Issuu

Z (~

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE A Study of Students in a Puerto Rican High School

W ~ ~

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

Dr. Ineke Cunningham's own words stake out the boundaries of concern in her sociological study of students in Puerto Rican high school: «Puerto Rico is a society which has been modernizing at a relative rapid rate. The further growth toward modernization on the Island depends upon the qualities of its students, among other factors. Our study, while concerning itself with modernization in Puerto Rico, will focus on student academic achievement and performánce, for the student is the future participant of thé society, and his performance.is an indicator of the future potential of that society». Since modernity and academic performance are highly theoretical concepts, a major part of the study is taken up with presenting the theoretical basis for these variables. Chapter. 2 is concerned with the definition and measurement of modernity; chapter 3 with the definition and measurement of academic performance, and chapter 4 with the Puerto Rican situation —the setting of Dr. Cunningham's research. Chapters five to nine are devoted to methodology used, data analysis and conclusions. Dr. Cunningham's book testifies to the richness and promise of mathematical methods that can be brought to bear on social science problems. Published under the auspices of Social Science Research Center of the University of Puerto Rico. Jacket design by Rafael Rivera Rosa.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

EXCESO 3E COP!A PARA DONAR CPR UPR RP

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH CENTER UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE A STUDY OF STUDENTS IN A PUERTO RICAN HIGH SCHOOL

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO PRESS UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO 1972

O Copyright, Ineke Cunningham, 1972

Depósito Legal: B. 17.689 -1972

Printed in Spain

Impreso en España

Imprime: M. PAREJA - Montaña, 16 - Barcelona -13

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This manuscript grew out of my doctoral dissertation written for Northwestern University, and it could never have been written without the encouragement and help from muy husband, Larry. Physicians who could make good sociologists are a rare breed indeed. I would like to thank the University of Puerto Rico for matching funds granted to the Modernization and Schooling project under Title III through the Department of Education of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and for the flexibility with which small amounts of money were found for items the original budget did not cover, and also Northwestern University which, without a stake in the venture, footed a computer bill of close to $1,000. There are certain persons who have done much to permit the completion of this project, and I would like to thank each in turn. Dr. Luis Nieves Falcón, Director of the Social Science Research Center of the University of Puerto Rico, was a good critic, and understanding of all the problems which the project faced. He attempted to find solutions and gave help whenever possible. My dissertation committee chairman, Professor Robert F. Winch was a very thorough critic and a very kind and helpful advisor. Professors Arnold S. Feldman and Raymond W. Mack also were very helpful at various stages of writing the manuscript and in criticizing earlier versions. My colleagues and peers, Barbara Kendrick of Lehman College, John Kendrick of Yale University, and Helen R. Miller of the University of Illinois, Chicago Campus, were valuable critics and friends. I especially would like to thank Professor Alex Inkeles of the School of Education of Stanford University for his patience and help. He spent many hours discussing the theoretical framework and methodological problems, and gave sound practical advice. Professor

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

Millard Hansen of the University of Puerto Rico and former director of the project laid the groundwork for the Modernization and Schooling project and was instrumental in obtaining funds. The principal, registrar, teachers, and students of the Ponce de León High School and many of the students' parents willingly cooperated with us and made this project possible. Sr. Nemesio Vargas Acevedo and Srta. Frances Bothwell Travieso were excellent assistants who spent more time than their paid jobs required of them, and who at all times showed a willingness to help. The staff of the Social Science Research Center of the University of Puerto Rico, especially Sr. Juan Vega, Srta. Conchita Torruellas, and all the secretaries facilitated the project greatly. 67 honor students of the same university did a large share of the interviewing as did the six part-time persons who also helped with the coding. So did Misses Barbara Iwaszek and Susan Richards, whom I personally hired for the coding of some of the approximately 2,400 questionnaires. Miss Claudia Stallings helped with the more complicated stages of computer programming. In addition to this hired help, I especially would like to thank Mr. Daniel Cullinan, Director of Computer Services of the Northwestern University Graduate School of Business Management who spent many hours trying to teach me what to do with the computer. Although all the above persons were of great assistance at the various stages of progress of this study, I alone lay claim and am responsible for the strength and weaknesses of this work. June 28, 1971. INEKE CUNNINGHAM Department of Sociology Temple University; formerly of the Social Science Research Center of the University of Puerto Rico

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER

1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

2. MODERNIZATION A. Definition B. Indices C. The McClelland Measurement . D. The Inkeles Measurement . . E. The Stephenson Measurement . F. The Feldman Measurement. .

15 15 22 23 25 30 31

3. EDUCATION A. Learning B. Education C. Performance D. Measuring Ability E. Measuring Performance

37 37. 39 42 43 52

4. MODERNIZATION AND EDUCATION IN PUERTO RICO A. Modernization B. Education

63 63 67

5. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. A. The Sample B. Measurement of Modernity C. Measurement of Performance D. Data Collection E. Statistical Analysis

73 73 81 86 87 88

6. THE STUDENTS AND THEIR PEERS . A. Student Characteristics B. Student Modernity C. Student Academic Performance

93 93 95 104

iNKE CUNNINGHAM

D. Modernity and Academic Performance E. Peers

110 113

7. PARENTS AND STUDENTS A. Parental Characteristics B. Parental Modernity C. Parental Performance .

121 121 125 131

8. DIFFERENCES IN MODERNITY A. Measurement of Differences B. Differences Between Students in the Top and Bottom Quartiles C. Differences Between Students and Their Fathers D. Differences Between Students and Their Mothers E. Differences Between Parents F. Conclusions

145 145

9. CONCLUSIONS A. Findings B. Limitations C. Implications

163 163 167 169

173

APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY

146 149 152 155 158

. .

177

LIST OF TABLES

189

LIST OF CHARTS

193

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM In the world today, where industrialization is markedly advantageous, developing countries face two major shortages. One of these is economic resources, such as capital, equipment, and so forth. The goal of industrialization is to obtain more of these, and greater economic resources, better living conditions, improved health, and so forth are the consequences of industrialization. The other major shortage is that of trained manpower. This shortage may be far more crucial. The report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the «Development and Utilization of Human Resources in Developing Countries» points this out: Within the past decade... it has been increasingly realized that the knowledge, skills, and capacities of human beings are equally important for development. The experiences of some industrialized countries have illustrated that economic development can be due more to improved skills and management than to capital' To begin a sociological treatise with a paragraph like the preceding one leaves one open to many questions. Words such as «advantageous», «better conditions», «improved health», and even «development» are value-laden, and not objectively scientific. Such words assume a goal orientation, or a desired result, whether or not such a result will actually be the consequence of the stated process. But industrialization is as much a consequence of social values as a consequence of social processes? Societies do not meander randomly through various social changes, but they are continuousliy in a state of change.3 The social changes which a society undergoes are to some extent the result of social policies which are effected by institutions organized by segments of the society to carry out certain functions, and therefore are influenced by the values of that society to some degree.4 The

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

sociologist must therefore be concerned not only with the mechanisms of such changes, but also the costs of the changes. These are not particularly the economic costs, but human costs, such as increased anxiety occurring with changing values, increasing displacements as certain jobs and communities become obsolete, and so forth. It is therefore acceptable to begin with the assumption that industrialization is advantageous, and development, as used in the first paragraph, is desirable. We will shortly extend this viewpoint to include modernization as a desirable change also. It is only from this point of view that our problem can be recognized as such. If one accepts the premise that modernization is good, specifically, in this case, for Puerto Rico, one can understand our concern for the relationship between modernity and the educational system. The terms and their relevance to our problem will be discussed shortly. The premise that industrialization is advantageous is accepted here, but not unequivocally. In the next chapter traditional and modern societies will be discussed, but here we must mention the difference between traditional and underdeveloped societies. Horowitz defined an underdeveloped society in relation to industrialization, noting that the underdeveloped society is one which is technically and technologically inferior to a developed one.5 Mills goes further, noting that the concept of an underdeveloped society must be contrasted with that of an overdeveloped society.6 This overdeveloped society is one in which development has occurred too quickly in some aspects and an imbalance has occurred. Material wealth is maldistributed and available human skills are not used to a maximum extent. This is the type of society in which a high level of alienation occurs among the members, failures at the social and technical levels lead to frequent domestic political crises and so forth. Industrial development, while desirable, is thus not necessarily the path to an utopia. But industrialization is only one aspect of modernization, and overdevelopment is not the inevitable result of development. While noting negative aspects of the process of modernization, we nevertheless continue in our presumption that it is good and desirable generally. Overdevelopment and maldevelopment are concepts for another paper, but here we will concern ourselves with modernization as a prerequisite to the positive elements of development, whether or not the negative elements occur simultaneously. The development of skills among the members of its population is a basic necessity for the participation of a country in the benefits of the modern world. The capacity for this participation is a level of modernization, which will be discussed in much greater detail below. In a particular country, the development of skills is fostered both in

