Appendix A.
The Social Reaction Inventory was designed to assess the extent to which an individual categorized events as externally or internally controlled. It contains 29 items, six of which are dummy items not used in the scoring. _The scale appears to be internally consistent, reliable,




- 23
unidimensional, and has good discriminant and external validity. The split reliability ranges from .69 to .73.
Rotter (1966) reported one-month test-retest
reliabilities in the .70s while another study has shown a three-month reliability of .75. A copy of the SRI is included in Appendix A.
The Semantic Differential Scale (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1967) is considered a valuable and comprehensive tool for measuring generalized attitudes. The scale used in this study consisted of concepts. Each concept was followed by ten polar adjectives selected from those that measure the evaluative factor. Between each pair of polar adjectives there are seven spaces. The subject makes a mark along the seven-space continuum to indicate his attitude towards the concept. Osgood discovered, through factor analysis, three factors that his numerous pairs of polar adjectives measured. These factors are described as Potency, Activity, and Evaluation. Evans (1971) suggested seven factors: General Affect; Value; Success; Competence; Activity; Potency; and Ease. In addition, Evans cited 24 repeated concept-scale combinations used in his study which provided data on short term test-retest reliability ranging from .37 to .73. For combinations of six scales, use of the Spearman Brown formula indicated the corresponding reliabilities ranged from .80 to .94 and were thus very promising according to Evans. A Copy of the Semantic Differential Scale used in this study is included in Appendix A.




- 24
The preschoolers were assessed for intellectual growth using the (1) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)-primary form and (2) the Raven Colour Progressive Matrix (CPM).
The PPVT (Dunn, 1965) was designed as a measure
of the child's verbal intelligence as measured through his learning vocabulary. It has the advantage over many general intelligence tests in that it is specifically designed for children in the age group in this study.
The Raven Progressive Matrices, Sets A, B, C, D, and E,consist of 60 problems divided into five equal sets. In each set the first problem is as nearly as possible selfevident. The problems which follow become progressively more difficult. The scale is intended to cover the whole range of intellectual developement from the time a child is able to grasp the idea of finding a missing piece to complete a pattern, and to be sufficiently long to assess a person's maximum capacity to form comparisons and reason by analogy without being unduly exhausting or unwieldy. The Colour Progressive Matrix was used in this study due to the age of the children. Sets A, Ab, and B adequately cover all the cognitive processes of which children are usually capable. The scale has a retest reliability varying, with age, from 0.83 to 0.93 (Raven, 1960). The Colour Progressive Matrix (CPM), which is




-25
intended to measure inductive reasoning ability has been reported to correlate .91 with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Jacobs and Vandeventer, 1968).
Although the children in this study were younger than the recommended age for the CPM, it was used to assess the trainability of the younger children by the adolescents. Guinagh (1971) reported scores on the Raven Progressive Matrices can be substantially increased as the result of a training program. The adolescents engaged in a training program with their younger siblings used items similar to the CPM test items.
Collecting the Data
Pretesting of the adolescents and the preschoolers was conducted during the week of December 6, 1971. Both groups of adolescents were administered the three instruments, the How I See Myself Scale, the Social Reaction Inventory, and the Semantic Differential, during the same school day but at different periods of the day. All three instruments contained a standard set of instructions and were administered in group settings.
Both groups of preschoolers were pretested during the same week on an individual basis with one instrument being administered followed by a two-hour delay before the second instrument was administered. The same person administered both instruments after a "get acquainted" period of about a half-day in the classroom.




- 26
The posttesting was conducted on May 9, 1972. Both groups of adolescents were tested on the same day but at different periods. As during the pretesting, the subjects were advised that the results would not have any bearing on academic grades and the researcher remained present in the classroom setting during the entire testing periods.
The preschoolers' groups were posttested during the week of May 15, 1972. The researcher followed the same procedures as during the pretesting administration.
Analysis of the Data
Two way analysis of variance was used for treating the data collected on the adolescents and the preschoolers. A basic set of three F tests was performed comparing the within variance estimate to the variance estimate for:
(1) treatment and nontreatment; (2) pre- and postmeasurement; and (3) interaction between the treatment and the pre- and postmeasurement.
Limitations of the Study
It was recognized that assuming the role of
educator by an adolescent requires longer than the period of time involved in this study. The results of such a role will not be realized until much later in the preschoolers' and the adolescents' lives and any attempt to




-27
"package" a quick solution to educational deprivation in the life of migrant children was at best a superficial effort. However, the restrictions imposed by the academic
year scheduling have to be adhered to by both the researcher and the subjects in studies such as the one described here.
The researcher was not able to evaluate the performance of the adolescents while engaged in the learning activities with their younger sibling due to the lack of an "observer" and to the distance involved in traveling to and from the study site. There was no method of determining to what extent the adolescent adhered to the instruction received during the training sessions for engaging with their younger siblings in the home learning activities.




CHAPTER V
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The purpose of this study was to develop and test an early childhood development training model for training migrant adolescents to assume the role of adolescent-educators with younger siblings, especially those of preschool age. The adolescents who participated in this study were students in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades at Haines City High School, Florida. For comparison, a group of migrant adolescents from the same school and enrolled in the same grades was selected.
The model consisted of four areas, each of which contained activities designed for the adolescents to perform alone and activities for the adolescents to perform with their younger siblings.
Area one provided activities which inform the
adolescents about physical and intellectual development during early childhood. Area two provided home learning activities for the adolescent to perform with their younger siblings. Area three was designed specifically for the adolescents and was made up of self-concept and value clarification activities. Area four provided work and vocational information and counseling by a qualified
-28 -




- 29
counselor experienced in working with young adults. Although the model was designed primarily for training the adolescents, enough activities were provided which allowed the adolescents to put into practice what was learned about early childhood and to develop confidence in-their ability to carry out this new role.
In order to evaluate the training model, data were collected on a pre- and postbasis on both the adolescents and preschoolers. The adolescents were evaluated for changes in self-concepts, in locus of control, and in attitudes toward certain referent words. The preschoolers were evaluated for changes in intellectual development as reflected by changes in the Peabody Picture'Vocabulary Test scores and for their ability to be taught specific tasks as reflected by changes in the Raven Progressive Colour Matrix scores as a result of training received in solving the matrices. Both groups evaluated were compared to control groups composed of adolescents and preschoolers from similar backgrounds.
Pre- and postdata were collected about the
adolescents and analyzed at the University of Florida Computer Center using two way analysis of variance. In this study three-F tests were performed which allowed for the comparison of: (1) treatment and nontreatment;
(2) pre- and postmeasurements; and (3) interaction between




- 30
the treatment and the pre- and postmeasurements. In comparing the F's derived from the data collected on the adolescents, the critical value of F for the variables to be considered statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence was 4.20. This critical value of F was for degrees of freedom of 1 and 28.
Two-way analysis of variance was also used for treating the data collected on the preschoolers. Three F tests were performed which allowed for the comparison of
(1) treatment and nontreatment; (2) pre- and postmeasurement; and (3) interaction between the treatment and the pre- and postmeasurement. The critical value of F for the variables to be considered statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence was 4.28. This critical value of F was for degrees of freedom of 1 and 19.
A separate table of data for each hypothesis was
prepared. The number identifying the table corresponds to the hypothesis number. For example, Table 1 corresponds to hypothesis 1. Each table contains: (1) pre- and postmeans for experimental, control, and combined groups and differences and (2) analysis of variance.
Each hypothesis which was tested will be restated; statements will be made summarizing and explaining the data and each hypothesis will be accepted or rejected based on the statistical significance or nonsignificance of the data.




- 31
Results Related to Hypotheses Hypothesis 1
There will be no significant difference (as
measured by the How I See Myself Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the subjects in the experimental and control groups on the five factors of the scale. The five factors are:
a. Teacher-School
b. Physical Appearance
c. Interpersonal Adequacy
d. Autonomy
e. Academic Adequacy
Factor a: Teacher-School. The data in Table la
show that the experimental group changed +0.44 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -0.07 points. The F value for the difference between the changes from pre- to posttest between the experimental and control group is not significant. The null hypothesis for this factor cannot be rejected.
Factor b: Physical Appearance. The data in Table lb show that the experimental group changed +0.56 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed +0.36 points. The F value for the difference-between the change




- 32
TABLE la
How I See Myself Scale (School-Teacher)
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 26.44 26.88 26.66 +0.44 Control (N = 14) 25.71 25.64 25.68 -0.07 Total 26.10 26.30 Differences + 0.73 + 1.24
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 14.28 1 14.28 0.88 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 454.33 28 16.23
Within Subjects (B) 0.48 1 0.48 0.06 (N.S.) Interaction (AB) 0.98 1 0.98 0.11 (N.S.) Within 261.43 28 9.34
*F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




-33
from the pre- to posttest between the experimental and control group is not significant. The null hypothesis for this factor cannot be rejected.
Factor c: Inter personal Adequacy. The data in Table lc show that the experimental group changed -2.81 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed +0.42 points. The F value for the difference between the change from the pre-to posttest between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis for this factor cannot be rejected.
Factor d: Autonomy. The data in Table ld show that the experimental group changed +2.38 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed 0.00 points or no change. The F value for the difference between the change from the pre- to posttest between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis for this factor cannot be rejected.
Factor e: Academic Adequacy. The data in
Table le show that the experimental group changed +1.19 points from pretest to posttest. The control group, changed -0.86 points. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis for this factor cannot be rejected.




- 34
TABLE lb
How I See Myself Scale (Physical Appearance)
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 28.50 29.06 28.78 +0.56 Control (N = 14) 26.64 27.00 26.82 +0.36 Total 27.63 28.10 Differences + 1.86 + 2.06
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 57.36 1 57.36 0.62 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 2572.58 28 91.88
Within Subjects (B) 3.14 1 3.14 0.26 (N.S.) Interaction (AB) 0.19 1 0.19 0.02 (N.S.) Within 331.57 28 11.84
*F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 35
TABLE ic
How I See Myself Scale (Interpersonal Adequacy)
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 69.12 66.31 67.72 -2.81 Control (N = 14) 66.36 66.78 66.57 + .42 Total 67.83 66.53 Differences + 2.76 .47
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 19.72 1 19.72 0.20 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 2716.88 28 97.03
Within Subjects (B) 21.23 1 21.23 0.73 (N.S.) Interaction (AB) 39.14 1 39.14 1.35 (N.S.) Within 809.94 28 28.93
*F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 36
TABLE id
How I See Myself Scale (Autonomy Factor)
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 27.50 29.88 28.68 +2.38 Control (N = 14) 25.71 25.71 25.71 0.00 Total 26.67 27.93 Differences + 1.79 4.17
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 132.01 1 132.01 2.56(N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 1445.59 28 51.63
Within Subjects (B) 21.06 1 21.06 2.01 (N.S.) Interaction (AB) 21.07 1 21.07 2.01 (N.S.) Within 293.88 28 10.50
*F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 37
TABLE le
How I See Myself Scale (Academic Adequacy)
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 22.31 23.50 22.91 +1.19 Control (N = 14) 22.64 21.78 22.21 -0.86 Total 22.47 22.70 Differences 0.33 + 1.72
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 7.16 1 7.16 0.27 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 734.93 28 26.25
Within Subjects (B) 0.42 1 0.42 0.06 (N.S.) Interaction (AB) 15.60 1 15.60 2.43 (N.S.) Within 180.08 28 6.43
F* = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 38
Hypothesis 2
There will be no significant difference (as
measured by the Social Reaction Inventory) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the locus of control of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. In utilizing the Social Reaction Inventory as an instrument for measuring locus of control a decrease in the numerical value of the means from preto posttest indicates that the group believes less that events are controlled by external forces and more that events are controlled by internal forces.
The data in Table 2 show that the experimental
group changed -1.88 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -1.00 points. The F value for the difference between the change from the pre- to posttest between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The F value for within groups (B) for the comparison of all prescores against all postscores is significant at the .05 level of confidence.
Hypothesis 3
There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the




- 39
TABLE 2
SOCIAL REACTION INVENTORY Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 11.19 9.31 10.25 -1.88 Control (N = 14) 11.57 10.57 11.07 -1.00 Total 11.37 9.90 Differences .38 1.26
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 10.08 1 10.08 0.42 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 675.86 28 24.14
Within Subjects (B) 30.86 1 30.86 7.27 (Sig.) Interaction (AB) 2.86 1 2.86 0.67 (N.S.) Within 118.88 28 4.25
*F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 40
attitudes toward self of the subjects in the experimental and control groups.
The data in Table 3 show that the experimental
group changed +4.81 points for pretest to posttest. The control group changed +3.08 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The F value for within group (B) for the comparison of all prescores against all postscores is significant at the .05 level of confidence.
Hypothesis 4
There will be no significant differences (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitude toward fellow students of the subjects in the experimental and control groups.
The data in Table 4 show that the experimental
group changed +3.62 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -0.86 points from pretest to posttest. The F value of the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
Hypothesis 5
There will be no significant differences (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means




- 41
TABLE 3
ATTITUDE TOWARD SELF
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 63.50 68.31 65.91 +4.81 Control (N = 14) 62.28 65.36 63.82 +3.08 Total 62.93 66.93 Differences + 0.22 + 2.95
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 64.93 1 64.93 2.02 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 897.88 28 32.07
Within Subjects (B) 232.05 1 232.05 11.82 (Sig.) Interaction (AB) 11.32 1 11.32 0.58 (N.S.) Within 549.69 28 19.63
*F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 42
TABLE 4
ATTITUDE TOWARD FELLOW STUDENTS
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 58.44 62.06 60.25 +3.62 Control (N = 14) 61.43 60.57 61.00 -0.86 Total 59.83 61.37 Differences 2.99 + 1.49
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 8.40 1 8.40 0.08 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 2786.00 28 99.50
Within Subjects (B) 28.52 1 28.52 0.87 (N.S.) Interaction (AB) 75.02 1 75.02 2.28 (N.S.) Within 921.75 28 32.92
*F= 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 43
of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitudes toward parents of the subjects in the experimental and control groups.
The data on Table 5 show that the experimental
group changed +3.06 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed +1.72 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The F value for within groups (B) for the comparison of all prescores against all postscores is significant at the .05 level of confidence. Hypothesis 6
There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitude toward their teachers of the subjects in the experimental and control groups.
The data in Table 6 show that the experimental group changed +4.31 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -8.28 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The F value for the interaction (AB) is significant at the .05 level of confidence.




- 44
TABLE 5
Attitude Toward Parents
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 66.06 69.12 67.59 +3.06 Control (N = 14) 65.21 66.93 66.07 +1.72 Total 65.67 68.10 Differences + 0.85 + 2.19
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 34.65 1 34.65 1.66 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 585.13 28 20.90
Within Subjects (B) 85.17 1 85.17 7.77 (Sig.) Interaction (AB) 6.71 1 6.71 0.61 (N.S.) Within 306.88 28 10.96
*F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 45
TABLE 6
Attitude Toward Teachers Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 59.88 64.19 62.03 +4.31 Control (N = 14) 63.21 54.93 59.07 -8.28 Total 61.43 59.87 Differences 3.33 9.26
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 130.84 1 130.84 1.02 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 3595.38 28 128.41
Within Subjects (B) 58.92 1 58.92 1.06 (N.S.) Interaction (AB) 592.55 1 592.55 10.68 (Sig.) Within 1554.13 28 55.50
*F= 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 46
Hypothesis 7
There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitudes towards their guidance counselors of the subjects in the experimental and control groups.
The data in Table 7 show that the experimental
group changed +3.62 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -0.21 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
Hypothesis 8
There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward their school principal of the subjects in the experimental and control groups.
The data in Table 8 show that the experimental
group changed +1.76 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -3.78 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control group is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected.




