The School Climate and its impact upon the self

concept of adolescents in the Secondary school

system and its relationship to academic
achievement

S.A.L.I.S.E.S. TENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE,

U.W.I., CAVE HILL CAMPUS, BARBADOS
MARCH 25 – 27, 2009

By Sacha John-Charles-Baynes

MPhil Social Policy

 The School Climate and its impact upon the self concept of adolescents in

the Secondary school system and its relationship to academic achievement

By

Sacha John-Charles-Baynes

(MPhil Social Policy)

Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies, University of the West Indies, St.

Augustine

ABSTRACT

A look into the current education system reveals several challenges with our youth resource.

Media Reports, local, regional and international studies have paid much attention to issues of

school violence, general indiscipline, some students’ low level of aspirations and motivation

to achieve. This paper seeks to address some key issues that affect academic achievement in

the Secondary school system in Trinidad and Tobago. It attempts to look at the role of the self

concept in mediating the relationship between the Classroom social climate and academic

achievement. Multiple linear regression will be used for the analysis. The research findings

will have implications for educators, researchers and policy makers.

Keywords: Classroom environment, Self concept, academic achievement, secondary

school, Trinidad and Tobago.

Email: sachaangela@gmail.com
Introduction

“School climate is much like the air we breathe-it tends to go unnoticed until something is seriously

wrong.”

Jerome Freiberg (1999:1)

The school is very important to the social development of the nation. The school along with the

family and other institutions also provides a value base for the individual to function (Evans, 2006). In

Trinidad and Tobago, there are currently higher levels of crime among the youth population, high

failure rates in certain types of secondary schools, and a great number of adults seem to be concerned

that many young persons today appear to be unmotivated, looking for the easy way out and are not

contributing to the social development of the nation of Trinidad and Tobago. Foote in the analysis of

the secondary school system found that “in most of the non prestige schools, complaints abound about

student’s lack of interest, indiscipline, distractions and general misbehaviour. When one considers that

non prestige school comprise approximately eighty percent of the total number of secondary schools

in the country, then it is possible to appreciate how rampant such indiscipline is and how it continues

to breed more indiscipline” (Mustapha 2002, 209).

In the Education Policy paper: National task force on Education (1993-2003, viii), the over guiding

document for the next decade, it is acknowledged that “our learning systems, over the last two

decades have not generated the expected quality of graduates in the proportions which our levels of

educational expenditure per pupil have led us to hope for, and it is generally recognized that they do

not cater as efficiently as they might for those who are ‘educationally at risk’ broadly speaking, as

well as more particularly, for those individuals in our community with special needs.”

The education system prepares the individual for their role in society. It shapes the self perception of

the adolescent, and gives them the foundation for their future participation in society, that is not

limited to participation in the work place (Evans, 2006). In fact, these persons that experience our

educational system are the future leaders, the future of tomorrow that will set the goals for the
upcoming years and will be the protectors of the heritage from yesteryear. The manner in which these

young individuals perceive themselves and how they perceive their obligation to society also sets the

tone for their participation in the society. Thus, an examination of the school environment is

warranted in order to attempt to meet the socio psychological and academic needs of such a

significant group.

The school also sets the tone for academic achievement. Schools that foster feelings of self worth and

self appreciation, often tend to enhance the academic performance of students (Noel 1991). Students

from different social class backgrounds often have challenges interfacing with their peers and

teaching personnel. The role of the school and more directly the teacher; plays a role in navigating

these differences in order to ensure that the student obtains the maximum experience in the school

and; that this is most evident in the academic performance of the individual. The Education Policy

Paper: 1993-2003, confirms that this framework is essential to assessing the school environment. This

however, may be in an ideal setting. But this should not limit the attempt to come closely as possible

to this goal.

This research is still in the formative stages, and the presentation will seek to report preliminary

research findings. The purpose of this research is to assess the school climate and its impact upon the

self concept of the adolescent and its relationship to academic achievement.

Definition of the School Climate

It is agreed by many theorists, that the school climate is different and distinctive to each,

individual environment. It is widely understood that schools tend to differ in terms of their

‘feeling’ or ‘tone’ (Gowrie 1990, 1 and Anderson 1982, 370). Freiberg (1999, 11) in

discussing the school climate noted that the “school climate is about that quality of a school

that helps each individual feel personal worth, dignity and importance, while simultaneously

helping create a sense of belonging to something beyond ourselves.”

From a perusal of the literature, the term culture and climate is often a challenge to differentiate. The

term culture carries a different connotation to the climate. Owens (2004, 183) in discussing the term

culture defined it to refer to “behavioral norms, assumptions, and beliefs of an organization.” Kilmann

et al (Sackney 1988) also defined culture as “the shared philosophies, ideologies, values, assumptions,

beliefs, expectations, attitudes and norms that knit a community together” In making the

differentiation between the concepts of climate and culture, Owens (2004, 230) indicates that the

“climate is the study of the perception of participants of factors in the organizational environment that

are likely to reflect the culture of the organization.”