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

~ ~

the working environment and the educational system. As a society industrializes and urbanizes, education becomes more and more a prerequisite for any given occupation. Therefore we will focus more on the school than on the factory, as this institution is formed for the primary purpose of imparting skills and knowledge to the members of a society. The ability to develop skills is therefore reflected in the ability to perform well within the school system. From the previous statement it could be assumed that the inverse also would apply. That is, the inability to perform well within the school system would reflect an inability to develop skills. This, however, does not necessarily hold true. In many school systems students are to some extent judged by their ability to learn as measured by intelligence testing or ability tests. The concept of intelligence and ability as well as the nature of their measurement and testing will be discussed in detail in a later chapter. At the present we merely note that the student's academic performance within the school system may be more a reflection of the score of his measured intelligence than an accurate assessment of his ability to develop and use skills. The differences between these two concepts and the reason for the possibility will be made clear at a later point in this report. Another factor besides performance which holds our interest is that of modernity, or the flexibility with which an individual is able to respond to changing situations. The factors of performance and modernity will be defined and discussed in greater detail in a later section. As high performance characterizes the behavior of the student who will contribute most to Puerto Rico's modernization, modernity characterizes his attitudes. It is the purpose of this project to measure the levels of modernity manifested by Puerto Rican students. We will then notice how these levels are related to the academic performance of these students, and whether there is any difference between those who do well in school and those who do not. Puerto Rico is a society which has been modernizing at a relatively rapid rate. The further growth toward modernization on the Island depends upon the qualities of its students, among other factors. Our study, while concerning itself with modernization in Puerto Rico, will focus on student academic achievement and performance, for the student is the future participant of the society, and his performance is an indicator of the future potential of that society. The young person who is preparing for a place in society is influenced to varying degrees by all elements of his environment, but preferentially to a greater extent by certain of them. Among these particular elements are the school and the students with whom he associates. His family

IIHERE CUAIIQIIHG H AM

also contributes to his socialization, and this can be expected to contribute both to his performance and his modernity. Because of these influences we would expect the modernity of his parents and peers to be positively correlated with both his modernity and his performance as a student. We would expect peer academic performance to have some relationship to student academic performance. We would also expect parental performance, as reflected in educational levels, income, and occupational skills, to have an effect upon these variables. But we propose that these variables cannot account for either the student's modernity or his academic performance in themselves. It is, in the end, the student's level of modernity and his own performance that have an effect on each other. He is not merely a reflection of his parents and his peers. As we have noted, we cannot assume that performance within the school system, or academic performance, necessarily reflects ability to perform in a modernizing society. Modernity does reflect such ability, however. In a society where the educational system facilitated the teaching of modern attitudes to the students, the course of modernization in that society would be accelerated in the course of educating the society's students. In such a society a young person's modernity would correlate highly with his academic performance, and his modernity would correlate with factors in his school environment more significantly than with factors in his home environment. For reasons that will be made explicit within the body of this paper, the data on which this report is based does not permit causal analysis. It is therefore impossible to offer evidence that in Puerto Rico the schools impart modernity to the students, or that high academic performance leads to high modernity. The variables of modernity and academic performance can be defined and measured and these definitions and measurements will be discussed, but causal analysis is beyond the scope of this study. Three hypotheses can be offered, however, which have a bearing on the general problem stated here, and which form the center of focus for this report. First, there will be a strong positive correlation between the individual student's modernity and his academic performance. Secondly, there will be a strong positive correlation between student modernity levels and the modernity levels of their peers. Thirdly, there may be a positive correlation between parental modernity levels and student academic performance, but this will be significantly less than that between student modernity and student academic performance, and also will be less than that between peer modernity and student academic performance. If evidence that these hypotheses are

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

correct can be presented, the theory presented in the preceding paragraph cannot be proven, but can be made more tenable. «Modernization», «modernity», and «academic performance» are all highly theoretical concepts. Since these are the variables with which we are primarily concerned, a major portion of this thesis will be taken up with presenting the theoretical basis for our variables. Thus chapter two will be concerned with the definition and measurement of modernity, chapter three with the definition and the measurement of academic performance, and chapter four with the Puerto Rican situation, the setting for our research. Chapter five will be concerned with our methodology, and chapters six, seven and eight with data analysis. Chapter nine will then summarize our conclusions.

Norm 1. A report of the office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, «Development and Utilization of Human Resources in Developing Countries» (New York: United Nations Economic and Social Council, no date), mimeographed, E/4353, p. 11. 2. Irving Louis Horowitz, Three Worlds of Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), pp. 47-72. 3. Wilbert E. Moore, Social Change (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1963), Chapter 1, pp. 1-22. 4. It is not to be assumed here that all change is planned, or even that that change which is planned is successfully carried out. But social policy has some effect on social change. 5. Horowitz, op. cit., p. 61. 6. C. Wright Mills, «The Problem of Industrial Development,» in Irving Louis Horowitz, editor, Power, Politics, and People: The Collected Papers of C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963). 7. The measurement alluded to, which will be described in greater detail below, is that described by David Horton Smith and Alex Inkeles, «The OM Scale: A Comparative Socio-Psychological Measure of Individual Modernity,» Sociometry, Vol. 29 (1966), pp. 353-377.

MODERNIZATION Definition Modernization, as defined at the societal level, is the process of social change by which a traditional society acquires the characteristics of a modern society. In other words, through modernization a less developed society becomes a more developed society.' Such a definition is insufficient for our purposes, for it really begs the question. No one can be satisfied with just the knowledge that modernization is the process of becoming modern. The concept of modernization has been studied by many sociologists, and has been defined by them in varying ways. Several of these definitions will be considered in an attempt to develop one with which we feel comfortable. Moore looks at modernization as basically economic development, and particularly, industrialization? He specifically defines this as the increasing and extensive use of inanimate sources of power for economic production, along with all the changes in organization, transportation, communication, and so forth, which such use entails. Following this he discusses such related changes as economic organization with a decreased percentage of the population being engaged in agriculture, increased numbers of workers in the semiskilled, skilled, and white collar positions, a high degree of labor mobility, reinvestment of profits, rising incomes and greater consumption of a wider range of goods. Demographic and ecological changes include decreasing mortality rates particularly among the young, some family limitation, and increasing migration and urbanization. Changes in social structure arising from this include the development of formal agencies for maintaining order, educational institutions, increasing development of mass communications, and some degree of breakdown of extended kinship relationships with emergence of the nuclear family. This is only a partial listing of the changes mentioned by Moore. But he sees

IAIEKE CUDIIQING H AM

the basic change of the modernizing society as being one of industrialization, and the other changes somewhat related to and evolving from this. Others who discuss the concept of modernization approach it from different angles. Black claims that it may be «defined as the process by which historically evolved institutions are adapted to the rapidly changing functions that reflect the unprecedented increase in man's knowledge, permitting control over his environment, that accompanied the scientific revolution»3 From this focus he then discusses changes relating to this including the development of technology, development of a legal system and economic changes including many of the aspects discussed by Moore as noted above. Whereas Moore discusses modernization from the perspective of economic development, and Black from the aspect of the development of scientific knowledge, Eisenstadt describes it from the perspective of political organization.4 He points out that modernization has been characterized by the growing extension of territorial scope and intensification of the central administrative agencies of the modern society. There has been a continual spread of potential power to more groups in the society. A decline of traditional legitimation of rulers with reference to powers outside their own society (such as God) has resulted in the consequence that modern societies are to some extent populistic societies. Eisenstadt does not claim that these political changes occur as the basis of modernization, but they are an integral part of the process in his analysis. In attempting to arrive at a definition of modernization which can be applied internationally and cross-nationally, Nettl and Robertson arrive at the conclusions that modernization contains three basic ideas.5 These are a notion of simultaneously connected evaluation and goalseeking, manifesting itself in planning, the idea of equivalence among societies and individuals, and increasing technology. All the three definitions presented above view the concept of modernization from different aspects, but seem to arrive at similar conclusions. In attempting to define the term in a more generalized way, Halpern states that, «modernization demands of all systems of society... the ability to persist continuously in the enterprise of responding to the challenge of new questions, new facts, and inadequate solutions by developing, maintaining, modifying, and disintegrating systems of theory»6 In other words, modernization entails increasing change and potential for further change and adaptation. Levy uses the term «specialization» in defining modernization? He makes the distinction between specialization with regard to a specific concrete activity and specialization with

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

regard to some type of activity, or «aspect», of society, such as economic, political, and so forth. He considers modernization as increasing specialization with regard to the latter. Winch and Blumberg avoid the use of the term modernization altogether.8 Instead, they use the terms «societal complexity» and «societal differentiation» to denote the static and dynamic aspects of the concept. Perhaps modernization can be summarized in the words of Smelser.9 He views the processes which are considered part of modernization as giving rise to three types of structural changes which ramify throughout society. These are structural differentiation, which is similar to specialization as mentioned above by Levy, integration, and social disturbances. This last term will be considered in more detail at a later point in this chapter. The concept of modernization can indeed be summed up by the words differentiation and integration, accompanied by the idea of continuous change. But although the modern society is a changing society, the change is not random nor is it in the direction of increasing simplicity. It is change in the direction of complexity and differentiation. At the same time there is increasing integration of the various aspects of society, so that elements of a society become increasingly more dependent upon other elements for their continued function as that function becomes increasingly more specialized. Modernization, therefore, involves two processes which are occurring simultaneously: increasing differentiation and increasing integration. The fact that differentiation and integration are linked together in the concept of modernization suggests that some disharmony must be included in the concept, as differentiation and integration imply two different directions. If differentiation occurs without integration confusion rather than cohesion will result, and there will be some breakdown in social control and disturbances in social order. Therefore the concept of modernization must contain three aspects: the more positive ones of differentiation and integration, and the more negative one of accompanying social disturbances. In this we concur with Smelser. As the changes of modernization occur in a society, the society becomes more modern. A society which has undergone the changes of modernization which have been discussed above, therefore, is a modem society. These changes are continuous, however, so a modern society continues to change. Thus «modern» is a relative concept, not an absolute one. The modern society often is considered as the polar opposite to the traditional society. The traditional society is characterized by little change and much stability. Action and authority for the most part are based on what has been done in the past. Roles tend to be ascriptive. 2, s