- 47
TABLE 7
Attitude Toward Guidance Counselor
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 65.38 69.00 67.19 +3.62 Control (N = 14) 67.07 66.86 66.96 -0.21 Total 66.17 68.00 Differences 1.69 + 2.14
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 0.88 1 0.88 0.07 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 365.38 28 13.05
Within Subjects (B) 43.57 1 43.57 2.97 (N.S.) Interaction (AB) 54.89 1 54.89 3.74 (N.S.) Within 411.06 28 14.68
*F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 48
TABLE 8
Attitude Toward School Principal
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 63.62 65.38 64.50 +1.76 Control (N = 14) 61.71 57.93 59.82 -3.78 Total 62.73 61.90 Differences + 1.91 + 7.45
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 326.84 1 326.84 2.63 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 3484.63 28 124.45
Within Subjects (B) 15.40 1 15.40 0.35 (N.S.) Interaction (AB) 114.45 1 114.45 2.59 (N.S.) Within 1236.69 28 44.17
*F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 49
Hypothesis 9
There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitudes toward their school of the subjects in the experimental and control groups.
The data in Table 9 show that the experimental
group changed +4.00 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -1.64 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Hypothesis 10
There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitudes toward work of the subjects in the experimental and control groups.
The data in Table 10 show that the experimental
group changed +1.94 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -6.00 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The F value for the interaction (AB) is significant at the .05 level of confidence.




- 50
TABLE 9
Attitude Toward School
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental ( N = 16) 61.56 65.56 63.56 +4.00 Control (N = 14) 59.14 57.50 58.32 -1.64 Total 60.43 61.80 Differences + 2.42 + 8.06
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 410.20 1 410.20 1.97 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 5815.50 28 207.70
Within Subjects (B) 20.71 1 20.71 0.72 (N.S.) Interaction (AB) 118.88 1 118.88 4.12 (N.S.) Within 807.63 28 28.84
*F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 51
TABLE 10
Attitude Toward Work
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 62.50 64.44 63.47 +1.94 Control (N = 14) 63.21 57.21 60.21 -6.00 Total 62.83 61.07 Differences 0.71 + 7.23
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 158.20 1 158.20 1.05 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 4226.25 28 150.94
Within Subjects (B) 61.60 1 61.60 2.64 (N.S.) Interaction (AB) 235.20 1 235.20 10.09 (Sig.) Within 652.44 28 23.30
*F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 52
Hypothesis 11
There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitudes toward children of the subjects in the experimental and control groups.
The data in Table 11 show that the experimental group changed +3.31 points for pretest to posttest. The control group changed -1.42 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control groups is significant. The null hypothesis is rejected.
Hypothesis 12
There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitudes toward police of the subjects in the experimental and control groups.
The data in Table 12 show that the experimental
group changed -1.93 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -7.32 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control group is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The F value for (B) is significant at the .05 level of confidence.




- 53
TABLE Ii
Attitude Toward Children
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 64.44 67.76 66.09 +3.31 Control (N = 14) 61.78 60.36 61.07 -1.42 Total 63.20 64.30 Differences + 2.66 + 7.39
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 376.66 1 376.66 5.62 (Sig.) Subjects Within
Groups 1877.13 28 67.04
Within Subjects (B) 13.18 1 13.18 0.34 (N.S.) Interaction (AB) 83.94 1 83.94 2.16 (N.S.) Within 1089.44 28 38.91
*F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 54
TABLE 12
Attitude Toward Police Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 57.12 55.19 56.16 -1.93 Control (N = 14) 59.43 52.21 55.82 -7.22 Total 58.20 53.80 Differences 2.31 + 2.98
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 1.63 1 1.63 0.01 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 6159.38 28 219.98
Within Subjects (B) 312.61 1 312.61 4.91 (Sig.) Interaction (AB) 104.01 1 104.01 1.63 (N.S.) Within 1782.63 28 63.67
*F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 55
Hypothesis 13
There will be no significant difference (as
measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitudes toward government of the subjects in the experimental and control groups.
The data in Table 13 show that the experimental
group changed -5.47 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -0.71 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
Hypothesis 14
There will be no significant difference (as
measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of intellectual development of the preschool subjects in the experimental and control groups.
The data in Table 14 show that the experimental
group changed +13.44 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed +9.25 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control group is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The F value for within group (B) for the comparison of all prescores against all postscores is significant at the .05 level of confidence.




- 56
TABLE 13
Attitude Toward Government Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 59.19 53.62 56.41 -5.47 Control (N = 14) 56.71 56.00 56.36 -0.71 Total 58.03 54.73 Differences + 2.48 2.38
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 0.06 1 0.06 0.00 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 5929.69 28 211.77
Within Subjects (B) 147.12 1 147.12 1.92 (N.S.) Interaction (AB) 87.73 1 87.73 1.14 (N.S.) Within 2147.38 28 76.69
*F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05




- 57
TABLE 14
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 9) 69.89 83.33 76.61 13.44 Control (N = 12) 77.25 86.50 81.88 9.25 Total 73.57 84.91 Differences 7.36 3.17
Analysis of Variance
Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 285.15 1 285.15 2.13 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 2545.94 19 134.00
Within Subjects (B) 1324.57 1 1324.57 11.75 (Sig.) Interaction (AB) 45.04 1 45.04 0.40 (N.S.) Within 2142.25 19 112.75
*F = 4.38, df = 1,19, p < .05




- 58
Hypothesis 15
There will be no significant difference (as
measured by the Raven Colour Progressive Matrix) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of intellectual development of the preschool subjects in the experimental and control groups.
The data in Table 15 show that the experimental
group changed -1.11 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed +.75 from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control group is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
Additional Findings
During the study attendance records were kept on the adolescents. Despite their knowledge that payday occurred every two weeks and that failure to be present on payday would mean having to wait an additional two weeks, the rate of absenteeism on paydays was three times higher than on nonpaydays. A second finding was that the adolescents accomplished almost twice as much work as the minimum required by the study. A third finding was reported by the guidance counselor working with the experimental group. In a preference inventory that the counselor administered none of the adolescents showed a preference




- 59
TABLE 15
Raven Colour Progressive Matrix (CPM)
Pre- and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and
Combined Groups and Differences
Pre- PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 9) 8.89 7.78 8.33 -1.11 Control (N = 12) 9.17 9.92 9.54 + .75 Total 9.03 8.85 Differences 0.28 2.14
Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 15.02 1 15.02 2.87 (N.S.) Subjects Within
Groups 99.46 19 5.23
Within Subjects (B) 0.34 1 0.34 0.31 (N.S.) Interaction (AB) 8.91 1 8.91 3.56 (N.S.) Within 47.57 19 2.50
*F = 4.38, df = 1,19, p < .05




60
for the outdoors, although admittedly everyone of them had, worked in the citrus fields during the Christmas, 1971, school break.
Results ReZated to Objectives
The main objective of this study was to develop
and test a training model whereby migrant adolescents were trained to assume the role of adolescent-educator with younger siblings, especially those of preschool age. The model was designed and seventeen weekly training units were developed during the duration of the study. Each training unit contained activities from each of the four areas of the model.
The testing of the model occurred when the adolescents were (1) assigned a preschool sibling;
(2) instructed in the techniques for teaching preschoolers;
(3) given materials to use in these teaching sessions;
(4) engaged in activities designed to enhance their selfconcept and the clarification of their values; and (5) were measured on a pre- and postbasis along with their younger siblings to determine what changes had occurred as a result of the training received when compared to control groups of adolescents and preschoolers. The main objective was met.
A second objective was to determine the effects that this training had on the adolescents. The data




61
collected during this study indicate that the adolescents in the experimental group (1) did not show significant gains in the five factors of the instrument designed to measure self-concept when compared to the control group;
(2) did not show significant gains on the instrument designed to measure the extent to which an individual categorizes events as externally or internally controlled when compared to the control group; and (3) showed significant positive change in their attitudes towards only one of the eleven referent words used on an instrument designed to measure attitudes. It is not possible to determine the effects that this training had on the adolescents.
The third objective was to determine the effects that this training had on the younger siblings (preschoolers). The data collected indicate that the preschoolers who engaged in home learning activities with their trained adolescent siblings (1) did not show significant gains on the instrument (PPVT) designed to measure intellectual development when compared to a control group; and (2) did not show significant gains in the instrument utilized to measure the effectiveness of the training in solving progressive matrices received from their adolescent siblings. It is not possible to determine the effects that this training had on the preschoolers.




CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Summary
This study was undertaken to design and test a
model for training migrant adolescents to assume the role of adolescent-educators with their younger siblings. The study was conducted during the period December 1971, to May 1972, at Haines City High School, Haines City, Florida. The model was designed to train adolescents in early childhood development in order for these adolescents to function in the role of educators when armed with home learning activities designed for preschoolers. The model also provided self-concept and value clarification activities designed to allow the adolescent the opportunities to (1) learn more about himself and (2) form opinions and make judgements about certain controversial and youth oriented situations.
It was suggested that the various activities in which the adolescents would engage would lead to a more positive self-concept, a reduction in the locus of control of his environment, and changes in attitudes when compared to a control group of adolescents from similar background
62




- 63
not exposed to these activities. In addition, as a result of the adolescents engaging in home learning activities with their younger siblings these preschoolers would show significant gains in intellectual development when compared to a group of preschoolers from similar background who did not engage in home learning activities.
The How I See Myself Scale, the Social Reaction
Inventory, and a Semantic Differential Scale were used to evaluate the adolescents while the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and the Raven Colour Progressive Matrix were used to evaluate the preschoolers. Pretest data were collected in December, 1971, and posttest data were collected in May,1972. These data were analyzed using twoway analysis of variance to derive F scores. These F scores were compared to F scores at the .05 level of significance.
Fifteen variables (one for each hypothesis) were analyzed in this manner. All 15 hypotheses were stated in the null and were rejected or not rejected according to the F scores derived for each hypothesis.
Discussion of Findings (Adolescents)
The statistical analysis of the data permitted one of the thirteen null hypotheses pertaining to the adolescents to be rejected. This was hypothesis number 11




-64
which dealt with changes in attitude toward children by the experimental adolescent group. This was .caused by a significant rise in the means of the experimental group and a slight drop in the means of the control group. The training model was designed to train the experimental adolescent group to assume the role of adolescent-educator with their younger sibling. A significant positive change in attitude from pre- to posttest toward children was one of the desired outcomes of the study. The many opportunities afforded the adolescents to interact with their younger siblings on a one-to-one basis was probably the main reason for this significant change.
In examining the data relative to hypothesis
number one, concerning self-concept and measured with the How I See Myself Scale, the experimental group had a greater change in means from pre- to posttest than the control group in four of the five factors of the scale. Although the gain was not significant it is neverthelesswelcome in light of the short span of time between measurements but most important in light of the tendency for the self-concept of many students to become negative with time (Purkey, 1970). The experimental group did show a decrease in means from pre- to posttest in the Interpersonal Adequacy factor. This decrease was probably due to measurement error during the pretesting since




-65
studies have shown that adolescents tend to show an increase in means from pre- to posttesting in this factor. Cage et al. (1971) reported a significant gain from preto posttest in the Interpersonal Adequacy factor for an adolescent group very similar to the experimental and control groups in this study. The belief that the decrease in means was due to error in premeasurement was further supported by the findings obtained by the use of the Social Reaction Inventory. The change in means from pre- to posttest for both groups was in the desired direction. Gordon (1968) stated that, "there is low, but significant correlation in the expected direction between changes in means on the Interpersonal Adequacy factor and the Social Reaction Inventory." Thus, since the means did not increase from pre- to posttest as the cited studies have shown, the possibility of pretest error was strengthened.
The small changes in means from pre- to posttest as measured by the Social Reaction Inventory experienced by both groups was in'the desired direction. This was probably due to maturation by the subjects in both groups although the experimental group did show a greater change (-1.88 vs. -1.00) in the desired direction.
In examining the data relative to the attitude changes from pre- to posttest as measured by a Semantic




- 66
Differential Scale a Spearman rank-order correlation comparison was performed for the pre- and postdata for both groups. Figure 1 (Appendix B) shows the pre- and postrank-orders for both groups. The pre-post rank correlation (r 8) for the experimental group was .91, which was significant at the .01 level. The pre-post rank correlation (r S) for the control group was .52, which did not reach significance at the .05 level. The high correlation displayed by the experimental group was probably due to the members of the group becoming more alike as the training progressed. In addition, the training model sought to directly influence the attitude of the experimental group towards nine of the 11 referent words used in the Semantic Differential Scale.
In viewing the changes in attitude towards fellow students, guidance counselors, school principal, and school, the experimental group showed consistent greater increases in means from pre- to postmeasurement than the control group. It is highly possible that the gains shown in the attitudes towards fellow students by the experimental group was due to the interaction which the members of this group engaged in with each other during the training sessions. The gain shown in the attitude toward guidance counselors was probably caused by the guidance counselor who worked with the experimental group during the study. The counselor was a young man in his




- 67
early twenties who sported a beard, rode a motorcycle, and communicated very well with young people. The experimental group probably developed a more positive attitude towards the young man serving as their counselor while the control group developed a less positive attitude towards the regular school counselors. This probability is supported by a study conducted by Boyle (1971) in which a similar instrument was used to measure changes in attitudes towards guidance counselors by high school students in Alachua County, Florida. Boyle showed that his'experimental and control groups dropped in means from pre- to posttest.
In comparing the attitude changes towards school of the experimental and control groups the experimental group showed a gain in the means from pre- to posttest while the control group showed a loss in means. Again citing Boyle, the experimental and control groups in that study showeda-a significant drop in means from pre- to postmeasurement. In addition, Purkey (1970) cited several studies which indicated that the image of school grows gradually less positive with time. These studies support the belief that the attitude towards school should be less positive in May than in September. Yet, the present study showed that the experimental group's attitude toward school became more positive with time. Because the training




- 68
model allowed for the subjects in the experimental group to see themselves as a part of the schooling institution when engaged in home learning activities with their younger siblings, it is highly possible that school became more meaningful to the experimental group causing a positive change in their attitude.
The attitude toward self and parents of both
experimental and control groups became more positive from pre- to postmeasurement. While the attitudes towards self should decrease as a result of the image of school held by the student (Purkey, 1970), this was not the case in the present study. However, it was only when the attitude towards self was viewed along with the attitude towards parents that a possible explanation became apparent. As stated in the review of related literature Chapter II, parents of migrant children view school as a day-care situation freeing them to work the fields without hindrance. This probably prevents the school-age child from viewing school as his center 'of social life and instead see the home or the neighborhood as that center. This probably accounted for the school not having an influence over their self-concept.
The home or neighborhood as the center of social life also helped to explain the findings in measuring the attitude towards police and government of both groups.