Review of the Literature

The popularity of what influences academic achievement grew in momentum after the

Coleman study. Academic outcome was the main thrust of educational research in the 1960’s

and 1970’s (Grosnin 1985, 1). During this timeframe, many studies accounted for varying

reasons that determined academic success or failure. Different theoretical orientations,

instruments and methods were created in an attempt to greater understand the learning

environment.

There are several issues that arise when considering the assessment of the school climate.

These issues concern the variations in theoretical philosophies, models, variables and so forth

in examining the school climate (Anderson 1982, 368). According to Anderson (1982, 368),

“school climate research is clearly the stepchild of both organizational climate research and

school effects research, having inherited instruments, theory, and methods from both research

paradigms.” Dorman (2002) postulates that climate research traditions look at school

environments and its relationship to outcomes, comparison between teacher and student

perception, actual and ideal environments and many other slants.

In the early school climate studies, the environment was assessed through the Needs Press

Theory. This theory was developed by Lewin in 1936 through the field theory and was

enhanced by Murray in 1938 and Stern, Stein and Bloom in 1956. In this theory, it assumes

that as human beings we have needs. Our needs often influence our behaviour. The theory

assesses the Press of the environment which can exert some influence on the individual. The

press however, can either satisfy or dissatisfy our needs.

Lewin provided the base to understand the educational environment. It should be noteworthy,

that the early studies on the School Environment often had its roots in the psychosocial

dimension. Lewin’s work was no different. He suggested that it is a critical component of

understanding change. According to Lewin (1951, 31) in his book entitled “Field Theory in

Social Science Research”, field theory focuses on the stimulus-response concept in the

psychological perspective. Lewin (1951, 44-45) noted that “...field theory emphasizes the

importance of the fact that any event is a resultant of a multitude of factors.” In order to

assess the field at any given time, Lewin (1951, 48) suggested the need to determine the

“character of the situation.” It is also necessary to access the past, present and future to

understand the field (Lewin 1951, 53). In terms of learning, we must understand all the

processes that affect the individual and ultimately the learning process. Lewin (1951, 45)

however emphasized that the field theory is not a theory but rather a method to assess casual

relationships and to build scientific constructs.

The Coleman report was also quite significant. It served as an impetus towards new

directions in research. Coleman in the 1960s attempted to look at school effectiveness. In the

popular Coleman Report in 1966, Coleman et al attempted to examine whether equal

educational opportunities existed in the public school system for minority groups such as

Africans, Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, Oriental Americans and American Indians,

comparatively for Whites in the United States (Coleman et 1966 3). In his review, Coleman

found that these minority students are more likely to face disadvantages due to their teacher

student relationship and quality of education offered to them as compared to their white

peers. Coleman tested a range of students throughout 1st and 12th grade in 1965. Coleman

however, noted that despite these differences socioeconomic differences played a greater role

in impacting upon academic achievement. According to Coleman et al (1966 21-22), “when

these factors are statistically controlled, however, it appears that differences between schools

account for only a small fraction of differences in pupil achievement.” Coleman et al

however, noted that for minority students, with the exception of Oriental Americans, schools

have a greater impact on achievement levels than compared to their White peers. In all

however, differing facilities and curriculums had minimal impact on achievement mostly for

whites, but not the minorities. Across the board however, the quality of teachers mattered in

educational outcomes (Coleman et 1966 22).

Coleman’s findings set the tone for further research as it identified problem areas in the

educational field. Emerging studies then further investigated the role of the school and its

relation to class reproduction (Grosnin 1985,1).

In the 1960’s, student perception was used by Walberg to examine the teaching approach and

classroom climate for a physics course. This differed from the behaviourism approach that

used observation. In the last 20 years, measurement of perception of the environment has

been the trend for assessing the school and classroom environment (Dorman 2002). Walberg

also was critical in developing the Learning Environment Inventory (L.E.I.). This scale also
covered Moos categories of the learning environments (Fraser 1986, 16).

The measurement of the school climate also came at a time with limited instruments to

examine school environments. Previously, there were theories that looked at the role of the

school environment, but with limited measures (Fraser and Fisher 1983, 4). One of the

founding theories of the school climate can be attributed to Halpin and Croft in 1963. Their

emphasis lay in capturing the perceptions of the people that experienced the organizational

nature of the school. They also provided a typology of the school environment ranging from

open to closed. The OCDQ tends to focus on teacher and principal perceptions in terms of

characteristics of both the teacher and the principal (Anderson 1982, 377)

Rudolf Moos has also been quite noteworthy in his contribution to the field of the learning

environment both theoretically and methodologically. Moos independent research led him to

conceptualise human environments as social entities. This interpretation has led to the

creation of the Classroom Environment Scale, the Work Environment Scale and many others.