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

The consideration of these two types of societies as polar opposites does present some difficulties.10 The concept of a dichotomy with the ideal type «traditional» state at one end and the ideal type «modern» state at the other is perhaps too limited, for the concept of modernization involves many aspects, as hás been discussed above, and the varying changes occur at differing rates with various lags developing 11 Another problem with the dichotomy presented here is the use of the term «tradition». If one uses the term «traditionalistic» in place of the term «traditional» as the polar opposite to the term «modern» this problem can be solved. Traditionalism implies a conscious, «deliberate affirmation of traditional norms, in full awareness of their traditional nature and alleging that their merit derives from that nature».12 The term «traditional» is much less specific, for it in no way implies deliberation or conscious intent on the part of the members of a traditional society to maintain their traditions. The use of traditionalistic as the polar opposite to modern gives the term «modern» more specificity, and makes the dichotomy more useful. Another difficulty is the one presented by the use of the term «dichotomy». Rudolph and Rudolph point out that the mistake is frequently made of contrasting modern societies with traditional ones. If tradition and modernity are seen as continuous rather than separated by an abyss, if they are dialetically rather than dichotomously related and if internal variations are attended to and taken seriously, then those sectors of traditional society that contain or express potentialities for change from dominant norms and structures become critical for understanding the nature and processes of modernization.'3 In light of the modifications mentioned here, therefore, we can state that, as a useful concept, modernity may be viewed at one end of a continuum, at the other end of which is traditionalism. The exact point at which a traditional society begins the process of change toward modernity is neither easy to identify nor of urgent import. Neither is the moment at which a society arrives at that point after which it may be identified as modern. As was pointed out above, we must realize that society is always changing and will undoubtedly continue to do so. In studying modernization, however, we are concerned with the period of social change on many fronts which results in a radical change in the structure and processes of a society, and marked change in the life style of its members. We therefore run into a paradox: a state of change. One of the questions which confronts a student of modernization is whether he is studying a state or a process.14 To this point we have been discussing modernization at the societal level, and

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

at this level we have conceptualized it as a process, as it refers to change. Actually in this study we are concerned with categories of individuals measured at one point in time who are participating to some degree or not participating, as the case may be, in modernization, so we are measuring a state. The state which we measure is modernity. A discussion of modernity at the level of the individual begins here. Lerner points out that the process of modernization begins when there is sufficient increase in agricultural production to allow more and more members of a society to leave the land.15 This physical mobility results in greater concentrations of people in certain areas, and from this process a new type of social organization develops. This new type of social organization allows for increasing social mobility. Increasing social mobility leads in turn to an increasing complexity of social organization, which results in greater interdependence of the members of society on each other, and thus a greater need for participation by all members of the society. In order 'to be able to participate more fully in a modernizing and thus increasingly more complex society, people need to develop greater flexibility of action, enabling more varied responses to this environmental complexity. This requires the individual to be able to incorporate new demands upon himself which arise from outside his habitual experience. In other words, people who participate in modernizing societies must be able to react appropriately to new things. This capability is called «empathy» by Lerner.1ó He defines it as containing two mechanisms which enlarge an individual's identity, that is, increase his experience, or increase the elements of his environment with which he is familiar. These mechanisms are projection, by which one assigns to the object certain preferred attributes of the self, and introjection, in which one attributes to the self certain desirable attributes of the object. The exact delineation and differentiation of these mechanisms is not the point to be made here. Rather it is that participation in an increasingly complex society requires of the individual the capacity to broaden his experience and adapt to change. As increasing mobility in society leads to increasing complexity, which leads to a further increase in mobility, and so forth, in an accelerating fashion, the need for the members to increase their adaptability to change becomes more and more urgent. Mass communications develop as a means to present people with more varied environments, thus enabling them to develop more varied responses in order to function more efficiently in their changing society. Mass communications also lead to more education and knowledge, which in turn lead to greater adaptability to change. societies we have pointed out. This That change occurs constantly

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

change is not necessarily smooth or even and, as noted above, it has many aspects, occurring on many fronts. These various aspects of development proceed at differing rates and to different degrees both between modernizing societies and within any given society. Individuals also manifest markedly different rates and characteristics of mobility. Modernization represents a general type of change but, at the societal level, it is likely to be manifested in slightly different ways from society to society, and at the individual level its variations are apt to be marked. Modernization as a concept, therefore, may apply to a given society, but probably only to a portion of the members of that society, and to that portion in varying amounts and ways. It must be remembered that the concept is a very general one, and that it is only to be considered to apply specifically at the individual level in those portions of the paper where we define it in such a specific manner. Modernization is a widespread social phenomenon which is in the process of occurring nearly everywhere at the present time. Although it would probably not be quite correct to claim that modernization is inevitable, it seems that it is at least likely that every society will eventually undergo the changes of modernization. Every society wants to industrialize, so change occurs in the direction of modernization. However, eventual modernization is not inevitable in every society. Pye, for example, predicts difficulties and obstacles in the change toward modernization in Burma.17 Also some studies suggest that modernization and societal complexity do not occur at a continuous and steady pace with relation to all the factors relative to them ." The general trend at present in existing societies tends to be toward these changes in most cases. As modernization is likely to occur in a given society, it may be said that it is desirable for a society. Certainly, this statement must be explained, for there are characteristics of traditional societies which convey positive connotations to many individuals, such as closeness of family relationships in the extended family, and so forth.19 But the marked advantage of the modern society over the traditional one is that its members have a greater ability to respond to a wider variety of environmental stimuli. There is a greater amount of production per capita in a modern society, so the population can possess greater material wealth. There is a greater amount of social mobility present so everyone in the lower strata, at least theoretically, has a potential for upward social mobility, although ascription limits achievement to some extent, causing the price tag for an item to be more costly for those of the lower strata. There is a much greater diversity of production, so a greater variety of occupations are present, and as occupations tend

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

to be filled on a basis of achievement rather than ascription, every member of society has a greater range of opportunities in occupational choice. There is a greater development of knowledge and technology, so everyone has more opportunity to become educated and enable himself to more effectively dominate his environment and use it to his advantage. The greater amount of knowledge and planning present in a modern society gives the members of the society the opportunity for better health and longer lives. All of these factors can be considered to be distinct advantages for the member of a modern society. However, not all aspects of modernization can be considered as advantageous to a society or its members, and the disadvantages must be considered here. The concept of the «overdeveloped society», proposed by Mills, was briefly considered in the introductory chapter.20 This is considered to be the result of the modernization of a society which occurs too rapidly, resulting in a misuse of resources and maldistribution of benefits among the members of a society. But these problems are not necessarily the result of «too rapid» a development, however the phrase «too rapid» might be defined. Smelser, in his definition of modernization, noted three changes which the several aspects of modernization were related to. One of these changes is social disturbances, which reflect the uneven march of differentiation and integration21 Levy discusses the problem of a decrease in the mechanism of social control secondary to the increasing specialization mentioned previously?2 The developing sense of equality, accompanied by the uneven rate of all these changes in relationship to each other results in an increase in expectations on the part of some members of the society without an equal increase in opportunity. The frustrations which arise as a consequence to these processes lead to social disturbances which are part of the total process of modernization, as discussed by Smelser and myself. Another disadvantage of modernization is the disturbance of the eco-system which has resulted from increasing technology. The changes which are part of modernization all have many ramifications, many of which are negative, while most are positive. But we have viewed modernization as increasing change and potential for change. This implies that with the negative aspects the modern society develops the potential to change further in response to the developing problems and therefore can change these. Although it is recognized that changes produce new situations which may give rise to problems which had not previously been considered, change cannot be condemned for these. The positive aspects of modernization can therefore be considered to