- 69
Both groups showed significant decrease in the means from pre- to postmeasurement of attitudes towards police. The migrant families as well as their children probably saw the police as a negative influence in their lives. The same attitude was held toward government. Their mobile lives did not permit the migrants to use the services of government and thus saw only the demands placed on them by the various levels of government.
In viewing the attitude changes toward teacher and work, the experimental group showed a gain from pre- to postmeasurement in both attitudes; however, the control group showed a decrease in means. These changes in means from pre- to posttest are displayed in Figures 2 and 3 (Appendix B). These figures show that the pretest mean of the control group was greater than the pretest mean of the experimental group and that the posttest mean of the control decreaseswhile the posttest mean of the experimental group increases thereby causing a significant F value (P < .01) for the (B x Subj. W. Groups) interaction as shown in Tables 6 and 10. A t-test for the difference between the two means was performed to determine the probability of the observed difference appearing if, in fact, the null hypothesis of no difference between means (P1 P2 = 0) was true. For the attitude towards teachers, t = 2.14, which was significant for p < .05, while for the




- 70
attitude towards work, t = 1.91, which was also significant for p < .05. The null hypotheses (1 P2 = 0) were rejected since the probability of the difference between means occurring by chance was less than .05. The difference in means, however, favored the experimental group. The opportunities afforded the experimental group to see themselves as teachers of younger children and the pay received for doing this type of work probably contributed to a more positive attitude towards teachers and work
Discussion of Findings (Preschoolers)
The statistical analysis of the data collected on the preschoolers did not permit either of the two null hypotheses to be rejected.
While the experimental preschool group showed a
greater gain in the Peabody Picture Vocabulary test scores, the gain was not statistically significant. It is difficult to determine whether this lack of significance was caused by the short length of time during which the study was conducted or by the equally short length of time that the adolescents spent performing the home learning activities with the experimental group preschoolers. Both groups showed significant gains in the mean from pre- to postmeasurement because the PPVT is an achievement instrument and both groups were enrolled in a preschool educational setting.




- 71
The drop in mean scores from pre to post in the
Raven Colour Progressive Matrix by the experimental group and the gain shown by the control group can be explained in terms of the teaching activities engaged in by the experimental adolescent group and the experimental preschooler group. The activities designed to teach the preschoolers how to solve the progressive matrices were printed in black and white while the Raven Colour Progressive Matrix was in color. This might have produced confusion for the experimental group and caused the decrease in the mean whereas the control group showed normal growth from pre- to postmeasurement.
Conclusion
The model for training migrant adolescents to
assume the role of adolescent-educators showed that it has the potential to accomplish its objectives. The significant change in attitude toward children shown by the experimental group indicated that that area of the model dealing with training in early childhood education had an influence on migrant adolescent-educators. The other areas of the model do not show a significant difference in the attitude of the experimental adolescent group nor in the performance of the experimental preschooler group. The fact that the experimental adolescent group showed




- 72
greater gains in 13 of the 17 measures suggested that modifications were in order, but a complete overhaul of the model was not warranted. The data collected on the preschoolers suggested that the model should incorporate the monitoring of the adolescents while engaged in the home learning activities with the preschooler.
Suggestions for Further Research
These suggestions are offered for further research that would deal with the goals and objectives considered in this study:
1. Determine if preschoolers ages 3.5--4.5 can be
trained to solve matrices similar to Raven
Colour Progressive Matrix.
2. Develope more refined instruments for measuring
the attitude of adolescents towards work, school,
self, fellow students, guidance counselors,
teachers, school principals, and parents.
3. Develope instruments to measure the transfer
of learning from teacher to adolescent to
preschooler.




APPENDIX A




Institute for Development of Human Resources College of Education University of Florida Follow Through Project SOCIAL REACTION INVENTORY* Parent Name City Child's Name Date Child's Teacher Collected By I More Strongly BeZieve That:
1- a. Children get into trouble because their pa rents punish them too much.
b. The trouble with most children today is that their
parents are too easy with them.
2. a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives ar e partly due to bad luck.
b. People's troubles result from the mistakes they make.
3. a. one of the biggest reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough interest in government.
b. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try
to prevent them.
4. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world.
b. It is the sad truth that an individual's worth often
passes without being recognized no matter how hard he
tries.
5. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is "hot
air."
b. Most students don't realize how much their grades are
influenced by accident or chance.
6. a. Without the right breaks one cannot be a good and able
leader.
b. Able people who fail to become leaders have not taken
advantage of their opportunities.
74




75
SOCIAL REACTION INVENTORY-Continued
7. a. No matter how hard you try, some people just don't like you.
b. People who can't get others to like them, don't understand
how to get along with others.
8. a. What a person is born with plays the biggest part in determining what they are like.
b. It is one's experiences in life which determine what
they are like.
9. a. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.
b. Putting trust in fate has never turned out as well for
me as making a plan to take a certain course of action. 10. a. In the case of the well prepared student there is hardly
ever such a thing as an unfair test.
b. Many times test questions tend to be so different from
class work, that studying is really a waste of time., 11. a. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has
little or nothing to do with it.
b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right
place at the right time.
12. a. The average citizen can have an influence in government
plans.
b. This world is run by a few people in power, and there is
not much the little guy can do about it.
13. a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make
them work.
b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many
things turn out to be a matter of good or bad luck anyhow. 14. a. There are certain people who are just no good.
b. There is some good in everybody.
15. a. In my case, getting what I want has little or nothing to
do with luck.
b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by
tossing a coin.




-76
SOCIAL REACTION INVENTORY-Continued
16. a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky
enough to be in the right place first.
b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon being
able, luck has little or nothing to do with it.
17. a. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are
pushed around by forces we can neither understand, nor
control.
b. By taking an active part in government and social affairs
the people can control world events.
18. a. Most people don't realize the point to which their lives
are controlled by accident and chance.
b. There is really no such thing as "luck."
1 9. a. One should always be willing to admit his mistakes.
b. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes.
20. a. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes
you.
b. How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person
you are.
21. a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are
made up for by the good ones.
b. Most troubles are the result of lack of know-how, lack
of knowledge, being lazy, or all three.
22. a. With enough effort we can clean up dirty government.
b. It is difficult for people to have much control over the
things government leaders do in office.
23. a. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the
grades they give.
b. The harder I study the better grades I get.
24. a. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves
what they should do.
b. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their
jobs are.




-77
SOCIAL REACTION INVENTORY--Continued
25. a. Many times I'feel that I have little influence over the
things that happen to me.
b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck
plays an important part in my life.
26. a. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly.
b. There is not much use in trying too hard to please
people-if they like you, they like you.
27. a. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school.
b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character. 28. a. What happens to me is my own doing.
b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the
direction my life is taking.
29. a. Most of the time I cannot understand why politicians
behave the way they do.
b. In the long run, the people are responsible for bad
government on a national as well as on a local level.
*Adapted by Larry M. Bilker, Institute for Development of Human Resources, College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32601, from the Rotter I-E Scale.




78
Name: Grade: Sex: Age: School: Secondary Form
HOW I SEE MYSELF
Developed by Ira J. Gordon, Director, Institute for Development .of Human Resources, College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32601.
1. 1 rarely get real mad 1 2 3 4 5 1 get mad easily
2. 1 have trouble staying 1 2 3 4 5 1 stick with a job with one job until I until I finish
finish
3. 1 am a good artist 1 2 3 4 5 1 am a poor artist 4. 1 don't like to work 1 2 3 4 5 1 enjoy working on on committees committees
5. 1 wish I were taller 1 2 3 4 5 1 am just the right or shorter height
6. 1 worry a lot 1 2 3 4 5 1 seldom worry
7. 1 wish I could do 1 2 3 4 5 My hair is nicesomething with my looking
hair
8. Teachers like me 1 2 3 4 5 Teachers dislike me 9. 1 have a lot of 1 2 3 4 5 1 have little energy energy
10. 1 am a poor 1 2 3 4 5 1 am good at
athlete athletics
11. 1 am just the right 1 2 3 4 5 1 wish I were lighter
weight or heavier
12. The girls don't 1 2 3 4 5 The girls admire me
admire me
13. 1 am good at speaking 1 2 3 4 5 1 am poor at speaking
before a group before a group
14. My face is very 1 2 3 4 5 1 wish my face was
pretty (good looking) prettier (better looking)
15 1 am good at musical 1 2 3 4 5 1 am poor at musical
things things




- 79
HOW I SEE MYSELF-Continued
16. I get along very well 1 2 3 4 5 I don't get along
with teachers well with teachers 17. I dislike teachers 1 2 3 4 5 I like teachers 18. I am seldom at ease 1 2 3 4 5 I am usually at ease
and relaxed and relaxed
19. 1Ido not like to try 1 2 3 4 5 1Ilike to try new
new things things
20. 1 have trouble 1 2 3 4 5 1 control my feelings
controlling my very well
feelings
21. I do very well in 1 2 3 4 5 I do not do well in
school school
22. I want the boys to 1 2 3 4 5 I don't want the boys
admire me to admire me
23. I don't like the way 1 2 3 4 5 I like the way I
I look .look
24. I don't want the 1 2 3 4 5 I want the girls to
girls to admire me admire me
25. I am quite healthy 1 2 3 4 5 I am sick a lot 26. 1lam apoor dancer 1 2 3 4 5 1lam agood dancer 27. Science is easy for 1 2 3 4 5 Science is difficult
me for me
28. I enjoy doing 1 2 3 4 5 I don't like to do
individual projects individual projects 29. It is easy for me to 1 2 3 4 5 I have trouble
organize my time organizing my time 30. I am poor at making 1 2 3 4 5 I am good at making
things with my hands things with my hands 31. 1 wish I could do 1 2 3 4 5 My skin is nicesomething about my looking
skin
32. Social studies is 1 2 3 4 5 Social studies is
easy for me difficult for me
3.3. Math is difficult 1 2 3 4 5 Math is easy for me
for me




- 80
HOW I SEE MYSELF-Continued
34. I am not as smart as 1 2 3 4 5 I am smarter than
my classmates most of my classmates 35. The boys admire me 1 2 3 4 5 The boys don't admire me
36. My clothes are not 1 2 3 4 5 My clothes are very
as nice as I'd like nice
37. I like school 1 2 3 4 5 I dislike school 38. I wish I were built 1 2 3 4 5 I like my build
like the others
39. 1 am a poor reader 1 2 3 4 5 1 am a very good reader
40. I do not learn new 1 2 3 4 5 I learn new things
things easily easily
41. I present a good 1 2 3 4 5 I present a poor
appearance appearance
42. I do not have much 1 2 3 4 5 1 am full of
confidence in myself confidence in myself




- 81
SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE
INSTRUCTIONS: There are no right or wrong answers to this questionnaire. It has no bearing on your grade in any course. All information will be kept CONFIDENTIAL. Mark the column that best expresses your feelings between the descriptive words toward the named persons or people. A. I feel towards myself:
1. good bad
2. ugly beautiful
3. clean dirty
4. worthless valuable
5. kind cruel
6. unpleasant pleasant
7. happy sad
8. awful nice
9. honest dishonest
10. unfair fair B. I feel towards my fellow students:
1. good bad
2. ugly beautiful
3. clean dirty
4. worthless valuable
5. kind cruel
6. unpleasant pleasant
7. happy sad
8. awful nice
9. honest dishonest
10. unfair fair




- 82
ATTITUDES-Continued
C. I feel towards my parents:
1. good bad
2. ugly beautiful
3. clean dirty
4. worthless valuable
5. kind cruel
6. unpleasant pleasant
7. happy sad
8. awful nice
9. honest dishonest
10. unfair fair
D. I feel towards my teachers:
1. good bad
2. ugly beautiful
3. clean dirty
4. worthless .valuable
5. kind cruel
6. unpleasant . . .pleasant
7. happy sad
8. awful nice
9. honest . .dishonest
10. unfair fair
E. I feel towards my guidance counselors:
1. good bad
2. ugly beautiful
3. clean' dirty




- 83
ATTITUDES---Continued
4. worthless' valuable
5. kind cruel
6. unpleasant pleasant
7. happy sad 8. awful nice
9. honest dishonest
10. unfair fair
F. I feel towards my principal:
1. good bad
2. ugly beautiful
3. clean dirty
4. worthless valuable
5. kind cruel
6. unpleasant : : pleasant
7. happy sad 8. awful nice
9. honest dishonest
10. unfair : : : fair G. I feel towards my school:
1. good bad
2. ugly beautiful
3. clean dirty
4. worthless : : : : valuable
5. kind cruel
6. unpleasant : : : : pleasant




- 84
ATTITUDES--Continued
7. happy sad
8. awful nice
9. honest dishonest
10. unfair fair H. I feel towards work:
1. good bad
2. ugly beautiful
3. clean dirty
4. worthless valuable
5. kind cruel
6. unpleasant pleasant
7. happy sad
8. awful nice
9. honest dishonest
10. unfair fair
I. I feel towards children:
1. good bad
2. ugly beautiful
3. clean dirty
4. worthless : : : valuable
5. kind cruel
6. unpleasant pleasant
7. happy : sad
8. awful nice
9. honest : . dishonest
10. unfair fair




- 85
ATTITUDES-Continued
J. I feel towards police:
1. good bad
2. ugly beautiful
3. clean dirty
4. worthless valuable
5. kind cruel
6. unpleasant pleasant
7. happy sad
8. awful nice
9. honest : : dishonest
10. unfair : fair K. I feel towards government:
1. good bad
2. ugly beautiful
3. clean dirty
4. worthless : : : : valuable
5. kind cruel
6. unpleasant : : : pleasant
7. happy : sad
8. awful nice
9. honest dishonest
10. unfair : : : fair




APPENDIX B




EXPERIMENTAL GROUP CONTROL GROUP
Pre- Post- Pre- Post1. Parents Parents 1. Guidance Parents Counselors
2. Guidance Guidance Counselors Counselors 2. Parents Guidance
Counselors
3. Children Self
3. Teachers Self
4. Principal Children
4. Work Fellow
5. Self School Students
6. Work Principal 5. Self Children
7. School Work 6. Children Principal,
8. Teachers Teachers 7. Principal School
9. Government Fellow 8. Fellow Work Students Students
10. Fellow Police 9. Police Government
Students
10. School Teachers 11. Police Government 11. Government Police
r. = .91, which is signifi- rs = .52, which is not significant for p < .01. cant for p < .05.
Figure 1. Rank-Order Correlation-Semantic Differential
Referent Words.
87




- 88
66.00
64.00- (64.19)
(63.21)
62.00
6 2.0 (62.03)
60.00(59.88)
58.0056.00-(54.93)
54.00
Premeans Postmeans Figure 2. Attitude Toward Teachers-Pre- and Postmeans for
Experimental and Control Groups.




- 89
66.00
64.00 )Experimental (6
(64.44)
(63.21) (63.47) 62.00 (62.50)
60.00- (60.21)
58.00(57.21)
56.00
54.00
Premeans Postmeans Figure 3. Attitude Toward Work-Pre- and Postmeans for
Experimental and Control Groups.