His classification of human environments has led to the application of his theory to other

environments such as workplaces and hospitals to name a few. Moos work is also significant

as most Classroom/School level instruments often follow his categories in assessing learning

environments (Fraser 1986, 16).

Moos examined the school climate through the lens of a tripartite model. This model focused

on the personal relationships within the social environment, the opportunity for growth and

the development of esteem and the extent to which the environment may be orderly,

maintains control and is responsive to change, through its systems maintenance (MacIntosh

1991). Moos and Trickett also deserved credit as they created a tripartite model for assessing
environments that went beyond the school (Fraser 1986, 16-17).

The Classroom Environment Scale has been used to capture the perceptions of both the

teacher and student, in the junior and senior high school environment. It was significant as it

assessed a different dimension of the classroom environment as well as added to a limited

array of classroom assessment scales. This scale also was adjusted to be applicable to work

and hospital settings.

In Moos and Trickett’s work, the classroom is seen through the lens of the persons who

experience their environment, rather than using ratings of external observers.(Trickett and

Moos 1973, 94). The dimensions of the variables are examined in the scale. According to

Trickett and Moos’ order and organization, rule clarity, and teacher control are categorized as

the maintenance or authority. Innovation is seen as a system change. Teacher support,

involvement and affiliation pertain to friend and interpersonal relationships

While there were certain contributions to the study of learning environments, different issues

were being brought to the fore in other countries. The debate on Coleman’s findings still

resonated in the minds of researchers. In the 1970’s, the Swedish studies revealed differing

arguments to Coleman’s argument. They attempted to uncover what the significant reasons

were to explain educational outcomes. According to Ekerwald in a review of the Swedish

educational environment, he found that schools played a significant role in influencing

scholastic performance ( Grosnin 1985,1).

Brookover in 1979, also provided some ground breaking work in the school effectiveness

field in the U.S.A. by suggesting that racial background and socioeconomic status did not
solely account for academic performance. In fact, social climate, personnel inputs and social

composition was responsible for approximately 85% of variance in Mathematics and English

performance (Verdis et al 2003, 157). Brookover in 1979 in order to assess the school effect,

identified several characteristics of the school. He identified student socioeconomic status

and ethnic background, ecological factors such as the school size, classroom organization and

social climate.

Unlike Rutter in England, Brookover however, found that socioeconomic status and racial

composite played a role together with the social climate in influencing academic

achievement. He further suggested that the Social climate was more significant for

influencing the poor and minority groups rather than the middle and upper class students. The

latter group often had greater family support mechanisms (Grosnin 1985, 4-6). Brookover

asserted that the findings in the Coleman report led to a distraction on issues that concern

educational outcomes. The postulation that other effects such as IQ levels, language

differences, genetics all seem to ignore the role of the school and diminishes its impact(

Brookover 1975, 358-359).

Rutter noted that the role of schools versus classrooms also had an impacting role on

academic performance (Teddlie, 101). Rutter in 1979, in attempting to prove the effect of the

school in London, tested ten year old children who had various levels of intellect, reading and

behavioural limitations and differing socioeconomic backgrounds. Despite these differences,

social background was negligible in influencing academic performance, when compared to

school effect (Grosnin 1985, 2).

In 1995, Swee Chiew Goh and Barry Fraser in their article entitled “Learning Environment

and Student Outcomes in Primary Mathematics Classrooms in Singapore” provided some

ground breaking work as previously, minimal research has been done on the classroom

learning environment in primary school mathematics’ classes in Singapore. Also, the absence

of comparative gender related achievement performance is also notable, hence the need to

conduct the research (Goh and Fraser, 1995 3). Goh and Fraser’s objective sought to

determine how teacher student relationships and classroom climate may affect students

mathematical performance in Grade five. Goh and Fraser selected 39 mathematics classes

from mixed primary schools from a random sample. The overall sample size consisted of 1,

512 students, with 815 boys and 697 girls. Four instruments were used in the study, which

were an adapted version of both the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (Primary) and the

My Class Inventory, the Liking Mathematics Scale and the Mathematics Exercise Goh and

Fraser 1995, 4). The results obtained found that for boys and girls there were no differences

in their perception of mathematics. Also, boys performed better than females in Mathematics.

Despite their findings that there were minimal differences in terms of how boys and girls

perceived their environments, Goh and Fraser reiterated the need for teachers to maintain a

classroom that is cohesive and task oriented to maintain a positive climate Goh and Fraser

1995, 21).

Due to Coleman’s findings, the issues of whether schools made a difference arose. Students

appeared to have differing findings in this regard. The development therefore of the school

effectiveness movement grew in intensity and sought to establish conclusive evidence on the

roles of schools. According to Edmonds (Drakes 2000, 6), the characteristics of effective

schools were “strong administrative leadership , a climate of expectation that all students

were expected to obtain at least minimum mastery, an orderly school atmosphere conducive
to learning and teaching, the precedence of basic school skills acquisition over all other

school activities and frequent monitoring or pupil progress.”