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

outweigh the negative aspects, for one of these is the capacity to respond to these negative aspects. Thus we can view modernization as a process of social change in which there is a marked increase in both physical and social mobility, which is accompanied by increases in knowledge and productivity, urbanization, an increase in the division of labor, and a greater emphasis on values of achievement as contrasted with ascription in determining status. These changes necessitate and are accompanied by a greater interdependence on the part of the members of society, which in turn calls for higher levels of participation and increasing adaptability to change on the part of the individual. It is beyond the scope of this discussion to give an exhaustive compilation of all the various components and elements of change which occur in this process. It is likewise not our purpose to explore the exact relationships between all of these elements. We are concerned only with a definition of modernization suffciently detailed that it can be applied in the circumstances we shall note below. Indices Modernization, as we have preferred to consider it, is a process. A process has two properties: magnitude and direction. The magnitude or quantity of modernization will be discussed presently. The direction of modernization is chronological. A complete measurement of modernization would necessitate at least two separate efforts at two separate points in time to measure this direction. The limitations of this project prevent such a measurement, so we must limit ourselves to a concept which does not require it. The state of a society at any point in time during the process modernization is its level of modernity. The measurement of modernity is within our scope, so we shall concentrate on it. As previously noted, it is beyond our intentions to go into all of the facets of modernization, or even to investigate the exact interrelationships between those facets we have listed. This renders a definition of modernization sufficiently detailed to enable accurate measurement impossible. Therefore we shall have to find an index of modernity which can be determined without delving into the detail we intend to omit. An index is a measurable property which serves as a reliable indicator of a similar property which is more abstract or in other ways more difficult to define. In using an index in this case, therefore, it must be determined that it is valid, that is, that it represents modernity rather than some other characteristic.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Modernity, or the level of modernity, has been used above as referring to a characteristic of a society. However, in this study we propose to gather data by interviewing individuals rather than examining characteristics of specific groups, communities, or societies. For this reason, the concept of modernity must be altered to apply to individuals. We shall therefore use the term «modern individual» for the individual who has a high level of modernity, and describe him as one who has a high potential for participating in the process of modernizing activities. The index of modernity we shall use must thus be an index of this modernization potential. As was just noted, modernity is a state of potential action or participation. Rather than being conceptualized as a type of behavior, individual modernity is here conceptualized as a state of mind. It would predispose an individual to participate in modernization, but the concept itself does not contain any element of action. The action or behavior concept corresponding to modernity is participation in modernization. A reliable index of either of these qualities, individual modernity or modernization participation, would be satisfactory for our study. We shall examine and evaluate four such indices at this point. These indices are by no means exhaustive of the ones which have been developed to study the problem, but they are illustrative of the range of concepts considered. McClelland's index is psychological, Feldman's is behavioral, Inkeles' is a mixture of attitudinal and behavioral, though more heavily weighted to the former, and Stephenson illustrates the culture-specific concept of modernity. The McClelland Measurement The index which has been most throughly studied was not developed originally for the study of modernization in particular, but it has been adapted to such a measurement since its inception. David McClelland and his colleagues developed the concept of «need achievement» in an attempt to study the qualities of motivation? To measure this quality they formed the «n Achievement Score,» or «n Ach.» 24 The score is obtained from an analysis of short stories the subject has made up from the stimulus of certain pictures, similar to those used in the Thematic Apperception Test; in fact, two of them have been borrowed from the T.A.T. The test has been applied to many different groups and a fairly good correlation has been obtained between the «n Ach» of individuals and their motivational levels, as determined by their performance and aspirations. The score has proven to be reliable

IIdEKE CUNNINGHAM

cross-culturally, as for example has been shown among the Navajo Indians in the Southwestern United States,u and among adolescent boys in Brazil26 In fact, McClelland has shown that, when the same method of scoring is applied to the folklore of various cultures, extinct and contemporary, the scores obtained correlate closely with the level of creativity and production of that culture in question?' The relationship of this score to modernization participation also has been demonstrated. Rosen considered the «achievement syndrome» the state of having a high «n Ach.» He discovered that this state ,vas reached through childhood training in stressing both achievement and independence, although achievement values were the more important of the two28 He compared Brazilian adolescents with American adolescents, discovering that the Brazilians were less achievement-oriented? He then theorized that this was in part the reason that Brazil's economic development was less than should be expected from its natural resources3° McClelland discovered that the administration of a self-development course to businessmen in a developing country such as India led to an increase in the «n Ach» of the individual31 But this increase was accompanied by another phenomenon. It was found that, within a two year period following the course, these businessmen participated in activities characteristic of modernization such as innovation, greater diversity of investment, and even initiation of new enterprises at a rate which was at least twice the rate at which an average population of similar businessmen could be expected to participate in such activities. As an increase in the «n Ach» was followed by and increase in modernization activity, it was assumed that the «n Ach» could in this respect be used as an index of modernization participation. Robert Jacobsen underlines the need for goal orientation as well as need achievement for the success of progress32 He suggests that the difficulty may lie in a confusion of motivations and values. Need achievement may thus reflect the proper motivation for action, which can result in modernization, but unless the values characterizing the motivation are those of modernity, there is no basis for predicting that the action will be that of modernity. Most criticism of the use of the «n Ach» measurement essentially questions whether motivation alone is sufficient to yield performance. If the values held are in opposition to the values of modernity, even if a high «n Ach» level can guarantee a high level of performance, it cannot guarantee a high level of modernizing performance. Joseph Kahl uses the same criticism, cautioning that the need achievement characteristic may only be used when values are carefully defined and

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

delineated33 Scanzoni, in studying child-rearing practices which MCCIelland reports as developing need achievement, finds little correlation between them and occupational success. This supports the validity of Kahl's criticism. This measurement of modernity illustrates the attempt to use a single variable, motivation, as an index of modernity. All the criticisms of this approach tend to focus on the necessity of careful definition of the index, and thus on its relation to the individual. Although a relationship of motivation to modernity is likely, the concept of modernity encompasses far more than does that of motivation. The greater the scope of modernity than motivation, the less accurate an index will motivation be of modernity35 The Inkeles Measurement Another approach to the study of modernity is to identify some of the characteristics of institutions in a society which is considered modern, and which are not present to a significant extent in the institutions of a traditional society. Examples of such characteristics might be efficiency, dependence on technology, orientation toward achievement rewards as contrasted with ascriptive rewards, and so forth. These characteristics embody values, as they characterize modern institutions as contrasted to traditional ones, which might characterize modernity itself. This approach differs from the one used by McClelland in that a wide range of values, and hence several variables, are considered, and are more likely to be successful as an index. One study concerning values was applied particularly to Puerto Rico. Henry Wells classified values according to a scheme suggested by the work of Kluckhohn and Laswell36 This scheme divides values into welfare values and values of deference. Wells then identified political values in Puerto Rico, and noted evidences of changes in these over the past century. Rather than measuring modernity in this changing society, however, this study characterizes it. Thus no index is offered. One of the most thorough and definitive studies of attitudes in relation to modernity is that that has been carried out by Alex Inkeles and his colleagues, through the Harvard Project on Socio-Cultural Aspects of Development3' The basis of their theoretical approach rests on the concept of the modern individual as having two aspects: an external one, or a modern environment, and an internal one, or a modern set of attitudes. The modern environment, a social environment characterized by the presence of such characteristics as mass corn-

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

munication, urbanization, a high level of technology, industrialization, and so forth, has been quite widely studied. The internal aspect of modern man, or the set of attitudes which he holds, is a little more difficult to define. As modernization has been defined as a social situation, the types of interactions occurring are not difficult to identify, nor are the types of institutions which develop and function in a modern society, but it is a little riskier theoretically to assume a particular set of values for the individuals who must participate in this defined social environment. Such a set of attitudes must be postulated. Inkeles and his colleagues have postulated such a set which forms the basis of their testing. These attitudes seem to be the ones that would be most useful in a modern society and would give the individual who held them a greater opportunity to participate in modernizing activities effectively and efficiently. It should be noted at this point that this set of attitudes has been theoretically postulated rather than specifically derived from observations of modern behavior. It is only to the extent that these attitudes and values characterize those situations defined to be modern or characterize those individuals who engage in a high level of participation in such situations that they can be considered to measure modernity. They are therefore proposed as correlates of modernity, rather than qualities of it, although they may be that also. But in either case they may be satisfactory indices. Attitudes, as defined by Rokeach, are organizations of beliefs around and object or situation, which form a predisposition to respond, and lead to a preferential or discriminatory response3S In other words, attitudes are oriented toward a specific goal. The set of attitudes proposed by Inkeles are presumed to predispose the holder to be modern in his behavior. The procedure of postulating a set of values with certain goal-orientation and then proving the goal-orientation is somewhat tautological. However, the tautology formed is a relational one rather than a contentual one39 The theoretical definition of modernity in this instance is definitely tautological, but the operational definition of modernity is correlated with variables concerning performance in an industrial situation, the measurements of which are not based on the same variables as is the measure of their modern attitudes. Thus the tautology can be considered to be at the theoretical level, or relational. That the attitudes of the individual can be correlated to the values embodied in an institution or the institutions of a society is suggested by Inkeles elsewhere4° The attitudes of the individual will of course be more specific than the institutional values, and attitudes identified

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

by the same terminology by different individuals may differ slightly in detail, but they will nonetheless be generally similar and can be generally correlated to certain general values held or at least acknowledged by the society as a whole. Nine attitudes have been postulated by the Harvard group as contributing to the attitude set of the modern man41 They shall be listed and explained briefly at this point. The first is the individual's readiness for new experiences and his openness to innovation and change. The characteristic does not specify participation in change and modernizing activity, but merely a readiness of attitude for such participation. The second attitude of the set concerns opinions. It is postulated that the modern man will have a disposition to form opinions over a large number of issues that arise not only in his immediate environment, but also outside it. Also, his orientation to opinions will be more democratic. In other words, he will be more aware of a great diversity of opinions around him, rather than feeling that others tend to hold opinions essentially the same as his own. The third attitude is that toward time. The more modern outlook is an orientation to the present and the future rather than the past. Fourth, the modern man is oriented toward planning and considers it an acceptable approach toward handling life. The fifth attitude has been termed «efficacy» by Inkeles. This attitude is that man can learn to dominate his environment to a substantial degree, rather than being dominated by it. Again, this does not indicate that the individual holding this attitude has the knowledge to dominate his environment, but merely that he believes that this knowledge is available and can be discovered. Another attitude is belief in calculability; that is that the environment is calculable, and that other individuals and institutions can be relied upon to fulfill certain obligations or meet their responsibilities. This does not imply that non-modern individuals do not trust other individuals and institutions. Rather the emphasis is on the impersonality of the term calculability as compared to trust. The modern individual will tend to assume that other individuals will fulfill certain obligations toward him even if they do not know him personally. For example, the modern individual will assume that a grocer whom he has never seen will sell him a pound of sugar because he is a grocer, and not because he has been his grocer. The seventh is a disposition to show respect for other individuals, and is particularly noticeable in attitudes toward women and children. The non-modern individual will also tend to show respect, but his respect is for authority. The respect of the modern man is for individuality; in other words, he respects anther's