Full Text

PAGE 1

A MODEL FOR TRAINING MIGRANT ADOLESCENTS TO ASSUME THE ROLE OF ADOLESCENT-EDUCATORS WITH YOUNGER CHILDREN By RAMON GARCIA A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1972

PAGE 2

To Beatrice Calderon Garcia

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people contributed to this study, however, there are some who gave much of their time to insure that the study developed as planned. The writer wishes to single out the following people for giving extra time and effort. Professor c. G. Hass was most helpful in guiding the writer both before and after the study was completed. Professor Doyle Casteel contributed suggestions and recommendations which made the writer more objective in approaching the study. Professor John Newell's many recommendations on the research part of the study proved very helpful and made the study more meaningful. Professor Bob Cage's direction of the statistical analysis and personal interest in the study were very helpful. Mr. Martin Mills and Mrs. Mary Whitesides for their assistance in obtaining the site and the population for this study. The migrant adolescents of Haines City High School for participating and helping the writer stay abreast of the real world. iii

PAGE 4

My daughter, Kelly Rae, who served as a tester for many of the materials and ideas used in this study.

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . iii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . vii ABSTRACT Chapter I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem ........ 1 Need for the Study ............ 1 Description of the Model .......... 3 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............. 6 Effects of Preschool Intervention....... 7 Adolescents as Educational Paraprofessionals ................ 11 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 III. OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES ......... 16 Objectives Hypotheses 16 16 IV. METHOD AND PROCEDURES ...... 20 The Sample and Design ................. 20 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Collecting the Data .................. 25 Analysis of the Data .................. 26 Limitations of the Study ....... 26 V. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 28 Results Related to Hypotheses ....... 31 Additional Findings . . 58 Results Related to Objectives ........ 60 VI. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH.................... 62 V

PAGE 6

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B TABLE OF CONTENTS~Continued Summary .............. Discussion of Findings (Adolescents) Discussion of Findings (Preschoolers) Conclusion Suggestions for Further Research ........................................... BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 62 63 70 71 72 73 86 90 93

PAGE 7

Table la lb le LIST OF TABLES Page How I See Myself Scale (School-Teacher) ........... 32 How I See Myself Scale (Physical Appearance) How I See Myself Scale (Interpersonal Adequacy) . . . . . . . . 34 35 ld How I See Myself Scale (Autonomy Factor) . . . . . . . . . . 36 le How I See Myself Scale 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (Academic Adequacy) .......... 37 Social Reaction Inventory ........... Attitude Toward Self ............. Attitude Toward Fellow Students ....... Attitude Toward Parents .............. Attitude Toward Teachers .................... Attitude Toward Guidance Counselors ......... Attitude Toward School Principal ............ Attitude Toward School ...................... Attitude Toward Work ..................... Attitude Toward Children ........... Attitude Toward Police ........... Attitude Toward Government Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test .. Raven Colour Progressive Matrix (CPM) . vii 39 41 42 44 45 47 48 50 51 53 54 56 57 59

PAGE 8

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education A MODEL FOR TRAINING MIGRANT ADOLESCENTS TO ASSUME THE ROLE OF ADOLESCENT-EDUCATORS WITH YOUNGER CHILDREN By Ramon Garcia August, 1972 Chairman: Dr. C. Glen Hass Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction This study was designed to develop and test an early childhood training model for training migrant adolescents to assume the role of adolescent-educatorswith younger children, especially those of preschool age. The study also sought to determine the effects that this training had on the adolescents and on the younger children. It was suggested that as a result of the training, changes in attitudes and self-concept would occur in the adolescents which would be significantly different from changes in the attitudes and self-concept in adolescents not trained. I t was also suggested that changes in intellectual development would occur in the younger children who participated in the training program which would be significantly different from the intellectual development of younger children who did not participate in the training program. viii

PAGE 9

Procedure: The How I See Myself Scale, the Social Reaction Inventory, and a Semantic Differential Scale were used in measuring self-concept, changes in locus of control, and attitudes of the adolescents. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) and the Raven Colour Progressive Matrix were used in measuring intellectual development of the younger children. These instruments were administered to subjects randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. Analysis of variance was used in analyzing the data collected in order to derive F scores. Where F's were significant at the .05 level for the interaction of treatment and pre-to posttest measurements, t-tests were performed to determine the probability of different posttest means ( f 2 ) occurring. In addition rank-order correlations of the Semantic Differential Referent Words for both groups of adolescents were also performed. Summary and Conclusions: The statistical analysis of the data collected on the adolescents and younger children permitted only one of the 15 null hypotheses to be rejected. This was the hypothesis dealing with change in the attitude towards children. However, notice was taken of the high rankorder correlation displayed by the experimental adolescent group. ix

PAGE 10

Although there were no other significant differences related to the hypotheses, mean change did occur in every case. Examination of these changes revealed that the experimental adolescent group had a greater change in five of the five factors of the scale used to measure self concept and seven of the 11 attitudes measured by the Semantic Differential Scale. In examining the changes in means from pre-to posttest by both groups these observations can be made. The experimental group showed gains in the expected direction in 14 of the 17 measures. The control group showed gains in the expected direction in five of the 17 measures. Both groups showed decrease in means from preto posttest in two measures. These were in their attitude towards police and government. Both groups of younger children showed significant gains in the expected direction in one of the two measures of intellectual developement. In the other measure, the control group showed an increase in mean in the expected direction while the experimental group showed a decrease in mean. Suggestions for Further Research These suggestions are offered for further research that would deal with the goals and objectives considered in this study: X

PAGE 11

1. Determine if preschoolers age 3.5--4.S can be trained to solve matrices similar to Raven Colour Progressive Matrix. 2. Develope more refined instruments for measuring the attitude of adolescents towards work, school, self, fellow students, guidance counselors, teachers, school principals, and parents. 3. Develope instruments to measure the transfer of learning from teacher to adolescent to preschooler xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to develop an early childhood development training model for training migrant adolescents to assume the role of adolescent-educators with younger siblings, especially those of preschool age. Need for the Study Migrant adolescents are asked more and more to assume the responsibility of adults, especially in the areas of teaching and rearing siblings as well as aiding in producing family income. A large-scale study undertaken by the University of Miami on behalf of the Migrant Child Division of the Florida State Department of Education found that failure is what the school offers the migrant child in most cases. Failure was also what the school offered a generation earlier when the parents attended. Reconfirmation of their status as wretched people is not needed by migrants, but this reconfirmation is the greatest single effect the schools have on migrant children. -1 -

PAGE 13

-2 -Parents cannot be counted on to assume the responsibility for the education of their children since school is viewed as a day-care situation freeing them to work the fields without hindrance. As soon as the children are old enough to take care of themselves during the day, family pressure to attend school each day diminishes. Thus the cycle continues: low educational level, low pay, hungry and neglected children, schools foreign to the language patterns and the culture of the children, early separation from school, and finally another generation of low pay and subsequent misery. Congress recognized the urgency in developing programs which will break the cycle of poverty and despair of the migrants as was evident in the H. R. Bill 6748, (Brademas Bill) which contained the following recommended action: 1. Sec. 102, (b), (11). services, including in-home services, and training in the fundamentals of child development, for parents, older family members functioning in the capacity of parents, youth, and prospective parents. 2. Sec. 104, (a), (15). provides that, to the extent appropriate, programs (for providing child development services) will include participation by paid paraprofessional aides and by volunteers, especially parents and older children, and including senior citizens, students, and persons preparing for employment in child development programs. This study sought to provide a me thod for breaking the poverty cycle by training adolescents to assume the

PAGE 14

-3 -role of adolescent-educators and, equally important, to prepare them for the role of prospective parents. Desc r iption of t h e M o d e l The model described herein was for use in the training of migrant adolescents, ages 14-17, attending Haines City High School, Haines City, Florida. These adolescents were trained each week during a ninety minute session held after school hours on Tuesdays at the high school. The adolescents who participated in this project were paid a stipend amounting to one dollar per hour for the hours spent in training (one and one-half hours per week) and in performing the home learning activities (one and onehalf hours per week). In addition, sixty-five cents per hour was paid (three hours per week) for the maintenance of the various records, reports, and other written assignments essential to the training project. The stipend and record maintenance allowance were paid, in cash, every two weeks. The training model was made up of four areas. Activities developed from each of these four areas were covered during each training session. Area 1: Training in Early Childhood Developement. Lectures, printed materials, discussions, personal experiences, audio-visual materials, and role-playing were used. Source book: Mussen,P. H., The p s y c ho logical developem ent o f the c h i l d Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963.

PAGE 15

-4 Area 2: Home Learning Activites. These were activities which adolescents took into the home environment and performed with their younger siblings. The learning activities were performed on a one-to-one basis and the adolescents were instructed how to engage in these activities. The home learning activities were patterned after Gordon, I. J., et al., Child learning through child play. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1972. Commercial materials were also used for these activities. The adolescents also trained the younger siblings on the strategies and concepts prerequisite to solving the Raven Progressive Matrices Tests (RPM) (Raven, 1960). Guinagh (1971) showed that college graduates could successfully train young children (age eight years) in strategies which led to increased RPM scores. The present study sought to determine if high school adolescents could successfully train preschool age children. Area 3: Self-Concept Developement and Value Clarification Activities. These activities were patterned after Raths, L. E., et al., Values and teaching, Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1966, Chapter 6. Area 4: General Information Activities. Included in this area were such services as vocational counseling, health information by medical/ health personnel, social security information, and school information essential to parents and to the younger sibling. The services of a guidance counselor, a nurse, a social security office representative and a representative from the welfare office were used in providing these activities. Definitions Adolescent: For the purpose of this study an adolescent is defined as a male or female between the ages of 14 and 17years as of September 1, 1971. Adolescent-Educator: An adolescent as defined above who is assigned to the experimental group, who receives

PAGE 16

-5 -training with the training model, and who assumes the role of educator with a preschool sibling. Inte rvention Environment: A set of conditions which allows for enhancing an individual's intellectual development by providing individually designed stimulating e xperiences. Migra n t Ch ild: The United States Office of Education defines a migrant child as "a migratory child of a migratory agricultural worker is a child who has moved with his family from one school district to another during the past year in order that the parent or other member of his family might secure employment in agriculture or in related food processing activities." Public Law 90-247 amended the definition to include migrant children whose parents have established a permanent residence within the past five years. P a r e n t : A person who takes the role of father, mother, or mothering on.e, and who assumes some degree of responsibility for a child's welfare. Pa rent Educator: A person employed by the schools as a paraprofessional who is a member of the low socioeconomic community being served by the schools. Teacher: A person who assumes the role of teacher in a teacher-learner activity. He can be a professional, a paraprofessional, a parent, another adult, or an older sibling.

PAGE 17

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The belief that the biological mother is the best caretaker for her children has largely determined the form of child rearing in the United States. Recently, however, more and more of these mothers have begun assuming alternative social roles and responsibilities. Foremost among these new roles is that of employee. There are already more than four million children below six years of age whose mothers work, and this number is increasing (Zener, 1971). This new role for the mother requires that the responsibility for rearing young children be assumed by a member of the family, the extended family, or an institution such as a nursery or day-care center. The latter, however, stops too soon and the young child is released at five to a home where the parent is still at work or exhausted from the day's toil. For this reason other members of the family can be expected to assume a larger role in rearing the young children in the family. Today it is not enough that these other family members "baby-sit" with the preschoolers. What is needed, instead, is a planned continuum of services provided by such agencies as day-care -6 -

PAGE 18

-7 -centers and which range from child care during the day to home visitations by health and educational personnel to the development of home learning activities which involve the entire family. This study sought to show that older siblings can be trained to assume the role of adolescenteducators who can aid in providing these services especially in their own homes. This belief that adolescents can assist in the rearing and educating of preschoolers was supported by Palmer (1972) who showed that younger children who were exposed to a setting where older children tutor them for at least two hours per week for eight months-be it a "structured" setting or a "discovery" setting-showed significantly better performance than the control group. Effects o f Pre s c hool Intervention The effects of the environment, especially of the low socioeconomic environment, appear to be greatest in the early and more rapid periods of intellectual development and least in the later periods of development. The evidence so far available suggests that marked changes in the environment in the early years can produce greater changes in intelligence than will equally marked changes in the environment at later periods of development. This makes it more difficult for the individual and for society to bring about a particular type of

PAGE 19

development later in life than early in the history of the individual. If remedial action and therapy are less effective at later stages in the individual's development, can we wait until it is too late? Levenstein (1970) found that the general and verbal intelligence of low-income two-and three-year-old children increased in those preschoolers exposed to home-based stimulation of verbally oriented play activity between them and their parents. The goal of the study was to make the very young child's own parent the ultimate agent of his cognitive enrichment. Gray and Klaus (1969) reported that the most effective intervention program for preschool children that could possibly be conceived is not a form of innoculation whereby the child forever after is immune to the effects of a low-income home and of a school inappropriate to his needs. While these intervention programs m a y be e xpected to make some relatively lasting changes, such programs, however, cannot be e xpected to carry the whole burden of providing adequate schooling for children from deprived circumstances. What these programs can do is provide a basis for future progress in schools and homes that can build upon that early intervention. Bronfenbrenner (1969) reasoned that any program seeking to meet the educational needs of disadvantaged children must address itself not only to the development of cognitive competence but also to patterns of motivation and behavior appropriate to a productive, cooperative soc_iety. One effective form of environment intervention is exposure to models exhibiting the desired behavior patterns such as members of his family or older childrenwhomthe child admires.