Creemers in 1996, (Drakes 2000,6-7) found certain characteristics that effective schools

embodied. These were being able to cater to a variety of academic streams, having teachers

as role models, exercising good classroom managerial skills, a positive school climate,

parental involvement in school life, record keeping, new and exciting curricular, positive

reinforcement and a democratic approach from school leaders and the list continues.

The contribution of the school effectiveness movement did not exist without criticism.

Measuring effectiveness also brings challenges. The issue of who tells the story was brought

to the fore in assessing the educational environment (Banks 1971, 228) In assessing

effectiveness, skills achievement such as results from standardized tests are not adequate in

identifying school effectiveness. Rather, social psychological aspects must be identified as

well. However, it is found that this paradigm despite its weaknesses may augur well for

school improvement efforts. (Drakes 2000,1).

The merge of theories to explain our realities is also necessary so that we can conceptualise

our learning environments. In 2001, Fisher, Tony and Newby used the Questionnaire on

Teacher Interaction (QTI) to examine the teacher student relationship in the Australian

society. The QTI was created based on the model of teacher student relationship advanced by

Wubbels, Créton and Hooymayers in the Netherlands. The theoretical premise for this model

lies in the mixture of a systems perspective and a communications approach. This assumes

that communication is a two way process that influences behaviour. This instrument

measures teacher and student relationship, both real and preferred. There are slight
differences in the questions that the teacher and students are asked (Fisher et al 2001, 3-11).

Fisher et al (2001) identified eight dimensions of the teacher student relationship. These are

leadership, helping/friendly, understanding, student responsibility/Freedom, Uncertain,

dissatisfied, admonishing and strict. The leadership dimension focuses on the leadership

qualities and abilities of the teacher in the classroom. It is represented in the scale as “this

teacher talks enthusiastically about his/her subject. The helping teacher appears to have

interest in the student and is willing to give assistance. It is represented by “this teacher helps

us with our work”. The understanding teacher is empathetic and the scale statement for the

student is that “this teacher trusts us”. The student responsibility/Freedom speaks to the

levels of independence and responsibility that the student experiences. The item is “we can

decide some things in this teacher’s class.” The uncertain teacher may appear aloof and the

scale item states “this teacher seems uncertain.” With the dissatisfied teacher the students

often feel that it is hard to please the teacher. It is represented by “this teacher thinks we

cheat.” The admonishing teacher shares a conflicting relationship with the students. The scale

items suggest that “this teacher gets angry unexpectedly.” Finally, the strict teacher practices

rule adherence. The scale item is “this teacher is strict (Fisher et al 2001, 5).

The QTI has been tested in the USA and Australia. In the USA, 64 items were used, however

in Australia, 48 items were used. The research findings indicate that a teacher’s

ideal/preferred classroom influences how students perceive the classroom environment.

Findings for the study revealed that students prefer teachers that are strict, exhibit leadership

skills and are friendly.

There are several challenges and concerns when we are faced with the development of our
learning environments. There have been several recommendations to develop and improve

school climate studies. The methodology employed to study the School climate has also been

under scrutiny. Purkey and Smith (1982) identified three areas that have used. These are

outlier studies in which comparisons between effective and ineffective schools are made, case

studies and assessments of experimental activities. Purkey and Smith found that there are

limitations to isolating social class background from school characteristics in looking at the

effective school. The evaluations through the experimental exercise however, were identified

as being ‘methodologically stronger’ than the latter two approaches. They also suggested that

the differences in the sampling approach, led to problems in generalizations (Grosnin 1985,

23).

Rutter suggested several approaches to ensure that the there are adequate designs. Rutter

suggests that schools that are similar to their intake should be compared. Another way to look

at it may involve comparing schools that differ in their results, but are similar to their intake

(Ibid, 24).

Methodological approaches are also under contention. Rowan contends that longitudinal and

multivariate analyses are necessary to control for intervening factors (Ibid, 24). In recent

times, mixed approaches have been recommended to better understand the school

environment (She and Fisher 1998, 2).

According to Grosnin, (1985, 25) a lack of improper measures of the school environments

and challenges in selecting relevant and appropriate outcome variables are also areas of

concern in school and classroom climate studies.

Even today, the challenge still exists to find instruments that are accurate measures of the

school environment. The search for good fit has led to researchers either creating scales that

identify broader areas of the school environment, or creating scales that focus on dimensions

of one aspect of the school milieu. The ability of these instruments to generalize to various

groups has also played a role in its creation. These instruments can be given to teachers,

principals or students, with minimal adjustments. The instruments must also have some

applicability to the social and cultural context. Some of these scales have been tested for the

first time in some countries and so validity is important (Dorman 2002).