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

rights as an individual. The eighth attitude is that the modern man has more faith in science and technology, even if in a very primitive way. The last of the attitudes included in this set is a belief in distributive justice, or that rewards are distributed according to contribution or achievement, rather than by whim, or other extraneous factors. It must not be presumed that the attitudes listed here are the only ones held by the modern man, or that no other attitudes are incorporated by individuals who participate in modernization42 Other attitudes could be postulated as well. But since this set of attitudes is the result of postulation rather than derivation, a complete summation of all the attitudes that are held by modern man would be of no more value than the list which has been compiled. In the first place, it would be no more accurate, as there would be no certain criteria for determining whether the list was indeed complete or not. In the second place, it would be no more useful, for nine values are as useful as any larger number which shows a correlation which is no greater. The way that this set of attitudes has been studied by Inkeles and his colleagues is through the development of a questionnaire which is made up of value choices43 The answers given to these questions can be scored for the various values included. These scores have been translated into an «Overall Modernity» or OM score, rather than a profile, for ease of use and comparison. The long questionnaire from which this modernity score was developed has been used in six different societies (India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Israel, Chile, and Argentina) in various situations. Since the objective is to focus on modernity, other variables are controlled for as much as possible. The questionnaire only has been administered to males within certain age limits and, as nearly as possible, has been limited to those who belong to the same socio-economic background. It has been given to rural cultivators (15 %), urban non-industrial workers (15 %), and urban industrial workers (70 %) in each of the countries. The independent variable against which the index has been checked has been the situation in which the subject has worked. The correlation of modern attitudes to modern situations has been consistent, and reliable cross-culturally. Thus the attitude scale, and the resultant «Overall Modernity» score, are considered to be reliable and valid indices of modernity. Inkeles has gone further than the «Overall Modernity» score in studying the individual and modernization. In going beyond the general attitude set proposed for the modern individual, he has developed the sydrome of «participant citizenship» in much the same way. This syndrome is identified by allegiance to nonparochial public authority, interest in civic affairs, information about public figures, participation

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

in public organizations, and adherence to rational organizational rules as a basis for running government affairs. This syndrome characterizes active citizens of the nations accepted as modern (i.e. the United States, Western European nations, the U.S.S.R., Japan, and so forth). This syndrome has been studied by Inkeles in the same countries as the attitudes of modernity and he has discovered that those who can be identified as modern also score highly in participant citizenship. This shows the utility of Inkeles' study by applying it to one aspect of the individual's life, the political one. A similar study was performed by Joseph Kahl who studied modernity in Brazil and Mexico 45 He constructed attributes which were used to characterize various aspects of modernity. But attributes which are all-or-none phenomena were too inflexible for his study, so he changed the attributes into value variables, and chose seven which seemed to best characterize the ideal type; these he called the «syndrome of modernism.» These seven values were activism, a low integration with relatives, a preference for urban life, individualism, low community stratification, a high level of mass media participation, and a low stratification of life chances. It is this syndrome that Kahl applied to the study of modernity. Unfortunately, the study itself tends to be somewhat tautological, for he tends to identify modern men in the populations he studied by the syndrome, and then to show that the modern men in Mexico and Brazil are very similar in many respects 47 It is probably useful to infer a set of characteristics of modernity which apply cross-culturally to all modern situations, for the similarities of the social structures and institutions of all industrialized and modernized countries has been commented on in several studies48 As Inkeles notes, social structure tends toward convergence in industrializing countries, creating sets of cultural values that reflect status and the exigencies of life that are associated with it, regardless of previously different traditions49 One of the weakest points of this theory, however, is the assumption that men who participate in modern society will share, in more than a superficial and general way, the values on which the institutions are based. Some who question the approaches of Inkeles and Kahl to the study of individual modernity claim that it cannot be assumed that individual behavior will conform to institutional characteristics to a large enough extent to allow inferences based on assessments of institutional characteristics to be predictive of individual behavior. As Feldman and his colleagues state, «what it comes down to is that so-called systems theories of institutions and their interrelationships assume a passivity of participants which is excessive.» so

INEKE CUNNING H AM

The Stephenson Measurement There are some sociologists who are not willing to take the universality of modernity for granted, however, or at least are not willing to accept the characteristics of modernity in different societies as consistent enough to be amenable to measurement as a universal entity. One of these who has chosen a different means of measurement is John Stephenson51 Although he prefers the term «modernism» to our «modernity», his definition of the term is similar. However, he rejects the assumption that all modern cultures are basically similar and that all modern persons share some of the same traits52 He also feels that the concept of modernity can only have significance for the members of a society if it takes into consideration specific traits they consider as modern. Therefore he makes his definition culture-specific: Modernization is the movement of persons or groups along a cultural dimension from what is defined by the cultural norms as traditional toward what is defined by the same culture as modern. Those values defined in the local culture as traditional comprise what may be called traditionalism; those defined as modern constitute modernism » He studied the modernity of individuals from a small Appalachian community by making a field survey of the community and noting values expressed by the members. These values were then classified as modern or non-modern by a panel of judges consisting of sociologists and/or individuals who could claim personal as well as academic knowledge of the people in the area. From these values fourteen were chosen which seemed to represent seven different value areas of modernism (work, sex roles, religion, achievement/satisfaction, orientation to the past, education, and value change), an a questionnaire was developed and given to a random sample from the community. From the answers a Guttman scale was developed and individual modernism was measured. The chief limitation of this measurement, of course, is its limited applicability. It is an example of culture-specific measurement, and therefore has limited usefulness for those who do not believe that modernity is culture-specific. Schnaiberg notes that Stephenson's measurement is of limited usefulness in that, when the operational definition of modernization is based on the perception by those caught up in the process, certain factors such as speed and scope of change cannot be studied, as these also affect its perception55 Inkeles criticizes the measurement on two grounds. He notes that it is not strictly

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

culture-specific in that the experts used to make judgements on modernity values, while having specific knowledge of the community and the culture under study, are not all members of it. Scondly, he notes that the concepts embodied in the modernity values used are very similar to those used in cross-cultural studies of modernity attitudes, such as Inkeles' own, and that it would not have been too difficult a matter to show correlations between Stephenson's measurements and these other ones, thus increasing the applicability of Stephenson's. Singh and Inkeles report a culture-specific study of their own which does not carry either of these faults57 The Feldman Measurement Others consider modernization participation to be a better index of modernization than modernity and for this reason find fault with studies like the one of Inkeles58 Feldman and his colleagues have therefore chosen a measurement consisting of behavioral variables rather than attitudinal ones59 Behavior is as easily measurable as attitudes, and indeed is far more visible and can perhaps therefore be assessed more accurately than attitudes. It is individual behavior on which Feldman and his colleagues focus their attention. One type of behavior which is clearly in evidence in individuals participating in the process of modernization is mobility, both horizontal and vertical. Social mobility is probably more closely related to modernization than horizontal mobility, or migration, as moderate amounts of migration can be present in a society which is still essentially traditional. Therefore social mobility is what Feldman is studying as an index of modernization. Tumin and Feldman have discussed some of the pitfalls in measuring mobility by making generational comparisons6° It is particularly difficult to make such a comparison meaningful on an individual level, as there is no fixed point by which to compare peers. They therefore have developed the «Generational Occupational Mobility Score» or the «GOMS» which compares an individual's occupation with those of all other individuals and their brothers who have occupationally similar fathersó1 They can thus be considered «overachievers» or «underachievers», according to whether they have a higher or lower occupation than the average of those compared62 This measurement, however, while it is easily applied individually and characterizes the individual's position, does not really measure modernity. An individual may be an underachiever when his father has a very high position, while another is an overachiever when his father has a low one, but this does not

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

necessarily indicate that the former individual is less modern than the latter. Feldman makes the mobility measurement one of modernization participation by reinterviewing subjects to determine their actual mobility. The research in this instance consists of interviews with 1,000 heads of families in Puerto Rico representing a cross section of them on the Island, and then reinterviews with as many of these as possible, eleven years later 63 The modernization participation of the subjects is assessed by two comparisons: their status position as compared with their fathers, and their present status position compared over time. Heaviest reliance is placed on the latter. The results which so far have been reported are as yet not complete, as all of the data has not been analyzed, but the preliminary findings in two reports, one including 104 cases and the other including 288 cases, show significant correlations between those individuals who are upwardly mobile and other characteristics which could be considered to accompany modernity, such as educational level. The chief difficulty with using this measurement of modernization is that it, like all other measurements discussed here, also has its limitations. It measures overt behavior, but does not take into account intended behavior which, for one reason or another, cannot be consummated. The concept of modernization included not only modernization activity in which members of a society are participating, but also modernity, or the potential for participation which the members of society have, whether this participation is in effect at a given time or not. Whereas studies of attitudes are limited to the extent that they assume that all actors in modernization share a modernization attitude set, studies of modernization behavior are limited to the extent that they assume that all those who share the modernity attitude set actively participate in modernization.