PAGE 20

-9 -Schaefer (1969) confirmed the importance of verbal development during the second and third year of life for the intellectual development of the child. The fact that approximately four hours of tutoring per week can produce sizeable differences in test scores between the group which was tutored and the group that was not tutored suggested that mental growth during this period was highly related to the amount of intellectual stimulation provided infants whose parents did not have the time, talent, motivation, or resources to provide an adequate educational environment for their children. It is during the transitional years from the preschool period through the elementary school years that the child is first subject to the influence and the requirements of the broader culture. It is then that two environments are present for him: the home environment and the school environment. But it is also in these transitional (and especially in the pretransitional) years that the preschooler is most malleable. Thus, this is the point at which efforts might best be initiated to provide an intervention environment. This intervention should start before the child enters school and continue until he has made the transition into the school environment. Such intervention aids in the reconciliation of the home and school environments which is required especially for a

PAGE 21

-10 -child from a disadvantaged background because there are wide discrepancies between the home and school milieu (Deutsch, 1966). The school and home are linked through the use of paraprofessionals who assume the role of parent educators. This paraprofessional spends half of her time working in the classroom developing educational material with the assistance of the classroom teacher and other school resource personnel. The other half of the time is spent visiting the homes of the children in the classroom. Radin and Weikart (1967) suggested that a more crucial aspect of the home visit part of the intervention environment may not be the parental involvement, but the opportunity provided for programming a curriculum to the individual needs of each child. It is during these home visit s made by the parent ~ducator that the school is brought jnto the home. Armed with ideas for learning activities the parent educator instructs the parent in the techniques of teaching which will assist the parent in becoming a teacher in the home environment. The teacher, that is, the parent or other adult in the home, th~n .has the needed freedom to present the next small step in the learning process and to provide the necessary rei~forcement by working with only one student, her own child. The Institute for the Development of Human Resources' Home Learning Center Approach to Early Stimulation Project (Gordon, 1967) demonstrated the effectiveness

PAGE 22

11 -an_d practicability of a home center technique for cognitive language and personality development of children based upon the use of parent and child educators who were themselves members of the population to be served. The Institute for the Development of Human Resources' Florida Parent Education approach (Gordon, 1971) has been used as a program model for Follow Through and Head Start Planned Variation Programs. The concept of the paraprofessional parent educator as the link between home and school has worked well as used by eleven communities in ten ~tates. Further, the curricular and parent educator role has been adapted by several of the Parent and Child Centers serving families which have children between birth and three years of age. Adolescents as Educational Paraprofessionals Vidal A. Rivera, Chief of the Migrant Bureau, USOE, (1970), challenged educators in those areas where the migrant is employed to establish a continuum in the educational structure of the migrant preschooler. The continuum allows for migrant children to be able to move from school to school without having to either repeat or miss schooling materials because the schools would pick up such students at the point where they left off in the last school they attended whether in Florida or Texas. In this manner

PAGE 23

-12 -migrants would have ten full months of school per year instead of several one-month periods depending on the frequency of moves made by their parents. Rivera admitted that the challenge is an insurmountable task because our thinking in education has been geared around a stable community, with schedules, teacher assignments, and a school year of nine and one-half months. Our thinking, thus, must become as mobile as these migrant children. To accomplish this new way of thinking, according to Rivera, we need to "overwork our imagination and creativity." Reiff (1968) stated that the most important reason for using indigenous nonprofessionals is that they can be the mechanism for extending the educational process from th~ school to the home, from the teacher to the mother, and from the school-aged child to the infant. Bronfenbrenner (1970) believed that Head Start Programs bypass the most important aspect of family involvement--engaging parents and older children in new and more mutually rewarding patterns of interaction with the young. Particularly valuable in this connection are activities that involve and require more than one person in a pattern of interaction with the child; that is, not just the teacher and/or the mother but also the other adults and older children in the family. Fowler (1971) reported that the marked and general advances of high school adolescents in competence

PAGE 24

-13 -and sensitivity to infant care and education through a o~e-year program of coordinated, theory-based and practical training argued well for the establishment of large-scale education programs for adolescents which will help meet the accelerating demand for infant care and education. Cage et al. (1971) investigated the process of using adolescent-educators with preschool siblings in a pil_ot program at Zolfo Springs, Florida, during the winter and spring, 1971. Adolescents were employed to work with younger siblings as well as with other preschool children in the immediate neighborhood. The relationship proved very satisfactory with parents accepting it and at times voluntarily participating in the teaching of the schoolhome learning activities brought into the home by the adolescents. During this pilot program, these adolescents showed significant increase in the interpersonal adequacy factor of the "How I See Myself" Self-Concept Scale (Gordon, 1968). The Texas .Agricultural Extension S .ervice (1971) . used a Spanish version of Gordon's (1967) games and ideas for infant learning. These games and ideas are being used by "Teen Teachers" and parents in a program to help their babies learn more effectively. Sigce 1969 the high schools of Odessa, Texas, have offered a Teacher Experience Program (1969) in which

PAGE 25

). -14 -selected high school seniors may enroll in a high school course in educational theory and work half days for a semester as teacher aides in elementary schools. The purpose of this program was to give interested high school seniors opportunities to relate with elementary school children in teaching and learning situations. Participation in this course allowed students to become involved in active life experiences in learning and teaching from which they will be better qualified to make intelligent decisions in regard to careers in education. Further, this program provided to some extent an end to the student's isolation from the world of work by combining school work outside the regular cla'ssroom situations as a part of the education experience. The Education Development Center, Cambridge, Massachu~etts (1971), designed a program to teach adolescents how to assume responsible roles in caring for young children. A major aim of the program was for adolescents to master concepts in child development and to increase school and student contact with parents, community representatives, and day-care centers. Summary The research reported in this chapter showed that it is worthwhile to develop further programs of home-oriented

PAGE 26

-15 -early childhood education in which paraprofessionals are the main teachers. In this study this approach was adapted to migrant adolescents.

PAGE 27

CHAPTER III OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES Objective s The main objective of this study was to develop and test a training model whereby migrant adolescents were trained to assume the role of adolescent-educators with younger siblings, especially those of preschool age. A second objective was to determine the effects that this training had on the adolescents. The third objective was to determine the effects that this training had on the younger siblings. Hypotheses The first hypothesis which follows will be used to d ~ termine the effects of this training on the self-concepts of the adolescents. The second hypothesis will be used to de~~~mine the effects of this training on the locus of control of the adolescents. The next eleven hypotheses will be used to determine attitudes of the adolescents studied toward each of the referent words presented in each part of the Semantic Differential Scale. The last two hypotheses will be used to determine the effects the adolescents had on the intellectual development of the preschooler as a result of the training received by the child. -16 -

PAGE 28

-17 1. There will be no significant differences (as measured by the How I see Myself Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the subjects in the experimental and control groups on the five factors of the scale. The five factors are: a. Teacher-School b. Physical Appearance c. Interpersonal Adequacy d. Autonomy e. Academic Adequacy 2. There will be no significant difference (as measured by the Social Reaction Inventory) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the locus of control of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. 3. There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward self of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. 4. There will be no significant differences (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward fellow students of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. 5. There will be no significant difference (as measure d by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward parents of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. 6. There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward their teachers of the subjects in the experimental and control groups.

PAGE 29

-18 -7. There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward guidance counselors of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. 8. There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward their school principal of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. 9 There will beno significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward school of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. 10. There will be no significant difference (as measured by Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward work of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. 11. There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward children of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. 12. There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward police of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. 13. There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward government of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. 14. There will be no significant difference (as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the intellectual development of the preschool subjects in the experimental and control groups.

PAGE 30

-19 -15. There will be no significant difference (as measured by the Raven Colour Progressive Matrix) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the intellectual development of the preschool subjects in the experimental and control groups.

PAGE 31

CHAPTER IV METHOD AND PROCEDURES The Sample and Design The population for this study was made up of migrant adolescents, ages 14-17, who were enrolled at the high ~cbool level, grades 10-12, in Polk County, Florida. Polk County lies in South Central Florida. The county's school population is 57,386, of which 6,500 are classed as migrants. The county's main industry is citrus and citrus by-products. It is this industry that attract~ the large number of Black and Mexican-American migrants. The identified migrant adolescents were placed in one of two groups: (1) those who had a younger sibling under six years of age and (2) all others. Group (1) was further divided into a subgroup (la), comprising those adolescents whose younger siblings were between the ages of 3.5 and 4.5. The large number (30) of adolescents in group (la) enrolled in Haines City High School led to the selection of this school as study site. Twenty of the 30 adolescents in subgroup (la) above were randomly selected using a table of random numbers (Glass & Stanley, 1970), and assigned to the training (experimental) group. The remaining ten adolescents -20 -

PAGE 32

-21 -together with ten adolescents randomly selected from group ( 1 ) were assigned to the nontraining (control) group. Thus, there were two groups of adolescents between the ages of 14-17, experimental and control. There were also two groups of younger siblings: (1) the experimental group made up of 20 younger siblings of the experimental adolescent group and (2) the control group made up of ten younger siblings of ten of the coritrol group adolescents. Only 12 of the 20 siblings in the experimental group were enrolled in a preschool setting. The remaining eight were either kept by a relative or a neighbor while the mother worked. Only eight of the ten siblings in the control group were enrolled in the same preschool setting as the experimental group. For evaluation purposes the study was conducted in the following manner: (1) the 12 siblings enrolled in the preschool setting composed the experimental group and (2) the control group was comprised of the eight siblings enrolled in the preschool setting ~nd four other siblings randomly selected from the same preschool setting. The 20 adolescents assigned to the experimental group engaged in home learning activities with their younger siblings whether these youngsters were enrolled in the preschool setting or not. The design for this study was the "Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design" (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). I J

PAGE 33

-22 -Instrumentation Both groups of adolescents were pre-and posttested with (1) the How I See Myself Scale; (2) the Social Reaction Inventory; and (3) a Semantic Differential Scale. The preschoolers were pre-and postested with (1) the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) and (2) the Raven Progressive Colour Matrix (CPM). The "How I See Myself" Scale (HISM) (Gordon, 1968) was used to measure what effect, if any, the participation in this project had on the adolescents' self-concept. The scale contains five factors: (1) teacher-school; (2) physical appearance; (3) interpersonal adequacy; (4) autonomy; and (5) academic adequacy, relating to the self-concept. The scale consists of 40 opposite statements with five spaces in between. The subject reads both statements and then decides which of the two statements describes him the best or where in the five-point continuum he falls. The reliability coefficient for age groups similar to the one in this study was reported as .87,which is acceptable because the instrument was used for comparison of groups and not individual diagnosis. A copy of the HISM is included in Appendix A. The Social Reaction Inventory was designed to assess the extent to which an individual categorized events as externally or internally controlled. It contains 29 items, six of which are dummy items not used in the scoring. The s~9le ... ~RR~9,rs to be internally consistent, reliable,

PAGE 34

-23 -unidimensional, and has good discriminant and external validity. The split reliability ranges from .69 to .73. Rotter (1966) reported one-month test-retest reliabilities in the .70s while another study has shown a three-month reliability of .75. A copy of the SRI is included in Appendix A. The Semantic Differential Scale (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1967) is considered a valuable and comprehensive tool for measuring generalized attitudes. The scale used in this study consisted of concepts. Each concept was followed by ten polar adjectives selected from those that measure the evaluative factor. Between each pair of polar .adjectives there are seven spaces. The subject makes a mark along the seven-space continuum to indicate his attitude towards the concept. Osgood discovered,through factor analysis, three factors that his numerous pairs of polar adjectives measured. These factors are described as Potency, Activity, and Evaluation. Evans (1971) suggested seven factors: General Affect; Value; Success; Competence; Activity; Potency; and Ease. In addition, Evans cited 24 repeated concept-scale combinations used in his study which provided data on short term test-retest reliability ranging from .37 to .73. For combinations of six scales, use of the Spearman Brown formula indicated the corresponding reliabilities ranged from .80 to .94 and were thus very promising according to Evans. A Copy of the Semantic Differential Scale used in this study is included in Appendix A.

PAGE 35

-24 -The preschoolers were assessed for intellectual growth using the (1) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)-primary form and (2) the Raven Colour Progressive Matrix (CPM). The PPVT (Dunn, 1965) was designed as a measure of the child's verbal intelligence as measured through his learning vocabulary. It has the advantage over many general intelligence tests in that it is specifically designed for children in the age group in this study. The Raven Progressive Matrices, Sets A, B, C, D, and E,consist of 60 problems divided into five equal sets. In each set the first problem is as nearly as possible selfevident. The problems which follow become progressively more difficult. The scale is intended to cover the whole range of intellectual developement from the time a child is able to grasp the idea of finding a missing piece to complete a pattern, and to be sufficiently long to assess a person's maximum capacity to form comparisons and reason by analogy without bein9 unduly exhausting or unwieldy. The Colour Progressive Matrix was used in this study due to the age of the children. Sets A, Ab, and B adequately cover all the cognitive processes of which children are usually capable. The scale has a retest reliability varying, with age, from 0.83 to 0.93 (Raven, 1960). The Colour Progressive Matrix (CPM), which is

PAGE 36

-25 -intended to measure inductive reasoning ability has been reported to correlate .91 with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Jacobs and Vandeventer, 1968). Although the children in this study were younger than the recommended age for the CPM, it was used to assess the trainability of the younger children by the adolescents. Guinagh (1971) reported scores on the Raven Progressive Matrices can be substantially increased as the result of a training program. The adolescents engaged in a training program with their younger siblings used items similar to the CPM test items. Collect i n g the D ata Pretesting of the adolescents and the preschoolers was conducted during the week of December 6, 1971. Both groups of adolescents were administered the three instruments, the How I See Myself Scale, the Social Reaction Inventory, and the Semantic Differential, during the same school day but a t different periods of the day. All three instruments contained a standard set of instructions and were administered in group settings. Both groups of preschoolers were pretested during the same week on an individual basis with one instrument being administered followed by a two-hour delay before the second instrument was administered. The same person administered both instruments after a "get acquainted" period of about a half-day in the classroom.

PAGE 37

26 -The posttesting was conducted on May 9, 1972. Both groups of adolescents were tested on the same day but at different periods. As during the pretesting, the subjects were advised that the results would not have any bearing on academic grades and the researcher remained present in the classroom setting during the entire testing periods. The preschoolers' groups we _~e posttested during the week of May 15, 1972. The researcher followed the same procedures as during the pretesting administration. Analysis o f t h e D ata Two way analysis of variance was used for treating the data collected on the adolescents and the preschoolers. A basic set of three F tests was performed comparing the within variance estimate to the variance estimate for: (1) treatment and nontreatment; (2) pre-and postmeasurement; and (3) interaction between the treatment and the pre-and postmeasurement. L i mitations o f the Study It was recognized that assuming the role of educator by an adolescent requires longer than the period of t.~m,~ involved in this study. The results of such a role will not be realized until much later in the preschoolers' and the adolescents' lives and any attempt to

PAGE 38

-27 -"package" a quick solution to educational deprivation in the life of migrant children was at best a superficial effort. However, the restrictions imposed by the academic year scheduling have to be adhered to by both the researcher and the subjects in studies such as the one described here. The researcher was not able to evaluate the performance of the adolescents while engaged in the learning activities with their younger sibling due to the lack of an "observer" and to the distance involved in traveling to and from tne study site. There was no method of determining-to what e xtent the adolescent adhered to the instruction .received during the trai~!ng sessions for engaging with their younger siblings in the home learning activities.

PAGE 39

CHAPTER V RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The purpose of this study was to develop and test an early childhood development training model for training migrant adolescents to assume the role of adolescent-educators with younger siblings, especially those of preschool age. The adolescents who participated in this study were students in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades at Haines City High School, Florida. For comparison, a group of migrant adolescents from the same school and enrolled in the same grades was selected. The model consisted of four areas, each of which contained activities designed for the adolescents to perform alone and activities for the adolescents to perform with their younger siblings. Area one provided activities which inform the adolescents about physical and intellectual development during early childhood. A rea two provided home learning activities for the adolescerit to perform with their younger siblings. Area t h ree was designed speciically for the adolescents and was made up of self-concept and value clarification activities. Area four provided work and vocational information and counseling by a qualified -28 -

PAGE 40

-29 -counselor experienced in working with young adults. Although the model was designed primarily for training the adolescents, enough activities were provided which allowed the adolescents to put into practice what was learned about early childhood and to develop confidence in their ability to carry out this new role. In order to evaluate the training model, data were collected on a pre-and postbasis on both the adolescents and preschoolers. The adolescents were evaluated for changes in self-concepts, in locus of control, and in attitudes toward certain referent words. The preschoolers were evaluated for changes in intellectual development as reflected by changes in the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test scores and for their ability to be taught specific tasks as reflected by changes in the Raven Progressive Colour Matrix scores as a result of training received in solving the matrices. Both groups evaluated were compared to control groups composed of adolescents and preschoolers from similar backgrounds. Pre-and postdata were collected about the adolescents and analyzed at the University of Florida Computer Center using two way analysis of variance. In this study three F tests were performed which allowed for the comparison of: (1) treatment and nontreatment; (2) pre-and postmeasurements; and (3) interaction between

PAGE 41

-30 -the treatment and the pre-and postmeasurements. In comparing the F's derived from the data collected on the adolescents, the critical value of F for the variables to be considered statistically significant at the .05 level of confidence was 4.20. This critical value of F was for degrees of freedom of 1 and 28. Two-way analysis of variance was also used for treating the data collected on the preschoolers. Three F tests were performed which allowed for the comparison of (1) treatment and nontreatment; (2) pre-and postmeasurement; and (3) interaction between the treatment and the pre-and postmeasurement. The critical value of F for the variables to be considered statistically significant at the 05 level of confidence was 4. 28. This critical value of F was for degrees of freedom of 1 and 19. A separate table of data for each hypothesis was prepared. The number identifying the table corresponds to the hypothesis number. For example, Table 1 corresponds to hypothesis 1. Each table contains: (1) pre-and postmeans for experimental, control, and combined groups and differences and (2) analysis of variance. Each hypothesis which was tested will be restated; statements will be made summarizing and explaining the data and each hypothesis will be accepted or rejected based on the statistical significance or nonsignificance of the data.