The school environments have established research in countries such as America, England

and Australia. The development of this area in other countries is recommended to understand

other local contexts of the school environment (Dorman 2002). The examination of

differences in climate in different school types is also recommended when evaluating

climates (Fraser in Freiberg 1999).

Thus, the study of learning environments has experienced many contributions. These vary in

terms of the theoretical base, methodological contributions and so forth. The issue of whether

schools can make a difference is still raging after the popular Coleman Report in the 1960’s.

Researchers are still attempting to find tune their approaches in terms of instrument

development, the utilization of multilevel analysis in terms and the merge of theories, in

addition to the application of other theories to the learning environment.

The self concept

Definition of the Self Concept

There are different conceptualizations of self for different theorists. Hattie (1992, 97)

suggests that the “self concept is merely a set of beliefs, and relationships between these

beliefs, that we have about ourself.” In conceptualizing the self in this manner, Hattie

suggests that there are different aspects of the self that we have various perceptions about.

These various perceptions of self may very well exist either congruently or incongruently

(Hattie 1992, 10). Ballantine (1997, 200) defines the self concept as “the way individuals

view themselves in particular roles, and it varies depending on each different role being

considered. This view determines to a large extent how people perform in given roles.” Baron

and Byrne (2002, 162) identify the self concept as “an organized collection of beliefs and self

perceptions about oneself.”

The self concept and self esteem

An understanding of the self concept and the self esteem is critical in explaining the

dynamics of a person’s being. The self concept is often described as how one thinks about

oneself, whereas self esteem pertains to one’s attitude/evaluation about oneself (Robinson et

al 1990,115). The self esteem can be rated as low/high feelings towards oneself or

positive/negative feelings towards self. How one feels about oneself is often a good indicator

to how one thinks about oneself (Ireson, Hallam and Plewis 2001, 323). This self evaluation

is often shaped by how one conceptualizes one’s ideal self. If there is a vast disparity between

how one person actually is and their idealized self, then low self esteem may occur (Baron

and Bryne 2003, 171-172).

The self concept and the environment

The school environment thus plays a significant role in the life of the adolescent. Studies

have shown that the students with a defined self concept, high self worth and established

values tend to perform well academically. (Ballantine 1997) On the other hand, Burns

(1982:v) suggests that “low performance in school work, poor motivation, misbehaviour and

academic disengagement- so characteristic of the underachiever, the early leaver, the

disadvantaged and the delinquent- are due in part to negative self attitudes and perceptions.

Mohammed (1992/1993, 2) postulates that “high positive self-concept does not necessarily

result in high academic achievement but appears to be a requirement for achievement.” In

fact, Mohammed (1992/1993, 2) suggests that “teachers therefore should not dwell on finding

answers to these issues but rather realize that each is mutually reinforcing and a positive

change in one facilitates a positive change in the other.”

The Hierarchical nature of the self

While earlier theorists identified the self in terms of its knowledge it was seen as an attitude

or evaluation. Rosenberg indicated that the self concept can be seen as a combination of an

individual’s thoughts and feelings towards himself as an object (Hattie 1992, 38-39). While

Rosenberg may have identified a united view of self, he accepted that the self is

multidimensional, and that there must be some coexistence with the various dimensions.

While Rosenberg may have indicated the importance of the multidimensional self, Hattie

contended that this was not reflected in his Self concept instrument (Hattie 1992, 59).

It is crucial to note that the multidimensional view of the self concept has been a consistent

one throughout the years. The Shavelson model has influenced many other instruments and is

popularly accepted. Shavelson et al’s 1976’s study identified the self concept as being
hierarchical and complex. The main self concept consisted of the general self concept. This

general self concept was further broken down into the academic and non academic self

concept. The academic self concept consisted of various subject areas such as Mathematics,

English, History and Science. The non academic self concept however consisted of the social,

emotional and physical self concept. The social self concept pertained to the peer and

significant others self concept, the emotional self concept can be seen as self explanatory and

the physical self concept, consisted of physical ability and how the individual perceived

physical appearance (Hattie 1992, Waugh 1999). In researching Shavelson’s theoretical

premise of the relationship between the self concept and self esteem, Marsh( 2006, 407)

suggests that it appears that Shavelson has discarded the traditional notion of self esteem of

being evaluative and the self concept as being purely descriptive. Marsh et al (2006, 407)

contends that “both self esteem and specific components of the self concept such as

academic, social and physical self concepts are evaluative.” They also postulate “that self

esteem is the global, hierarchical component of a multidimensional hierarchy of specific

components of self.”

The self concept and Academic achievement

It must be noted that the self concept of the student may vary per subject (Purkey 1970, 17).

A student may feel more confident in a particular area than another due to several factors.

These factors may involve their relationship with the teacher, their perception of their

academic ability, their perception of meeting the needs of the course and other potential

factors.