NOTES 1. Daniel Lerner, «Modernization: Social Aspects,» in David L. Sills, editor, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 10 (New York: MacMillan and the Free Press, 1968), p. 386. 2. Moore, op. cit., gives a discussion of modernization on pp. 89-112. 3. C. E. Black, The Dynamics of Modernization (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1966), pp. 4-9. 4. S. N. Eisenstadt, Modernization: Protest and Change (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1966), pp. 5-15.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

5. J. P. Nettl and Roland Robertson, International Systems and the Modernization of Societies (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968), pp. 51-2. 6. Manfred Halpern, «The Rate and Costs of Political Development,» The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 358 (1965), p. 22. 7. Marion J. Levy, Jr., Modernization and the Structure of Societies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), p. 38. 8. Robert F. Winch and Rae Lesser Blumberg, «Societal Complexity and Familial Organization,» in Robert F. Winch and Louis Wolf Goodman, eds., Selected Studies in Marriage and the Family, third edition (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1968), p. 259. 9. Neil J. Smelser, «Toward a Theory of Modernization,» in Amitai Etzioni and Eva Etzioni, eds., Social Change: Sources, Patterns, and Consequences (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1964), p. 259. 10. Many of the reasons for objecting to such a consideration are presented by Joseph R. Gusfield, «Tradition and Modernity: Misplaced Polarities in the Study of Social Change,» American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 72 (1967), pp. 351-62. 11. The difficulties of conceptualizing modernization as one end of a unilinear continuum are considered by Ian Weinberg, «The problem of the Convergence of Industrial Societies: A Critical Look at the State of Theory,» a paper presented at the American Sociological Association Meeting. San Francisco, 1967. 12. Bert F. Hoselitz, «Tradition and Economic Growth», in Ralph Braibanti and Joseph Spengler, eds., Tradition, Values, and Socio-Economic Development (Durham: Duke University Press, 1961), p. 85. 13. Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), p. 10. 14. This paradox and others confronting the student of modernization are discussed by Allan Schnaiberg, «Measuring Modernism: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations,» American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 76 (1970), pp. 399-425. 15. Daniel Lerner, The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1958), p. 47. 16. This discussion of a concept linking individual action to societal development is similar to that set forth by Lerner, The Passing of Traditional Society Other concepts which are similar to «empathy» as used here, and which could perhaps be substituted for it, are «other-directedness,» as developed by David Riesman in The Lonely Crowd: A Study of Changing American Character (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), «striving» as discussed by Hadley Cantril in The Pattern of Human Concerns (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1966), and «need-achievement» as developed by David C. McClelland, The Achieving Society (New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1961). This last concept will be discussed in some detail in this paper. See also Daniel Lerner, «Modernization: Social Aspects». 17. Lucian W. Pye, Personality, and Nation Building: Burma's Search for Identity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), pp. 285-7. 18. Winch and Blumberg, op. cit., pp. 70-92. 19. Although some studies have indicated that these concepts are largely myths, such as Bennett M. Berger, Working Class Suburbs (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1960) and William S. Dobriner, Class 3.

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

in Suburbia (Englewood Cliffs; Prentice Hall, Inc., 1963), their widespread acceptance makes them appropriate to this discussion. 20. See p. 13 and footnote 6 of chapter one, above. 21. Smelser, op. cit., p. 259. 22. Marion J. Levy, Jr., «Social Patterns (Structures) and Problems of Modernization,» in Wilbert E. Moore and Robert M. Cooke, eds., Readings in Social Change (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1967), pp. 189-208. 23. This is the concept mentioned previously, see footnote 16 above. 24. David C. McClelland et al., «The Effect of Need for Achievement on Thematic Apperception, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 37 (1949), pp. 242-55. Two books which deal with this measurement and many of its applications are McClelland, The Achieving Society, and John W. Atkinson, ed., Motives in Fantasy, Action and Society (New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1958). Roger Brown, Social Psychology (New York: The Free Press, 1965), chapter 9, pp. 423-77 presents a concise outline of how the concept was developed, how it is measured, and what its applications have been. 25. Irving L. Child, Thomas Storm, and Joseph Veroff, «Achievement Themes in Folk Tales Related to Socialization Practice,» in Atkinson, op. cit., pp. 479-92. 26. Bernard C. Rosen, «Socialization and Achievement Motivation in Brazil,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 27 (1962), pp. 612-24. 27. David C. McClelland, «The Use of Measures of Human Motivation in the Study of Society,» in Atkinson, op. cit., pp. 518-52. 28. Bernard C. Rosen, «The Achievement Syndrome: A Psycho-cultural Dimension of Social Stratification», American Sociological Review, Vol. 21 (1956), pp. 203-11 and Bernard C. Rosen and Roy D'Andrade, «The Psychosocial Origins of Achievement Motivation,» Sociometry, Vol. 22 (1959), pp. 185-218. 29. Rosen, «Socialization and Achievement Motivation in Brazil». 30. Bernard C. Rosen, «The Achievement Syndrome and Economic Growth in Brazil,» Social Forces, Vol. 42 (1964) pp. 341-54. 31. David C. McClelland, «Measuring Motivation in Phantasy: The Achievement Motive,» in Harold Guetzkow, ed., Groups, Leadership and Men (Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press, 1951), pp. 191-205. 32. Robert Jacobsen, «The School and Social Development — A Response,» in Hobert W. Burns, ed., Education and Development of Nations (Syracuse: School of Education, Syracuse University Press, 1963), pp. 114-20. 33. Joseph Kahl, «Some Measurements of Achievement Orientation,» American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 70 (1965), pp. 669-81. 34. John Scanzoni, «Inconclusiveness in Family Sources of Achievement,» Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 9 (1966), pp. 108-14 and John Scanzoni, «Socialization, N Achievement and Achievement Values,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 32 (1967), pp. 449-56. 35. In all fairness to McClelland it must again be noted that the concept was not developed for the purpose of specifically studying modernity, and as a measurement of motivation, its original application, it appears to have great utility. 36. Henry Wells, The Modernization of Puerto Rico: A Political Study of Changing Values and Institutions (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969). The value classification is derived primarily from Clyde Kluckhohn, «Values and Value-Orientations in the Theory of Action: An Exploration in Definition and Classifications,» in Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, eds., Toward A General

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Theory of Action (Cambridge: University Press, 1911), pp. 388-433 and Harold D. Laswell and Abraham Kaplan, Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), pp. 55-8. 37. Alex Inkeles, «The Modernization of Man, A General Description of the Harvard Project on Sociocultural Aspects of Development,» (Cambridge: Center for International Affairs of Harvard University, no date), mimeographed. The results of this study are soon to be pusblished under the title, Becoming Modern. 38. Milton Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968), 112-22. 39. See Allen E. Liska, «Uses and Misuses of Tautologies in Social Psychology,» Sociometry, Vol. 32 (1969), pp. 44457, for a discussion of types of tautologies and their value in research in the social sciences. 40. The two sources which most clearly outline Inkeles' concepts of the individual and society are Alex Inkeles, «Personality and Social Structure», in Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., eds., Sociology Today: Problems and Prospects (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959) and Alex Inkeles and Daniel Levinson, «The Personality System and the Sociocultural System in Large Scale Organization,» Sociometry, Vol. 26 (1963), pp. 217-29. 41. Alex Inkeles, «Industrial Man: The Relation of Status to Experience, Perception, and Values,» American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 66 (1960), pp. 1-31. 42. Alex Inkeles, «The Modernization of Man», in Myron Weiner, ed., Modernization: The Dynamics of Growth (New York: Basic Books, Ins,. 1966), pp. 138-50. 43. Smith and Inkeles, op. cit. 44. Alex Inkeles, «Participant Citizenship in Six Developing Countries,» American Political Science Review, Vol. 63 (1969), pp. 1,120-41. 45. Joseph A. Kahl, The Measurement of Modernism: A Study of Values in Brazil and Mexico (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1966). 46. Ibid., p. 21. 47. This tautology is a contentual one as contrasted to a relational tautology. Liska, op. cit. 48. For example, see Arnold S. Feldman, «Evolutionary Theory and Social Change,» in Herbert R. Barringer, George I. Blanksten, and Raymond W. Mack, eds., Social Change in Developing Areas (Cambridge: Schenkman Publishing Company, 1965), pp. 273-84. 49. Alex Inkeles, «Industrial Man». 50. Arnold S. Feldman et al., «Modernization and Mobility,» (Evanston: Northwestern University, Department of Sociology, 1967), mimeographed. 51. John B. Stephenson, «Is Everyone Going Modern? A Critique and a Suggestion for Measuring Modernism,» American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 74 (1968), pp. 165-75. 52. Ibid., p. 267. He is not alone in this rejection. See Norval D. Gleen, «The Trend in Differences in Attitudes and Behavior by Educational Level,» Sociology of Education, Vol. 39 (1968), pp. 255-75. 53. Stephenson, op. cit., p. 268. 54. Ibid., p. 245. 55. Schnaiberg, op. cit.,

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

56. Alex Inkeles, «Comments on John Stephenson's Is Everyone Going Modern?,» American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 75 (1969), pp. 146-51. 57. Amar Kumar Singh and Alex Inkeles, «A Cross-Cultural Measure of Modernity and Some Popular Indian Images,» Journal of General and Applied Psychology, Vol. 1 (1968) (Rachi/Patna, India: Bihar Psychological Association). 58. Their criticism was previously offered. See page 35 and footnote 50 above. 59. Feldman, et al., «Modernization and Mobility,» see also Arnold S. Feldman and Cristhopher Hum , «The Experience of Modernization,» Sociometry, Vol. 29 (1966), pp. 378-95, and also Arnold S. Feldman and John M. Kendrick, «The Experience of Change in Puerto Rico» (Evanston: Northwestern University, Department of Sociology, undated), mimeographed. 60. Melvin M. Tumin and Arnold S. Feldman, «Theory and Measurement of Occupational Mobility,» American Sociologycal Review, Vol. 22 (1957), pp. 281-8. 61. Ibid. There also is a detailed discussion and illustration of this measurement in Melvin M. Tumin with Arnold S. Feldman, Social Class and Social Change in Puerto Rico (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), chapters 24 and 25. 62. «Overachievers» and «underachievers» are the terms Tumin and Feldman use. 63. The first interviews were the ones which provided the data used by Tumio and Feldman in the development.