PAGE 42

-31 -Results R e l a t e d to Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 There will be no significant difference (as measured by the How I See Myself Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the subjects in the experimental and control groups on the five factors of the scale. The five factors are: a. Teacher~school b. Physical Appearance c. Interpersonal Adequacy d. Autonomy e. Academic Adequacy Factor a : Teacher-School. The data in Table la show that the e xperimental group changed +0.44 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -0.07 points. The F value for the difference between the changes from pre-to posttest between the experimental and control group is not significant. The null hypothesis for this factor cannot be rejected. Factor b : Physical Appearance. The data in Table lb show that the experimental group changed +0.56 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed +0.36 points. The F value for the difference-between the change

PAGE 43

-32 TABLE la How I See Myself Scale (School-Teacher) Preand Postmeans for Experimental, Control and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 26.44 26.88 26.66 +0.44 Control (N = 14) 25.71 25.64 25.68 -0.07 Total 26.10 26.30 Differences + 0.73 + 1.24 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M. S. p* Between Subjects (A) 14.28 1 14.28 0.88 (N. S. ) Subjects Within Groups 454.33 28 16.23 Within Subjects (B) 0.48 1 0.48 0.06 (N. S.) Interaction (AB) 0.98 1 0.98 0.11 (N. S.) Within 261.43 28 9.34 *p = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05

PAGE 44

-33 -from the pre-to posttest between the experimental and control group is not significant. The null hypothesis for this factor cannot be rejected. Factor c : Interpersonal Adequacy. The data in Table le show that the experimental group changed -2.81 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed +0.42 points. The F value for the difference between the change from the pre~to posttest between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis for this factor cannot be rejected. Factor d : Autonom y The dat a in Table ld show that the experimental group changed +2.38 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed 0.00 points or no change. The F value for the difference between the change from the pre-to posttest between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis for this factor cannot be rejected. Factor e : Acade mic Adequacy. The data in Table le show that the experimental group changed +1.19 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -0.86 points. The F value for the difference between the e xperimenta l and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis for this factor cannot be rejected.

PAGE 45

-34 -TABLE lb How I See Myself Scale (Physical Appearance) Pre-and Postmeans for Experimental~ Control and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 28.50 29.06 28.78 +0.56 Control (N = 14) 26.64 27.00 26.82 +0.36 Total 27.63 28.10 Differences + 1. 86 + 2.06 Analysis o f Variance Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 57.36 1 57.36 0.62 (N. S.) Subjects Within Groups 2572.58 28 91. 88 Within Subjects (B) 3.14 1 3.14 0.26 (N. S. ) Interaction (AB) 0.19 1 0.19 0.02 (N. S. ) Within 331.57 28 11.84 *F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05

PAGE 46

-35 -TABLE le How I See Myself Scale (Interpersonal Adequacy) Pre-and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 69.12 66.31 67.72 -2.81 Control (N = 14) 66.36 66.78 66.57 + .42 Total 67.83 66.53 D.:i..fferences + 2.76 .47 Analysis o f Variance Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subj_ects (A) 19.72 1 19.72 0.20 (N. S.) Subjects Within Groups 2716.88 28 97.03 Within Subjects (B) 21.23 1 21.23 0.73 (N. S.) Interaction (AB) 39.14 1 39.14 1.35 (N. S.) Within 809.94 28 28.93 *F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05

PAGE 47

-36 -TABLE ld How I See Myself Scale (Autonomy Factor) Preand Postmeans for Experimental, Control and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 27.50 29.88 28.68 +2.38 Control (N = 14) 25.71 25.71 25.71 0.00 Total 26.67 27.93 Differences + 1. 79 4.17 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M. S. F* Between Subjects (A) 132.01 1 132.01 2.56(N.S.) Subjects Within Groups 1445.59 28 51. 63 Within Subjects (B) 21. 06 1 21.06 2.01 (N. S.) Interaction (AB) 21.07 1 21. 07 2.01 (N. S.) Within 293.88 28 10.50 *F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05

PAGE 48

-37 TABLE le How I See Myself Scale (Academic Adequacy) Pre and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 22.31 23. 50 22.91 +1.19 Control (N = 14) 22.64 21.78 22.21 -0.86 Total 22.47 22.70 Differences -0.33 + 1. 72 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M. S. F* Between Subjects (A) 7.16 1 7.16 0.27 (N. S. ) Subjects Within Groups 734.93 28 26.25 Within Subjects (B) 0.42 1 0.42 0.06 (N. S.) Interaction (AB) 15.60 1 15.60 2.43 (N. S.) Within. 180.08 28 6.43 F* = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05

PAGE 49

-38 -Hypothesis 2 There will be no significant difference (as measured by the Social Reaction Inventory) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the locus of control of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. In utilizing the Social Reaction Inventory as an instrument for measuring locus of control a decrease in the numerical value of the means from preto posttest indicates that the group believes less that events are controlled by external forces and more that events are controlled by internal forces. The data in Table 2 show that the experimental group changed -1.88 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -1.00 points. The F value for the difference between the change from the pre-to posttest between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The F value for within groups (B) for the comparison of all prescores against all postscores is signific~nt at the .OS level of confidence. Hypothesis 3 There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the

PAGE 50

-39 -TABLE 2 SOCIAL REACTION INVENTORY Preand Postmeans f o r Experimental, Control and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 11.19 9.31 10.25 -1. 88 Control (N = 14) 11.57 10.57 11.07 -1.00 Total 11.37 9.90 Differences .38 -1. 26 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 10.08 1 10.08 0.42 (N. S. ) Subjects Within Groups 675.86 28 24.14 Within Subjects (B) 30.86 1 30.86 7.27 (Sig.) Interaction (AB) 2.86 1 2.86 0.67 (N. S. ) Within 118.88 28 4.25 *F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05

PAGE 51

40 -attitudes toward self of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. The data in Table 3 show that the experimental group changed +4.81 points for pretest to posttest. The control group changed +3.08 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The F value for within group (B) for the comparison of all prescores against all postscores is significant at the .05 level of confidence. Hypothesis 4 There will be no significant differences (as measured by a Sem antic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitude toward fellow students of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. The data in Table 4 show that the experimental group changed +3.62 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -0.86 points from pretest to posttest. The F value of the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Hypothesis 5 There will be no significant differences (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means

PAGE 52

-41 -TABLE 3 ATTITUDE TOWARD SELF Preand Postmeans f o r Experimental, Control and C ombined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Differences E .xper imen tal (N = 16) 63.50 68.31 65.91 +4.81 Control (N = 14) 62.28 65.36 63.82 +3.08 Total 62.93 66.93 Differences + 0.22 + 2.95 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M. S. F* Between Subjects (A) 64.93 1 64.93 2.02 (N. S.) Subjects Within Groups 897.88 28 32.07 Within Subjects (B) 232.05 1 232.05 11.82 (Sig.) Interaction (AB) 11.32 1 11.32 0.58 (N. S. ) Within 549.69 28 19.63 *F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05

PAGE 53

-42 TABLE 4 ATTITUDE TOWARD FELLOW STUDENTS Preand Postmeans for Experimental~ Control and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Experimental (N = 16) 58.44 62.06 60.25 Control (N = 14) 61. 43 60.57 61.00 Total 59.83 61. 37 Differences -2.99 + 1.49 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M. S. Between Subjects (A) 8.40 1 8.40 Subjects Within Groups 2786.00 28 99.50 Within Subjects (B) 28.52 1 28.52 Interaction (AB) 75.02 1 75.02 Within 921.75 28 32.92 *F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .OS Differences +3.62 -0.86 F* 0.08 (N. S. ) 0.87 (N. S. ) 2.28 (N. S.)

PAGE 54

43 -of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitudes toward parents of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. The data on Table 5 show that the experimental group changed +3.06 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed +1.72 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The F value for within groups (B) for the comparison of all prescores against all postscores is significant at the .05 level of confidence. Hypothesis 6 There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurernent and postmeasurement of the attitude toward their teachers of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. The data in Table 6 show that the experimental group changed +4.31 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -8.28 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The F value for the interaction (AB) is significant at the .05 level of confidence.

PAGE 55

-44 -TABLE 5 Attitude Toward Parents Pre-and Postmeans for Experimentai, Control and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Experimental (N = 16) 66.06 69.12 67.59 Control (N = 14) 65.21 66.93 66.07 Total 65.67 68.10 Differences + 0.85 + 2.19 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M. S. Between Subjects (A) 34.65 1 34.65 Subjects Within Groups 585.13 28 20.90 Within Subjects (B) 85.17 1 85.17 Interaction (AB) 6.71 1 6.71 Within 306.88 28 10.96 *F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05 Differences +3.06 +1. 72 F* 1. 66 (N. S. ) 7.77 (Sig. ) 0.61 (N. S )

PAGE 56

-45 -TABLE 6 Attitude Toward Teachers Preand Postmeans for Experimental, Control and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-PostMeans Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 59.88 64.19 62.03 +4.31 Control (N = 14) 63.21 54.93 59.07 -8.28 Total 61. 43 59.87 Differences -3.33 9.26 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M. S. F* Between Subjects (A) 130.84 1 130.84 1. 02 (N. S. ) Subjects Within Groups 3595.38 28 128.41 Within Subjects ( B) 58.92 1 58.92 1. 06 (N. S. ) Interaction (AB) 592.55 1 592.55 10.68 (Sig. ) Within 1554.13 28 55.50 *F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05

PAGE 57

-46 -Hypothesis? There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitudes towards their guidance counselors of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. The data in Table 7 show that the experimental group changed +3.62 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -0. 21 points from pretest to post test. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Hypothesis 8 There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and the postmeasurement of the attitudes toward their school principal of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. The data in Table 8 show that the experimental group changed +1.76 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -3.78 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control group is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected.

PAGE 58

-47 -TABLE 7 Attitude Toward Guidance Counselor Pre -and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and Co~bined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 65.38 69.00 67.19 +3.62 Control (N = 14) 67.07 66.86 66.96 -0.21 Total 66.17 68.00 Differences -1. 69 + 2.14 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M. S. F* Between Subjects (A) 0.88 1 0.88 0.07 (N. S. ) Subjects Within Groups 365.38 28 13.05 Within Subjects (B) 43.57 1 43.57 2.97 (N. S. ) Interaction (AB) 54.89 1 54.89 3.74 (N. S. ) Within 411.06 28 14.68 *F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05

PAGE 59

-48 TABLE 8 Attitude Toward School Principal Preand Postmeans for Experimental~ Control and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 63.62 65.38 64. 50 +l. 76 Control (N = 14) 61. 71 57.93 59.82 -3.78 Total 62.73 61. 90 Differences + 1. 91 + 7.45 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M. S. F* Between Subjects (A) 326.84 1 326.84 2.63 (N. S. ) Subjects Within Groups 3484.63 28 124.45 Within Subjects (B) 15.40 1 15.40 0.35 (N. S. ) Interaction (AB) 114.45 1 114.45 2.59 (N. S. ) Within 1236.69 28 44.17 *F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .OS

PAGE 60

49 -Hypothesis 9 There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitudes toward their school of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. The data in Table 9 show that the experimental group changed +4.00 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -1.64 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Hypothesis 10 There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitudes toward work of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. The data in Table 10 show that the experimental group changed +1.94 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -6.00 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The F value for the interaction (AB) is significant at the .05 level of confidence.

PAGE 61

-50 -TABLE 9 Attitude Toward School Preand Postmeans for Experimental, Control and Combined Groups and Differences Experimental ( N = 16) Control (N = 14) Total Differences Pre-Post-Means 61. 56 59.14 60.43 + 2.42 Means 65.56 57.50 61. 80 + 8.06 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. Between Subjects (A) 410.20 1 Subjects Within Groups 5815.50 28 Within Subjects (B) 20.71 1 Interaction (AB) 118.88 1 Within 807.63 28 *F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .OS Combined 63.56 58.32 M. S. 410.20 207.70 20.71 118.88 28.84 Differences +4.00 -1.64 F* 1. 97 (N. S. ) 0.72 (N. S. ) 4.12 (N. S. )

PAGE 62

-51 -TABLE 10 Attitude Toward Work Pre-and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 62.50 64.44 63.47 +l. 94 Control (N = 14) 63.21 57.21 60.21 -6.00 Total 62.83 61. 07 Differences -0.71 + 7.23 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M. S. F* Between Subjects (A) 158.20 1 158.20 1. 05 (N. S. ) Subjects Within Groups 4226.25 28 150.94 Within Subjects (B) 61. 60 1 61. 60 2.64 (N. S. ) Interaction (AB) 235.20 1 235.20 10.09 (Sig.) Within 652.44 28 23.30 *F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .OS

PAGE 63

-52 -Hypothesis 11 There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitudes toward children of the subjects in the experi~ mental and control groups. The data in Table 11 show that the experimental group changed +3.31 points for pretest to posttest. The control group changed -1.42 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control group~ is significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. Hypothesis 1 2 There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitudes toward police of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. The data in Table 12 show that the experimental group changed -1.93 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -7.32 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control group is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The F value for (B) is significant at the .05 level of confidence.

PAGE 64

53 -TABLE 11 Attitude Toward Children Pre and Postmeans for Experimental, Control and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 64.44 67.76 66.09 +3.31 Control (N = 14) 61. 78 60.36 61. 07 -1. 42 Total 63.20 64.30 Differences + 2.66 + 7.39 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M. S. F* Between Subjects (A) 376.66 1 376.66 5.62 (Sig.) Subjects Within Groups 1877.13 28 67.04 Within Subjects (B) 13.18 1 13.18 0.34 (N. S. ) Interaction (AB) 83.94 1 83.94 2.16 (N. S. ) Within 1089.44 28 38.91 *F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05

PAGE 65

54 -TABLE 12 Attitude Toward Police Preand Postmeans f o r Experimental, C ontrol and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Differences -Experimental (N = 16) 57.12 55.19 56.16 -1. 93 Control (N = 14) 59.43 52.21 55.82 -7.22 Total 58.20 53.80 Differences -2.31 + 2.98 Analysis of Variance Source. S.S. D.F. M. S. F* Between Subjects (A) 1. 63 1 1.63 0.01 (N. S. ) Subjects Within Groups 6159.38 28 219.98 Within Subjects (B) 312.61 1 312.61 4.91 (Sig. ) Interaction (AB) 104.01 1 104.01 1. 63 (N. S. ) Within 1782.63 28 63.67 *F = 4.20, df = 1,28, p < .05

PAGE 66

-55 -Hypothesis 13 There will be no significant difference (as measured by a Semantic Differential Scale) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of the attitudes toward government of the subjects in the experimental and control groups. The data in Table 13 show that the experimental group changed -5.47 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed -0.71 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control groups is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Hypothesis 1 4 There will be no significant difference (as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test) between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of intellectual development of the preschool subjects in the experimental and control groups. The data in Table 14 show that the experimental group changed +13.44 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed +9.25 points from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control group is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The F value for within group (B) for the comparison of all prescores against all postscores is significant at the .OS level of confidence.