There have been several studies that argue that the individual’s self concept’s variation may

be due to several key factors. Marsh (1984, 6) in comparing Shavelson’s findings, suggest
that “academic ability measures should be more highly correlated with academic self concept

rather than with general self concept.” In fact, Marsh (1984, 6) goes on to assert that

“academic abilities in particular areas should be most highly correlated with self concept in

the same area, less highly correlated with self concept in other academic areas, and least

highly correlated with self concepts in non academic areas. In fact, Marsh (1984, 6-7) in

discussing the mathematical self concept found a correlation with mathematical achievement,

but a lesser degree of correlation in other academic areas and no correlation with self concept

of non academic areas. Whether or not the converse may hold true and various aspects of the global

self concept can actually contribute to academic achievement is to be determined.

In identifying the self concept of the individual and its relationship to academic performance, many

theorists have suggested that those who often under perform academically tend to possess negative

self concepts whereas the opposite may hold true for those who perform well academically. These

negative self concepts for under achievers may span from their general self concept and self esteem to

their academic self concept (Purkey 1970, 20-21). It has also been argued that there are differences

between academic performance and the various dimensions of the self concept. Ireson et al (2001;

316) postulate that “the general measures of self concept are only weakly correlated with academic

attainment, whereas subscales of mathematics and verbal self concept correlate more highly

with attainment in these content areas.”

The self concept and Academic achievement share a reflexive relationship (Prescott 2006,

54). It has been acknowledged however, that in the dynamic relationship between academic

achievement and the self concept, that there may exist third variables that may affect the

relationship (Prescott 2006, 54).

Education in the Caribbean

As the push to secure more value for money in the education sector emerges, the issue of

quality education is of outmost importance. The educational environment has a significant

part to play in determining the growth and development of the individual in school. While

the push for Universal education is necessary and important, mere attendance does not suffice

in meeting the aim of education. Ensuring equality and equity is important and can be met by

tackling the school environmental factors in addition to other supportive features of the

student’s life.

In the Caribbean and developing countries, research findings seem to indicate that academic

achievement is often mainly influenced by social class, sex/gender and student age, although

school factors are found to play a role in shaping achievement among various groups (Jules

and Kutnick 1997). Gowrie (2002, 19) suggests that while an examination of the curriculum

and physical environment is necessary, there seems to be insufficient emphasis on the human

dimension. Furthermore, the assessment of school quality as well as the examination of the

school climate is also in its infancy stages (Logie 1991, Gowrie 2002, 21, Emmanuel et al

2005). In fact, the Ministry of Education in Trinidad and Tobago concluded that for the first

time in 2004, a study focusing on non achievement variables. It is therefore imperative in

identifying the school factors that shape academic achievement.

A review of the learning environment studies in the Caribbean reveal certain similarities but

yet distinct differences compared to the International research agenda on such environments.

Research findings seem to indicate that there is still a struggle in terms of what impacts

academic achievement. Throughout it, several conclusions were made. Dyer (1968) found

that although the home environment determined academic success, we cannot discount the
role of the school, while Osuji (2002) disagreed that the home effect was greater and her

findings indicated a reverse. Osuji noted that the examination of the interpersonal relationship

was key to explain our educational climates. Persaud (1977) found that student perception is

necessary in understanding our school climate and Gowrie (2002) found that this was a

critical missing element in his research. Evans (2006) concluded that in considering the

climate as a part of the curriculum, we can move forward.

An assessment of the local and regional literature has indicated certain trends. Academic

outcomes are definitely on the mindset of researchers, however, there are certain areas of

emphasis that are applied to examining these issues. A focus on the organizational aspect of

the school is often seen as the intervening point to assess the school environment. The

examination of teacher and principal perception was often the target to assess school climate.

The shift to assessing student perception of the school environment has been embraced

however, as it has been identified as a needed interpretation.

Method

The new sector Secondary schools in Trinidad and Tobago who are guided by the Secondary

Education Modernization Programme (SEMP) curriculum were selected. The study employed

a two stage cluster sample to select the schools. In all, thirteen schools were selected.

Permission was granted from the Ministry of Education and the principals and form teachers

in the school. In all, 784 of students participated in the study. Some teachers were not pleased

with the survey and opted to exclude members from their class. A multiple linear regression

model will be use.

Materials

The Classroom Environment Scale was used to identify the School climate. The Self

Descriptive Questionnaire II was used to measure the self concept and the demographic data

was captured in the questionnaire.

Discussion

This discussion is based on preliminary findings on the student’s perception of the school

environment.

Relationship Dimension

A look at the school environment indicates that there is a moderate level of involvement for

the young persons in the schools. The general interest of the adolescent is not being

stimulated in the educational section. Fifty six percent of respondents indicated that they were

distracted and were quite anxious for class to finish. Sixty nine percent of respondents

indicated that they were often clock watching. Boys (60%) tended to be the ones more likely

to daydream than girls (50%). The students indicated that they enjoyed their classes and

reported that they often go the extra mile to do additional projects.