EDUCATION Learning Modernization has been discussed at a societal level. We are interested in the study of modernization of the individual in a changing society. One of the points at which the concept of individual behavior intersects the concept of societal change is in the educational institution.' It is through these institutions that a member of society learns modernity, and obtains the skills and attitudes which will make him modern if, indeed, the society is modernizing and if, indeed, the educational institutions of the society reflect the changes taking place within that society. In the discussion of a definition of modernization presented previously, emphasis was placed on the concept of empathy.z This quality is necessary for individuals to be adaptable to any significant changes in their social surroundings. The acquiring of this quality necessitates learning, learning to recognize certain aspects of the environment, learning to respond to these aspects in an acceptable or desirable way, learning the probable consequences of various alternative responses, and so forth. Learning is probably the most important activity in which an individual may participate in preparation for modernization. But education, which is learning, does not only concern the relationship between the individual and the modernization process at the level of empathy development. Education is also necessary for participation in everyday life in the modern community. It is necessary to have a basic literacy to be able to use mass communication systems, make use of technology, and so forth. Education is necessary for the development of the skills necessary for filling all of the new occupations which are created by industrialization and automation.3 Through education members of society are also able to develop creativity, and the products of this creativity and invention lead to increasing change

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

in a society.4 Therefore, education is to some extent a prerequisite to participation in any modernizing activity. Education is not a static concept, however, but a dynamic one. As a society changes, so does education, the way in which it is delivered to the members of that society, and its content .5 Education is a product of modernizing changes, as well as a prerequisite for them. The increase in education resulting from modernizing changes can lead to further changes, thus playing a vital part in the process of modernization. Whether considered as a cause or a result, therefore, education is very closely linked to modernization, and a discussion of one must eventually involve the other. Learning basically involves two concepts: motivation and reinforcement. In other words, two phenomena are likely to stimulate learning. When the individual wants to obtain a certain goal, or when he is motivated, the learning process is more likely to occur than at other times.6 The other situation which is likely to result in learning is when the response the individual makes results in the acquisition of a desired goal, or when reinforcement occurs. Primary needs offer motivation instinctively; the individual knows when he is hungry or cold, and does not have to be told. Other needs he must learn. No one experiences a need for status, money, or love until one has participated in social relationships. These goals are secondary, and must be learned before they are felt. Motives, therefore, are learned desires for specific goals. In the same way, reinforcement must be learned, for if one does not learn that certain goals are desirable, their achievement cannot be rewarding or reinforcing. Situations of motivation and reinforcement lead to the learning of new goals, which in turn leads to the development of new motivation and the occurrence of new reinforcement, so learning becomes a self-stimulating, but not necessarily a self-perpetuating, process. There are at least two basic types of learning available to the member of a society, which should be distinguished at this point. Anderson refers to them as «knowledge» and «know-how», knowledge being that type of education offered by the educational system, and know-how being that generally obtained from the working or living experience of the individual? These have been very well discussed by Schuman and his colleagues also.8 Knowledge, in this context, is literacy and abstract knowledge, which will enable the individual to use the tools of modernity discussed above more easily, such as mass media. This does not necessarily impart to the educated person a sense of goals and standards, however. Schuman states it,

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Education alone, although it exposes a man to new ideas at an abstract level, does not seem to shock him into recognizing the fact that not all his peers think the way he does.' It is the know-how developed through direct experience, or learning directly from the realistic life situation, that gives the individual a basis for goal formation. Learning experiences tend to be widespread in the individual's environment. Virtually any activity can result in learning. Many specific learning-producing activities have been institutionalized and formalized in various societies, but a great number have not. The individual learns to recognize various goals, discovers to what extent and under what conditions they are to be desired, and finds out what values to assign to their acquisitions, in all varieties of social interactions. In other words, he learns to set and recognize standards. Frequently in the material he learns there is some degree of conflict between different sources. In such instances, he must learn to place priorities on certain sources for the acquisition of certain types of knowledge. As members of a society reach some degree of agreement on these priorities, a pattern of education tends to emerge. Religious values tend to be learned from priests, occupational skills tend to be learned on the job or in schools, and so forth. These patterns of learning formalize and become educational institutions. But education is not only achieved through these formal educational institutions. Inkeles in his studies, for example, points out that factories and the work experience they offer contribute perhaps as much education towards modernity in developing societies as do the schools.10 Education It is our present purpose to look at these patterns of education to determine some aspects of their nature, particularly to see if there are characteristic differences in these patterns between modern and traditional societies, and to describe what these patterns are in a modern society to some extent. But before these intentions are attempted, we shall first try to discover if the differences in these two types of societies would suggest the likelihood of differences in their patterns of education. In the first place, the great complexity of a modern society as compared to a traditional one results in a difference in education, at least in amount if not in quality. If the member of the modern society participates in his society to the fullest extent possible, he may receive

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

a maximum share of the benefits to be obtained, a partial list of which was offered previously. Furthermore, there is such a great amount of interdependence in many possible relationships that the non-participant not only fails to receive benefits from society, but even detracts from it. But increased participation also requires increased knowledge, as was noted above. Thus each individual needs access to great amounts of knowledge if he is to participate in and therefore benefit from and contribute to the society to the greatest extent possible. In contrast, the member of the traditional society is faced with a much more limited range of activities in which he is given an opportunity to participate, and thus has less use for knowledge. The second major difference between modern and traditional societies which would suggest distinct variations in educational patterns is the variation in economic structure which exists between the two.11 Economic production in the traditional society is chiefly carried out by subsistance agriculture. Nearly the entire population works the land in farming, and little more is produced than enough to provide the basic needs of the population. The economic structure of the modern society, on the other hand, is based for the most part on industrialization. Emphasis is placed on machines and technology rather than manpower and land. Even traditional industries such as agriculture make use of machines, fertilizers, and so forth, so that fewer men are able to produce much greater amounts than was previously possible. Quantities of total production and production per capita rise, enabling the development of capital to occur, and freeing individuals to participate in various manufacturing and especially service occupations. This latter is more difficult in a traditional society where each member is producing to capacity just to fulfill basic needs and the loss of one person from the fields puts a greater burden on those who remain, for they must feed him as well as themselves. These differences have many basic implications for education. A high amount of education in a traditional society creates an individual who is a luxury to the society for the reason just stated. Alsv, there is very little production value in this excess of education for the tool of production is the laborer rather than the machine, and the educated laborer is not stronger nor can he work longer hours than the uneducated one. But in the modern society, education is placed at a premium, for the individual with more education can produce more technology, and thus will contribute to the total production, rather than detract from it. Education, therefore, is a resource. Because industrialization is dependent on technology the amount of education possessed by the population has a bearing on 'the level of

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

development which a country can reach. The competence and skill of a nation's people are important in determining the rate of development12 But this rate of development is not only dependent on the general level of education present. In the industrialized society the level of interdependence is so high that not even the most skilled worker works alone. Therefore it is advantageous for each individual to have as much education as possible, even to the point beyond the skills he must use himself, for the more he understands about another's job, the more he is able to contribute to greater integration and more effective coordination and the more employable he is. An increase in formal education and an increase in intercultural contact by members of a society tend to lead to changes in the traditional attitudes of the members of a society. These changes were studied in Turkey by the Le Comptes.13 That modernity, at least by measurement of one aspect, is the result of certain types of education is shown by McClelland, as discussed above.'4 Although Brown suggests that need achievement is only one of a cluster of traits defining the entrepreneur, the others are usually the result of education also.15 Tumin and Feldman stress the level of education in relationship to social mobility.16 It can be stated that a modern society will be characterized by a higher general and individual level of education than a traditional one. But there is a qualitative difference also. As excess education may produce a useless luxury, education in a traditional society tends to be minimal, necessary only to impart basic techniques of earning a subsistence living, thus producing minimal change. In a modern society, however, increase in scale and ease of contact tend to produce increasingly greater quantities of education which tend to enable increasing change to take place. Thus education tends to change in both quantity and quality as a society modernizes. Education in modern societies has two purposes. It must provide for the transmission of previous learned knowledge from one generation to the next. But it also must teach members of the society how to learn, how to be creative, so that they may discover new knowledge that has not been handed down to them. The first of these purposes is the most necessary for education in a traditional society, but in a modern society education must serve both, as members of the society must be able to respond to increasing changes. This is another qualitive change in education in a modernizing society. As education correlates with modernization at the societal level, we may expect it to correlate also on the individual level. That is, the quality and quantity of education which a modern individual has