PAGE 67

-56 TABLE 13 Attitude Toward Government Preand Postmean$ for Exp~rimental, Control and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-Post-Means Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 16) 59.19 53.62 56.41 -5.47 Control (N = 14) 56.71 56.00 56.36 -0.71 Total 58.03 54.73 Differences + 2.48 -2.38 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M.S. F* Between Subjects (A) 0.06 1 0.06 0.00 (N. S. ) Subjects Within Groups 5929.69 28 211. 77 Within Subjects (B) 147.12 1 147.12 1. 92 (N. S. ) Interaction (AB) 87.73 1 87.73 1.14 (N. S. ) Within 2147.38 28 76.69 *F = 4. 2 0, df = 1,28, p < .05

PAGE 68

-57 TABLE 14 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Pre -and Postmeans for Experimental, Contra l and Combined Groups and Differences Pre-.Post-Means Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 9) 69.89 83.33 76.61 13.44 Control (N = 12) 77.25 86.50 81. 88 9.25 Total 73.57 84.91 Differences 7.36 3.17 Analysis of Variance Source S.S. D.F. M. S. F* Between Subjects (A) 285.15 1 285.15 2.13 (N. S. ) Subjects Within Groups 2545.94 19 134.00 Within Subjects (B) 1324.57 1 1324.57 11. 75 (Sig.) Interaction (AB) 45.04 1 45.04 0.40 (N. S. ) Within 2142.25 19 112.75 *F = 4.38, df = 1,19, p < .05

PAGE 69

-58 -Hypothesis 15 There will be no significant difference (as measured by the Raven Colour Progressive Matrix)between the means of the premeasurement and postmeasurement of intellectual development of the preschool subjects in the experimental and control groups. The data in Table 15 show that the experimental group changed -1.11 points from pretest to posttest. The control group changed +.75 from pretest to posttest. The F value for the difference between the experimental and control group is not significant. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Additional Findings During the study attendance records were kept on the adolescents. Despite their knowledge that payday occurred every two weeks and that failure to be present on payday would mean having to wait an additional two weeks, the rate of absenteeism on paydays was three times higher than on nonpaydays. A second finding was that the adolescents accomplished almost twice as much work as the minimum required by the study. A third finding was reported by the guidance counselor working with the experimental group. In a preference inventory that the counselor administered none of the adolescents showed a preference

PAGE 70

59 -TABLE 15 Raven Colour Progressive Matrix (CPM) Preand Postmeans for Experimental, Control and Combined Groups and Diff erences PrePost.Means Means Combined Differences Experimental (N = 9) 8.89 7.78 8.33 -1.11 Control (N = 12) 9.17 9.92 9.54 + .75 Total 9.03 8.85 Differences 0.28 2.14 Analysis of Variance Source $.S. D.F. M. S. F* Between Subjects (A) 15.02 1 15.02 2.87 (N. S. ) Subjects Within Groups 99.46 19 5.23 Within Subjects (B) 0.34 1 0.34 0.31 (N. S. ) Interaction (AB) 8.91 1 8.91 3.56 (N. S. ) Within 47.57 19 2.50 *F = 4.38, df = 1,19, p < .05

PAGE 71

-60 -for the outdoors, although admittedly everyone of them had worked in the citrus fields during the Christmas, 1971, school break. Results Related to Objectives The main objective of this study was to develop and test a training model whereby migrant adolescents were trained to assume the role of adolescent-educator with younger siblings, especially those of preschool age. The model was designed and seventeen weekly training units were developed during the duration of the study. Each training unit contained activities from each of the four areas of the model. The testing of the model occurred when the adolescents were (1) assigned a preschool sibling; (2) instructed in the techniques for teaching preschoolers; (3) given materials to use in these teaching sessions; (4) engaged in activities designed to enhance their selfconcept and the clarification of their values; and (5) were measured on a pre-and postbasis along with their younger siblings to determine what changes had occurred as a result of the training received when compared to control groups of adolescents and preschoolers. The main objective was met. A second objective was to determine the effects that this training had on the adolescents. The data

PAGE 72

-61 -collected during this study indicate that the adolescents in the experimental group (1) did not show significant gains in the five factors of the instrument designed to measure self-concept when compared to the control group; (2) did not show significant gains on the instrument designed to measure the extent to which an individual categorizes events as externally or internally controlled when compared to the control group; and (3) showed significant positive change in their attitudes towards only one of the eleven referent words used on an instrument designed to measure attitudes. It is not possible to determine the effects that this training had on the adolescents. The third objective was to determine the effects that this training had on the younger siblings (preschoolers). The data collected indicate that the preschoolers who engaged in home learning activities with their trained adolescent siblings (1) did not show significant gains on the instrument (PPVT) designed to measure intellectual development when compared to a control group; and (2) did not show significant gains in the instrument utilized to measure the effectiveness of the training in solving progressive matrices received from their adolescent siblings. It is not possible to determine the effects that this training had on the preschoolers.

PAGE 73

CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Summary This study was undertaken to design and test a model for training migrant adolescents to assume the role of adolescent-educators with their younger siblings. The study was conducted during the period December 1971, to May 1972, at Haines City High School, Haines City, Florida. The model was designed to train adolescents in early childhood development in order for these adolescents to function in the role of educators when armed with home learning activities designed for preschoolers. The model also provided self-concept and value clarification activities designed to allow the adolescent the opportunities to (1) learn more about himself and (2) form opinions and make judgements about certain controversial and youth oriented situations. It was suggested that the various activities in which the adolescents would engage would lead to a more positive self-concept, a reduction in the locus of control of his environment, and changes in attitudes when compared to a control group of adolescents from similar background -62 -

PAGE 74

-63 -not exposed to these activities. In addition, as a result of the adolescents engaging in home learning activities with their younger siblings these preschoolers would show significant gains in intellectual development when compared to a group of preschoolers from similar background who did not engage in home learning activities. The How I See Myself Scale, the Social Reaction Inventory, and a Semantic Differential Scale were used to evaluate the adolescents while the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and the Raven Colour Progressive Matrix were used to evaluate the preschoolers. Pretest data were collected in December, 1971, and posttest data were collected in May,1972. These data were analyzed using twoway analysis of variance to derive F scores. These F scores were compared to F scores at the .OS level of significance. Fifteen variables (one for each hypothesis) were analyzed in this manner. All 15 hypotheses were stated in the null and were rejected or not rejected according to the F scores derived for each hypothesis. Discussion of Findings (Adolescents)_ The statistical analysis of the data permitted one of the thirteen null hypotheses pertaining to the adolescents to be rejected. This was hypothesis number 11

PAGE 75

-64 -which dealt with changes in attitude toward children by the experimental adolescent group. This was .caused by a significant rise in the means of the experimental group and a slight drop in the means of the control group. The training model was designed to train the experimental adolescent group to assume the role of adolescent-educator with their younger sibling. A significant positive change in attitude from pre-to posttest toward children was one of the desired outcomes of the study. The many opportun ities afforded the adolescents to interact with their younger siblings on a one-to-one basis was probably the main reason for this significant change. In e xamining the data relative to hypothesis number one, concerning self-concept and measured with the How I See Myself Scale, the experimental group had a greater change in means from pre-to posttest than the control group in four of the five factors of the scale. A lthough the gain was not significant it is nevertheless' welcome in light of the short span of time between measurements but most important in light of the tendency for the self-concept of many students to become negative w ith time (Purkey, 1970). The experimental group did show a decrease in means from pre-to posttest in the Interpersonal Adequacy factor. This decrease was probably due to rq_~~ ?Jd~. em~pt errg r during the pretesting since C, V --C-~,-,-"-" ~

PAGE 76

-65 -studies have shown that adolescents tend to show an increase in means from pre-to posttesting in this factor. Cage et al. (1971) reported a significant gain from preto posttest in the Interpersonal Adequacy factor for an adolescent group very similar to the experimental and control groups in this study. The belief that the decrease in means was due to error in premeasurement was further supported by the findings obtained by the use of the Social Reaction Inventory. The change in means from pre-to posttest for both groups was in the desired direction. Gordon (1968) stated that, "there is low, but significant correlation in the expected direction between changes in means on the Interpersonal Adequacy factor and the Social Reaction Inventory." Thus, since the means did not increase from pre-to posttest as the cited studies have shown, the possibility of pretest error was strengthened. The small changes in means from pre-to posttest as measured by the Social Reaction Inventory experienced by both groups was in1the desired direction. This was probably due to maturation by the subjects in both groups although the experimental group did show a greater change (-1.88 vs. -1.00) in the desired direction. In examining the data relative to the attitude changes from pre-to posttest as measured by a Semantic

PAGE 77

-66 -Differential Scale a Spearman rank-order correlation comparison was performed for the pre-and postdata for both groups. Figure 1 (Appendix B) shows the pre-and postrank-orders for both groups. The pre-post rank correlation (r) for the experimental group was .91, s which was significant at the .01 level. The pre-post rank correlation (r) for the control group was .52, which s did not reach significance at the .05 level. The high correlation displayed by the experimental group was probably due to the members of the group becoming more alike as the training progressed. In addition, the training model sought to directly influence the attitude of the experimental group towards nine of the 11 referent words used in the Semantic Differential Scale. In viewing the changes in attitude towards fellow students, guidance counselors, school principal, and school, the experimental group showed consistent greater increases in means from pre-to postmeasurement than the control group. It is highly possible that the gains shown in the attitudes towards fellow students by the experimental group was due to the interaction which the members of this group engaged in with each other during the training sessions. The gain shown in the attitude toward guidance counselors was probably caused by the guidance counselor who worked with the experimental group during the study. The counselor was a young man in his

PAGE 78

-67 -early twenties who sported a beard, rode a motorcycle, and communicated very well with young people. The experimental group probably developed a more positive attitude towards the young man serving as their counselor while the control group developed a less positive attitude towards the regular school counselors. This probability. is supported by a study conducted by Boyle (1971) in which a similar instrument was used to measure changes in attitudes towards guidance counselors by high school students in Alachua County, Florida. Boyle showed that his experimental and control groups dropped in means from pre-to posttest. In comparing the attitude changes towards school of the experimental and control groups the experimental group showed a gain in the means from pre-to posttest while the control group showed a loss in means. Again citing Boyle, the experimental and control groups in that study showeda significant drop in means from pre-to postmeasurement. In addition, Purkey (1970) cited several studies which indicated that the image of school grows gradually less positive with time. These studies support the belief that the attitude towards school should be less positive in May than in September. Yet, the present study showed that the experimental group's attitude toward school became more positive with time. Because the training

PAGE 79

-68 -model allowed for the subjects in the experimental group to see themselves as a part of the schooling institution when engaged in home learning activities with their younger siblings, it is highly possible that school became more meaningful to the experimental group causing a positive change in their attitude. The attitude toward self and parents of both experimental and control groups became more positive from pre-to postmeasurement. While the attitudes towards self should decrease as a result of the image of school held by the student (Purkey, 1970), this was not the case in the present study. However, it was only when the attitude towards self was viewed along with the attitude towards parents that a possible explanation became apparent. As stated in the review of related literature, Chapter II, parents of migrant children view school as a day-care situation freeing them to work the fields without hindrance. This probably prevents the school-age child from viewing school as his center'of social life and instead sea5the home or the neighborhood as that center. This probably accounted for the school not having an influence over their self-concept. The home or neighborhood as the center of social life also helped to explain the -findings in measuring the attitude towards police and government of both groups.

PAGE 80

-69 -Both groups showed significant decrease in the means from pre-to postmeasurement of attitudes towards police. The migrant families as well as their children probably saw the police as a negative influence in their lives. The same attitude was held toward government. Their mobile lives did not permit the migrants to use the services of government and thus saw only the demands placed on them by the various levels of government. In viewing the attitude changes toward teacher and work, the experimental group showed a gain from pre-to postmeasurement in both attitudes; however, the control group showed a decrease in means. These changes in means from pre-to posttest are displayed in Figures 2 and 3 (Appendix B). These figures show that the pretest mean of the control group was greater than the pretest mean of the experimental group and that the posttest mean of the control decreaseswhile the posttest mean of the experimental group increasesthereby causing a significant F value (p < .01) for the (Bx Subj. W. Groups) interaction as shown in Tables 6 and 10. At-test for the difference between the two means was performed to determine the probability of the observed difference appearing if, in fact, the null hypothesis of no difference between means (1 -2 = 0) was true. For the attitude towards teachers, t = 2.14, which was significant for p < .05, while for the

PAGE 81

-70 -attitude towards work, t = 1.91, which was also significant for p < .05. The null hypotheses (1 2 = 0) were rejected since the probability of the difference between means occurring by chance was less than .05. The difference in means, however, favored the experimental group. The opportunities afforded the experimental group to see themselves as teachers of younger children and the pay received for doing this type of work probably .contributed to a more positive attitude towards teachers and.work Discussion of Findings (Preschoolers) The statistical analysis of the data collected on the preschoolers did not permit either of the two null hypotheses to be rejected. While the experimental preschool group showed a greater gain in the Peabody Picture Vocabulary test scores, the gain was not statistically significant. It is difficult to determine whether this lack of significance was caused by the short length of time during which the study was conducted or by the equally short length of time that the adolescents spent performing the home learning activit ies with the experimental group preschoolers. Both groups showed significant gains in the mean from pre-to postmeasurement because the PPVT is an achievement instrument and both groups were enrolled in a preschool educational setting.

PAGE 82

71 The drop in mean scores from pre to post in the Raven Colour Progressive Matrix by the experimental group and the gain shown by the control group can be explained in terms of the teaching activities engaged in by the experimental adolescent group and the experimental preschooler group. The activities designed to teach the preschoolers how to solve the progressive matrices were printed in black and white while the Raven Colour Progressive Matrix was in color. This might have produced confusion for the experimental group and caused the decrease in the mean whereas the control group showed normal growth from pre-to postmeasurement. Conclusion The model for training migrant adolescents to assume the role of adolescent-educators showed that it has the potential to accomplish its objectives. The significant change in attitude toward children shown by the experimenta_ l group indicated that that area of the model dealing with training in early childhood education had an influence on migrant adolescent-educators. The other areas of the model do not show a significant difference in the attitude of the experimental adolescent group nor in the performance of the experimental preschooler group. The fact that the experimental adolescent group showed

PAGE 83

-72 -greater gains in 13 of the 17 measures suggested that modifications were in order, but a complete overhaul of the model was not warranted. The data collected on the preschooiers suggested that the model should incorporate the monitoring of the adolescents while engaged in the home learning activities with the preschooler. Suggestions for Further Research These suggestions are offered for further research that would deal with the goals and objectives considered in this study: 1. Determine if preschoolers ages 3.5~4.S can be trained to solve matrices similar to Raven Colour Progressive Matrix. 2. Develope more refined instruments for measuring the attitude of adolescents towards work, school, self, fellow students, guidance counselors, teachers, school principals, and parents. 3. Develope instruments to measure the transfer of learning from teacher to adolescent to preschooler.