Classes were often rated high in terms of affiliation. The school climate was perceived as

being conducive to developing friendships. Affiliation contributes to the feeling of

belongingness. Like any normal school, there were groups of children that did not get along,

however, the ability to make friends in school was firmly established.

Classes were rated high in teacher support, especially since the students (79%) felt that their

teachers’ went the extra mile for them. Although the students felt that the teacher was flexible and
willing to talk to them, fifty six percent of respondents indicated that the teacher was not interested in

teaching the topics they were interested in. Girls (60%) felt this way more than boys (49%).

Growth and Maintenance

Classes were rated high in Task orientation. Fifty nine percent of students attested that teachers rigidly

adhere to the curriculum. The students (86%) were generally appreciative of the importance of doing

so. Despite this strict adherence to the curriculum, the students (56%) still felt that they had

opportunities to discuss other issues outside of the curriculum.

Students (56%) felt compelled to push themselves academically due to the competiveness of the

school environment. Teaching strategies such as group assignments were one of the methods to

encourage this competitive nature of the students, Sanctions seemed a bit lax for those who handed up

late assignments.

System Maintenance and Change

Order and Organization was an area that seemed to need improvement. The majority of respondents

(76%) indicated that they often have to be told to be quiet. At times, sixty percent of respondents

indicated that they were instructed to calm down. Boys (65%) reported this incident more than girls

(58%). With regards to their teachers however, the students felt that their teachers were well

organized and prepared for the class lesson.

Classes were rated high in rule clarity, as students felt that they clearly understood what the rules were

and the impact it would have in them. While the school was reported as being high in teacher control,

the students (71%) noted that the teacher would allow them to get away with a lot before they were

punished. Boys (50%) were more likely to test the boundaries than girls (37%) as they believed that

they don’t always have to stick to the school rules.

There was a moderate level of innovation established in the classroom. While students agreed that on

different days, you could expect different topics, they felt that the teaching methods were

monotonous. Thus, at times their enthusiasm for class seems to be minimal, as they found that the

teacher was not creative in thinking of unusual projects/assignments. These children felt bound to a

fixed/set method of doing assignments. Girls (60%) felt the need for more challenging tasks than boys

(52%). To ensure the maintenance of the student’s interest in the classroom, one needs to encourage

students to design and complete their own assignments.

Conclusion

Thus, the research findings seem to indicate that the educational experience has a strong impact on the

academic potential of the student. It is evident that the students recognise that their teachers care for

them and will help them if necessary. This is especially significant, as it ensures feelings of

belonginess of the individual. It seems that students need to have a curriculum that interest them and

pertains to their life experiences. Giving the students some forum to discuss or present their own

interests allows the student some sense of creativity. The set method of teaching has often been

criticized for being insufficient to get information across to students. Girls felt that they needed to

discuss important issues that pertained to them as well. Teacher training is even more important to

ensure that different methods are tried to captivate the students, who like school, but not necessarily

the curricular content and delivery style.

While the rules were clearly defined, the students felt that they could get away with a lot before they

were disciplined. A consistent approach to discipline seems to be needed as the students will do the

things that they feel they can get away with. Boys are also more likely to ‘test the waters’ and break

rules if needed than females. The respondents indicated that the classroom settings were often noisy

and distracting. Thus, a sterner approach to classroom management is necessary.

Bibliography

Anderson, Carolyn S. 1982. The Search for School Climate: A Review of the Research.

Review of Educational Research 52 (3):368-420.

Ballantine, Jeanne.1997. The Sociology of Education. East Sussex:Holy,Rinehart and

Winston Ltd.

Baron, Robert, and Byrne Donn. 2003. Social Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Brookover, Wilbur. 1975. The Sociology of education. Illinois: The Dorsey Press.

Coleman, James S., Campbell, Ernest Q., Hobson, Carol J., Mc Partland, James, M. C.,

Mood, Alexander M., Weinfield, Frederic, D. and York, Robert L. 1966. Equality of

Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Dorman, Jeffrey. 2002. Classroom environment research: Progress and possibilities.

Queensland Journal of Educational Research 18(2):112-140.

Drakes, Gerard. 2000. Creating Effective Schools: Insights from School Effectiveness

Research and School Improvement Practice. Dip Dissertation, the University of the West

Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad.

Dyer, Patrick. 1968. The effect of the home on the school in Trinidad In Sociology of

Education, by Peter M. E. Figueroa and Ganga Persaud, 213-220. New York: Oxford

University Press.
Emmanuel Arlene, Smith Peter and Salandy Andra .2005. Importance of Non Achievement

variables to Student Performance. http://www.moe.gov.tt/media_pdfs/publications/Non-

Academic%20Factors%20Affecing%20Performance.pdf

Evans, Hyacinth. 2006. Inside Hillview High School: An Ethnography of an urban Jamaican

School. Mona: The University of the West Indies Press.