PAGE 84

APPENDIX A

PAGE 85

Institute for Development of Human Resources College of Education University of Florida Follow Through Project SOCIAL REACTION INVENTORY* Parent Name City -----------------------------Child's Name Date ----------------------------Child's Teacher Collected By -----,------------------I More Strongly Believe That: L 2. 3. 4. a. b. a. b. a. b. a. Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much. The trouble with most children today is that their parents are too easy with them. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck. People's troubles result from the mistakes they make. One of the biggest reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough interest in government. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world. b. It is the sad truth that an individual's worth often passes without being recognized no matter how hard he tries. 5. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is "hot air. 11 b. Most students don't realize how much their grades are influenced by accident or chance. 6. a. Without the right breaks one cannot be a good and able leader. b. Able people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their opportunities. 74 -

PAGE 86

-75 SOCIAL REACTION INVENTORY---Continued 7. a. No matter how hard you try, some people just don't like you. b. People who can't get others to like them, don't understand how to get along with others. 8. a. What a person is born with plays the biggest part in determining what they are like. b. It is one's experiences in life which determine what they are like. 9. a. I have often found that what is goin9 to happen will b. 10. a. b. 11. a. b. 12. a. b. 13. a. b. 14. a. b. 15. a. b. happen. Putting trust in fate has never turned out as well for me as making a plan to take a certain course of action. In the case of the well prepared student there is hardly ever such a th~ng as an unfair test. Many times test questions tend to be so different from class work, that studying is really a waste of time. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time. The average citizen can have an influence in government plans. This world is run by a few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can do about it. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad luck anyhow. There are certain people who are just no good. There is some good in everybody. In my case, getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by tossing a coin.

PAGE 87

-76 -SOCIAL REACTION INVENTORY---Continued 16. a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first. b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon being able, luck has little or nothing to do with it. 17. a. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are pushed around by forces we can neither understand, nor control. b. By taking an active part in government and social affairs the people can control world events. 18. a. Most people don't realize the point to which their lives b. 19. a. b. 20. a. b. 21. a. b. 22. a. b. 23. a. b. 24. a. b. are controlled by accident and chance. There is really no such thing as "luck." One. should always be willing to admit his mistakes. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you. How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are made up for by the good ones. Most troubles are the result of lack of know-how, lack of knowledge, being lazy, or all three. With enough effort we can clean up dirty government. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things government leaders do in office. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give. The harder I study the better grades I get. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.

PAGE 88

25. a. b. 26. a. b. 27. a. b. 28. a. b. 29. a. b. -77 SOCIAL REACTION INVENTORY--Continued Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important part in my life. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly. There is not much use in trying too hard to please people~if they like you, they like you. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school. Team sports are an excellent way to build character. What happens to me is my own doing. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is taking. Most of the time I cannot understand why politicians behave the way they do. In the long run, the people are responsible for bad gov~rnment on a national as well as on a local level. *Adapted by Larry M. Bilker, Institute for Development of Human Resources, College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32601, from the Rotter I-E Scale.

PAGE 89

-78 -Name: Grade: Sex: Age: ------------------------School: Secondary Form HOW I SEE MYSELF Developed by Ira J. Gordon, Director, Institute for Development of Human Resources, College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32601. 1. I rarely get real mad 1 2 3 4 5 2. I have trouble staying 1 2 3 4 5 with one job until I finish 3. I am a good artist 1 2 3 4 5 4. I don't like to work 1 2 3 4 5 on committees 5. I wish I were taller 1 2 3 4 5 or shorter 6. I worry a lot 1 2 3 4 5 7. I wish I could do 1 2 3 4 5 something with my hair 8. Teachers like me 1 2 3 4 5 9. I have a lot of 1 2 3 4 5 energy 10. I am a poor athlete 11. I am just the right weight 12. The girls don't admire me 13. I am good at speaking before a group 14. My face is very pretty (good looking) 15. I am good at musical things 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I get mad easily I stick with a job until I finish I am a poor artist I enjoy working on committees I am just the right height I seldom worry My hair is nicelooking. Teachers dislike me I have little energy I am good at athletics I wish I were lighter or heavier The girls admire me I am poor at speaking before a group I wish my face was prettier (better looking) I am poor at musical things

PAGE 90

79 -HOW I SEE MYSELF---Continued 16. I get along very well with teachers 17. I dislike teachers 18. I am seldom at ease and relaxed 19. I do not like to try new things 20. I have trouble controlling my feelings 21. I do very well in school 22. I want the boys to admire me 23. I don't like the way I look 24. I don't want the girls to admire me 25. I am quite healthy 26. I am a poor dancer 27. Science is easy for me 28. I enjoy doing individual projects 29. It is easy for me to organize my time 30. I am poor at making things with my hands 31. I wish I could do something about my skin 32. Social studies is easy for me 33. Math is difficult for me 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I don't get along well with teachers I like teachers I am usually at ease and relaxed I like to try new things I control my feelings very well I do not do well in school I don't want the boys to admire me I like the way I look I want the girls to admire me I am sick a lot I am a good dancer Science is difficult for me I don't like to do individual projects I have trouble organizing my time I am good at making things with my hands My skin is nicelooking Social studies is difficult for me Math is easy for me

PAGE 91

-80 -HOW I SEE MYSELF--Continued 34. I am not as smart as my classmates 35. The boys admire me 36. My clothes are not as nice as I'd like 37. I like school 38. I wish I were built like the others 39. I am a poor reader 40. I do not learn new things easily 41. I present a good appearance 42. I do not have much confidence in myself 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I am smarter than most of my classmates The boys don't admire me My .clothes are very nice I dislike school I like my build I am a very good reader I learn new things easily I present a poor appearance I am full of confidence in myself

PAGE 92

-81 -SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE INSTRUCTIONS: There are no right or wrong answers to this questionnaire. It has no bearing on your grade in any course. All information will be kept CONFIDENTIAL. Mark the column that best expresses your feelings between the descriptive words toward the named persons or people. A. I feel towards 1. good 2. ugly 3. clean 4. worthless 5. kind 6. unpleasant 7. happy 8. awful 9. honest 10. unfair B. I feel towards 1. good 2. ugly 3. clean 4. worthless 5. kind 6. unpleasant 7. happy 8. awful 9. honest 10. unfair myself: . my fellow students: . bad beautiful dirty valuable cruel pleasant sad nice dishonest fair bad beautiful dirty valuable cruel pleasant sad nice dishonest fair

PAGE 93

-82 -ATTITUDES--Continued C. I feel towards my parents: 1. good bad 2. ugly beautiful 3. clean dirty 4. worthless valuable 5. kind cruel 6. unpleasant pleasant 7. happy sad --8. awful nice 9. honest dishonest 10. unfair fair D. I feel towards my teachers: 1. good bad 2. ugly beautiful 3. clean dirty 4. worthless valuable 5. kind cruel 6. unpleasant pleasant 7. happy sad 8. awful nice 9. honest dishonest 10. unfair fair E. I f .eel towards my guidance counselors: 1. good bad 2. ugly beautiful 3. clean dirty

PAGE 94

-83 ATTITUDES---Continued 4. worthless valuable s. kind cruel 6. unpleasant pleasant 7. happy sad 8. awful nice 9. honest dishonest 10. unfair fair F. I feel towards my principal: 1. good bad 2. ugly : beautiful 3. clean dirty 4. worthless valuable s. kind cruel 6. unpleasant pleasant 7. happy sad 8 awful nice --9. honest dishonest 10. unfair fair G. I feel towards my school: 1. good bad 2. ugly beautiful 3. clean dirty 4. worthless valuable 5. kind cruel 6. unpleasant pleasant

PAGE 95

-84 -ATTITUDES--Continued 7. happy sad 8. awful nice 9. honest dishonest 10. unfair fair H. I feel towards work: 1. good bad 2. ugly beautiful 3. clean dirty 4. worthless valuable 5. kind cruel 6. unpleasant pleasant --7. happy sad 8. awful nice 9. honest dishonest 10. unfair fair I. I feel towards children: 1. good bad 2. ugly beautiful 3. clean dirty 4. worthless valuable 5. kind cruel 6. unpleasant pleasant 7. happy sad 8. awful nice 9. honest : dishonest 10. unfair fair

PAGE 96

-85 ATTITUDES~ontinued J. I feel towards police: 1. good bad 2. ugly beautiful 3. clean dirty 4. worthless valuable 5. kind cruel 6. unpleasant : pleasant 7. happy sad 8. awful nice 9. honest dishonest 10. unfair fair K. I feel towards government: 1. good bad 2. ugly beautiful 3. clean dirty 4. worthless valuable 5. kind cruel 6. unpleasant pleasant 7. happy : sad 8. awful nice 9. honest dishonest 10. unfair fair

PAGE 97

APPENDIX B

PAGE 98

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Pre-1. Parents 2. Guidance Counselors 3. Children 4. Principal 5. Self 6. Work 7. School 8. Teachers 9. Government 10. Fellow Students 11. Police Post-Parents Guidance Counselors Self Children School Principal Work Teachers Fellow Students Police Government rs= .91, which is significant for p < .01. CONTROL GROUP Pre-1. Guidance Counselors 2. Parents 3. Teachers 4. Work 5. Self 6. Children 7. Principal 8. Fellow Students 9. Police 10. School 11. Government Post-.Parents Guidance Counselors Self Fellow students Children Principal School Work Government Teachers Police rs= .52, which is not significant for p < .OS. Figure 1. Rank-Order Correlation~Semantic Differential Referent Words. -87 -

PAGE 99

-88 -66.00 64.0 (64.19) ( 6 3. 21) 6 2. 0 60.00 (59.88) (59.07) 58.0 56.00 (54.93) Premeans Postmeans Figure 2. Attitude Toward Teachers~Preand Postmeans for Experimental and Control Groups.

PAGE 100

-89 -66.00 64.0 (64.44) 62.00 (62.50) 60.00 (60.21) 58.00 (57.21) 56.00 54.00 Premeans Postmeans Figure 3. Attitude Toward Work~Preand Postmeans for Experimental and Control Groups.

PAGE 101

BIBLIOGRAPHY Boyle, J. A. Influence of an experimental social studies course on self concepts and attitudes of adolescents. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1971. Bronfenbrenner, U. Motivational and social components in compensatory education program. Critical issues in research related to disadvantaged children. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1969, 1-34. Bronfenbrenner, U. Two worlds of childhood: U. S. and U.S.S.R. Russell Sage Foundation, 1970. Cage, B. N., Carr, G., Hoffman, s., & Newell, J., Research Coordinators. Early childhood migrant compensatory education project -an evaluation. Gainesville: Institute for the Developement of Human Resources, College of Education, University of Florida 1971. Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. c. Experimental and quasi experimental design for research. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1963, 13. Duetsch, M. Facilitating developement in the preschool child: Social and psychological perspective. Pre-school education today, F. M. Heckinger (ed.), New York: Doubleday & Co., 1966, 73-94. Dunn, L. M. Peabody picture vocabulary test. Circle Pines, Minnesota: American Guidance Service, Inc., 1965. Education Developement Center. A proposal for an adolescent program in child study and work with young children. Research proposal funded by NIMH and OCD, 1971, Cambridge, Mass. Evans, G. T. Standardization of selected semantic differential scales with secondary school children. Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1971. 90 -

PAGE 102

-91 -Fowler, W. A development learning approach to infant care in a group setting. Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1971. Glass, G. V. & Stanley, J.C. Statistical methods in education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. Gordon, I. J. Early child stimulation through parent education. Gainesville: Institute for the Development of Human Resources, College of Education, University of Florida, 1967. Gordon, I. J. A test manual for the How I See Myself Scale. Gainesville: Florida Educational Research and Development Council, 1968. Gordon, I. J. The Florida parent education program. Gainesville: Institute for the Development of Human Resources, College of Education, University of Florida, 1971. Gordon, I. J., Guinagh, B. J., & Jester, R. E. Child learning through child play. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1972. Gray, S. W. & Klaus, R. A. The early training project: A seventh year report. Nashville: DARCEE, 1969. Guinagh, B. J. An experimental study of basic learning ability and intelligence in low socioeconomic status children. Child development, 1971, 42, 27-36. Jacobs, P. I. & Vandeventer, M. Progressive matrices: An experimental developmental, nonfactorial analysis. Princeton, New Jersey: Equcational Testing Ser-vice, 1968. Levenstein, P. Cognitive growth in preschoolers through verbal interaction with mother. American journal of orthopsychiatry, April, 1970, 40, (3), 426-432. Mussen, P.H. The psychological development of the child. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaning. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1967.

PAGE 103

Palmer, R. K., (Ed.} curriculum. -92 -Conceptualization of preschoo l Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1972. Purkey, W. W. 8elf concept and school achievement. Engle wood Cliffs, N e w Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970, 50. Radin, N., & Weikart, D. A home teaching program for disadvantaged preschool children. Journal of special education, Winter, 1967, 1, 183-187. Raths, L. E., Harmin, M., & Simon, S. B. Values and teaching: Working with values in the classroom. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1966. Raven, J.C. Guide to the standard progressive matrices. London: H. K. Lewis & Co. LTD., 1960. Reiff, R. Some implication of the "style of life" of paraprofessionals. Training paraprofessionals: a team member, Nashville: DARCEE, 1968, 51-59. Rivera, V. A., Jr. The forgotten ones: Children of migrants. The national elementary principal, November, 1970, 1, (2). Rotter, J. Generalized expectations for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monograph, 1966, 80, 1-28. Schaefer, E. s. A home tutoring program. Children, 1969, 16, 59-61. Texas Agricultural Extension Service. Proposal for child development demonstration project, San Antonio, Texas, 1971. Texas Teacher Experience Program Brochure. Odessa, Texas: Odessa School District, 1969. Zener, T. Priorities for Office of Child Development day care research and demonstration grants: FY 72, Office of Child Development, letter dated December 30, 1971, Washington, D. c.

PAGE 104

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ramon Garcia was born on August 17, 1937, in Brownsville, Texas. He graduated from Brownsville High School in May, 1956, and attended Texas Southrnost College, also in Brownsville, for two years. He received a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Texas at Austin, in August 1961. Mr. Garcia served as a Naval Flight Officer during the period September, 1961, to July, 1966. In August, 1969, he received a Master of Arts in Teaching from Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida. Mr. Garcia has taught elementary and secondary school in Texas and Florida. Mr. Garcia is married to the former Beatrice Calderon and is the father of one child, Kelly Rae. -93 -

PAGE 105

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in sc pe and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doct of Education. Dr. c.'Gleh~Hass, Professor of Education, Chairman I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education. John M. Newell, fessor of Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education. Dr. Gerald Leslie Professor of Sociology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education. Dr. Doyle steel, Associate Professor of Education

PAGE 106

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education. Dr. Bob N. Cage, Assistant Professor oEducation This dissertation was submitted to the Dean of the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. August, 1972 Dean, Education i...,/ Dean, Graduate School