Fisher, Darrell, Richards Tony and Newby, Michael. 2001. A multi-Level Model of

Classroom Interactions Using Teacher and Student Perceptions. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Australia.

Fraser, Barry. 1986. Classroom Learning Environment. London: Croom Helm.

Fraser, Barry J. and Fisher Darrell L. 1983. Assessment of Classroom Psychosocial

Environment. Workshop Manual. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the national

Association for Research in Science Teaching. Dallas

Freiberg, Jerome H. 1999.School Climate: Measuring, Improving and Sustaining healthy

learning environments. London: Falmer Press.

Goh, Swee Chiew and Fraser, Barry. 1995. Learning environment and student outcomes in

Primary Mathematics Classrooms in Singapore. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Gowrie, George. 2002. Perceptions of the Quality of worklife in Primary Schools in the St.

George East Education Division of Trinidad and Tobago. P.h.d., the University of the West

Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad.

Grosin, Lennart. 1985. School Ethos and Pupil Outcome: Research findings and some

theoretical considerations. Research Bulletins from the Institute of Education, University of

Stockholm. Sweden.

Hattie, John. 1992. Self Concept. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Ireson, Judith. 2005. Pupils’ liking for school: Ability grouping, self concept and perceptions

of teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, no.75:297-311.

Ireson, Judith, Hallam, Susan and Plewis Ian. 2001. Ability grouping in secondary schools:

Effects on pupils’ self concepts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, no.71 :315-326.

Lewin, Kurt. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science Research. London: Tavistock

Publications.

Jules, Vena and Kutnick, Peter and Layne Anthony. 1997. Gender and school Achievement in

the Caribbean. Education Research Paper. 21. London: Department for International

Relations.

Logie, Carol A. 1991. Academic persistence of students and school management in the

Caribbean: Implications for other countries. School Organisation 11 (3): 263-270.

Macintosh, James Ian.1991. Dimensions and Determinants of School Social Climate in

Schools Enrolling Middle Years Students.

http://www.saskschoolboards.ca/research/school_improvement/91-04.htm

Marsh, Herbert W., Parker, John, and Barnes Jennifer. 1984. Multidimensional Adolescent

Self Concepts: Their Relationship to Age, Sex and Academic measures. American

Educational Researcher Journal 22

Marsh, Herbert W., Trautwein, Ulrich, L dtke, Oliver, Köller, Olaf; and Baumert, J rgen.

2006. Integration of Multidimensional Self Concept and Core Personality Constructs:

Construct Validation and Relations to Well being and Achievement. Journal of Personality 74

(2): 403-456.

Mohammed, Angela. 1992. The relationship among Self Concept, reading attainment levels

and academic achievement of First form students at Malick Secondary Comprehensive

School. Master’s Thesis, the University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad.

Mustapha, Nasser and Brunton, Ronald. 2002. Issues in Education in Trinidad and Tobago.

St. Augustine. School of Continuing Studies. The University of the West Indies.

Noel, Dennis. 1991. The relationship between teacher-student social distance and academic

emotional adjustments of pupils at a Senior Comprehensive school.MED thesis. The

University of the West Indies: St. Augustine, Trinidad.

Osuji, Rose. 1992. The effects of school organization, teacher behaviour and student

behaviour in the academic achievement of form V students in Trinidad. PHD dissertation,

The University of the West Indies. . St. Augustine. Trinidad.

Prescott, Anne. 2006. The concept of self in Psychology. New York: Nova Science Publishers

Inc.

Purkey, William W. 1970. Self Concept and School Achievement. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Robinson, Phillip.1983.Perspectives on the sociology of education. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul.

Sackney, Larry. Department of Educational Administration. University of Saskatchewan,

1988. Enhancing School Learning Climate: Theory, research and Practice.

http://www.saskschoolboards.ca/research/school_improvement/180.htm.

She, Hsiao- Ching and Fisher, Darrell L. 1998. Combining Quantitative and Qualitative

Approaches in Studying Student Perceptions of Teacher Behaviour in Taiwan and Australia.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science

Teaching. San Diego

Teddlie, Charles and Reynolds, David. 2000. The international handbook of School

effectiveness research: An international Survey of Research on School Effectiveness.

Routledge.London and New York.

Trickett, Edison and Moos, Rudolph.1973. Social Environment of Junior High and High

school Classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology 65 (1):93-102.

Verdis, Athanasios, Kriemadis, Thanos, and Pashiardis. 2003. Historical, comparative and

Statistical perspectives of School Effectiveness research: rethinking educational evaluation in

Greece. The International Journal of Educational Management 17 (4):155-169.