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

received should be superior to that which traditional man has received. The correlation can be expected to be less consistent at the individual level, as there is much greater variation. Nonetheless, a high correlation between educational level and modernity would further support the presumption that modernity measures what it is expected to measure. Performance The education received or acquired by the individual is manifested in performance. Performance is goal-directed behavior." Certainly, according to the official ideology of education, academic performance is considered to be goal-directed behavior. The goals toward which educational performance is directed are broadly determined by educational standards. Standards are prescriptive goals either covertly held by the members of the society as norms or overtly expressed as demands.18 They define the adequacy of individual actions. They generally refer to a broad level of achievement or a general form of behavior rather than a specific action, and a specific action is considered more or less «up to standard» more by the extent to which it reflects conformance to this level of achievement or form of behavior than by actual accomplishments resulting from it. One of the characteristics of the modern environment is a greater amount of planning evidenced in social living than is present in traditional society. The educational institutions tend to involve a relatively large amount of planning. This planning is the responsibility of those segments of society which are responsible for its government, and more particularly of those individuals who are appointed or elected to administrative positions in the educational system. Included in this planning is the responsibility for setting standards. The standards of the educational system may be set rigidly, that is, they may define a very narrow range of achievement as satisfactory, or they may be set more liberally, permitting a greater variation in achievement levels. The process of modernization is accelerated when as much education as possible is made available to as great a number of population as possible.19 Any limitation of amount or numbers limits the progress of this process. To operate efficiently to maximize modernization potential, the educational system needs to correlate its standards with two aspects of society: its goals and the ability of its members. If there is a divergence between the goals of the educational systems and the goals of the society in which it functions, those

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

members of the society who make use of the educational system will integrate poorly with the society when their education is completed 20 The standards of the school system must also correlate with the abilities of the members of the population. If standards are set too high for the average student, he will cease to attempt to achieve them when he finds he cannot do well enough to receive the rewards. On the other hand, if the standards are too low, the student will not be stimulated to learn more either. In either case, the level of education which the student will achieve will be limited to a greater extent than would be necessary. Poor correlations of educational standards with societal goals and individual abilities may result in a deceleration of the modernization process. The function of the educational institution in a modern society is to provide a high level of education for its members. That this function is being carried out is shown when there is adequate performance in the system by the members of the society. If the performance is to be directed toward educational standards, a high value must be placed on these standards. This is particularly true when a society's goals are toward modernization, for increased education furnishes a basic resource at that point. A close integration of educational standards with the norms of society will tend to give them a high valuation on the part of the members. Another situation in which educational standards will be given a high value will be one in which it can be demonstrated that their achievement will assist in the realization of other goals; for example, if it can be demonstrated that good educational performance will give the individual a better chance to receive the type of occupation he desires, adequate educational performance will be more highly valued. However, a high correlation between performance and occupational skill is only present at the extremes of the scale21 Nevertheless, the expectation of greater occupational mobility is probably a frequent reason for goal orientation toward adequate educational performance. Modernization is facilitated by high levels of performance, or at least high performance potential, for the same reason that it is facilitated by higher levels of education. Therefore the various factors in the educational system which tend to discourage performance are detrimental to modernization. Measuring Ability As performance is a goal-directed activity, it must be discussed with respect to the goals toward which it is directed in any given

nQEKE CUNNINGHAM

case. In an earlier section of this paper, mobility was discussed as a manifestation of modernization, whereas modernity was discussed as a quality indicating potential for modernization. In this section concerned with education, performance is the manifestation of educational achievement. The quality indicating educational potential, or potential for learning, which we shall discuss is ability. In attempting to study the level of education, performance and ability will be the specified measures with which we shall concern ourselves. Very frequently in educational studies, very little distinction is made between these two factors. One problem presents itself when we attempt to draw too close an analogy between modernity as modernization potential and ability as educational potential. It is implied throughout the discussion of individual modernity in the previous chapter that modernity can be developed in a given individual. It is presumed in the opening chapter as well, for one of the purposes for carrying out this study is to offer evidence making the claim that modernization can be increased through the school system more tenable. However, although there is general agreement among those who have studied modernity that the presumptions are correct, there is no consensus at all regarding similar assumptions concerning individual ability. Some claim educational ability is fixed to a large part by environmental influences. The status of the controversy has some bearing on this report. If ability is fixed then any considerations of the correlations between modernity and academic performance among Puerto Rican students have little relevance without accompanying data regarding the general level of ability of Puerto Ricans. Therefore, although we do not measure ability directly, a detailed discussion of the concept follows. Ability may be generally understood as representing a potential for problem-solving. In a specific sense, however, it is much less readily defined. One concept often used in the study of ability is intelligence. This concept was developed on the premise that there was an inherent human quality which led to a difference between individuals in their capacity to learn. This idea was first put forth by Francis Galton in the middle of the nineteenth century. Alfred Binet, a French psychologist, developed a test of intelligence which could be standardized about the turn of the century. This has been revised and updated, but the same test is in use today, along with several others? Intelligence, expressed as I.Q., or intelligence quotient, a comparison of one's «mental age)' to his chronological age, is in common use as an indicator of general ability. There is, however, much controversy concerning what is actually

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

measured in intelligence tests, and more basically, what intelligence consists of. Isodor Chein does not accept the definition of intelligence as an inherent human quality.24 He states that there are no intelligent individuals, but only individuals who manifest intelligent behavior.25 Behavior is intelligent as it occurs with reference to all of the relevant factors in the behavioral situation. He therefore concludes that «intelligence is the apprehension of the relevant structure of the total behavior field, relevance being defined in terms of the immediate and presumptive future purpose of the actor.»26 Thus intelligence, when seen in this light, can have little reference to an I.Q. score. Jean Piaget is not so much interested in defining intelligence as in describing how it is developed.n He sees human behavior as developing for the purpose of adapting the individual to his environment. Thought develops in response to the environment, and the individual is continually developing ways of thinking which enable him to respond to new aspects of the environment. To enable the individual to properly interact with the world around him, he develops the processes of assimilation, which are responsive to internal promptings, and accomodation, which are responsive to environmental changes? These processes are developed in an invariable order through four general stages: the sensorimotor period, prior to language development; the preoperational period; the period of concrete operations; and the period of formal operations. Each stage of development is dependent upon the degree to which the child has developed the preceding one. The whole development of mental actitvity is in maintaining an equilibrium between an assimilation of realities further and further removed from the action one is specifically involved in and accommodation of these assimilations to the action. Therefore increasing mental development enables one to increasingly widen the sphere of his environment. Intelligence, according to Piaget, is the «state of equilibrium towards which tend all the successive adaptations of a sensimotor and cognitive nature, as well as assimilatory and accomodatory interactions between the organism and the environment.»29 Thus Piaget, like Chein, also sees intelligence as a characteristic of behavior, rather than a characteristic of the individual himself. If it is somewhat academic to separate the individual's behavior from the individual, the distinction is nonetheless a useful one, particularly pertinent to the discussion which follows. Although intelligence is influenced by both heredity and environment, if it is considered a characteristic of the individual heredity factors are often emphasized, whereas if emphasis is placed on intelligence as a characteristic of behavior, environmental modifications are more readily considered.

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

The psychometricians, in contrast to Chein and Piaget, consider intelligence as that factor which is measured in intelligence tests. This consideration, as noted above, is based on the premise that intelligence is an ability, and was developed into a measurable concept by Calton and Binet. That the actual content of the tests can be specifically delineated and analyzed is pointed out by Guilford 30 He has developed the «structure-of-intellect» model, through which he has defined 120 different intellectual processes. The process of problem solving contains three elements: a particular product is derived from a specific type of content through a certain operation. Through identifying six products (units, classes, relations, systems, transformations, and implications), four contents (figures, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral), and five operations (evaluation, convergent production, divergent production, memory, and cognition), Guilford has in detail specified the mechanics of intelligence, or at least of problem solving. However, the mechanics of the procedure do not identify the nature of the factor actually measured. The intelligence test, as noted, was conceived by Binet as a way to distinguish between the inherited abilities of individuals, or to determine the «native ability», or «native intelligence» of the individual. But there is some question as to whether such a factor exists, or at least whether it is measurable, and there is doubt that it is measured by his test. Several studies have noted differences from the normal value in the general levels of measured intelligence among certain groups. These variations should not occur on the basis of inheritance alone. Examples of groups that have been found to have generally lower intelligence levels are twins, deaf children, and bilingual children, although among the latter this is only true when verbal tests are used3' Twins have been found to increase their levels of intelligence after beginning school, and deaf children to become less intelligent as they remain deaf longer. Nisbet points out that the common denominator that can explain all of these cases it that intelligence tests tend to require verbal skills, which are learned rather than inherited, and thus those children who have less opportunity to learn verbal expression (twins because they communicate most frequently with each other, often nonverbally; deaf children because they cannot hear; bilingual children because they often do not have as much facility in either language as do children with only one) do less well on intelligence tests32 He hypothesizes that children from large families tend to be handicapped in intelligence testing when they first enter school because they have had less interaction with adults than have children from smaller

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

families. Other studies support this hypothesis,33 but there is at least one which does not .M Learned verbal reasoning is not the only factor which has been found to affect intelligence scores. Cultural background is also very important. Goslin points out that ability and intelligence tests are culturally oriented to the extent that those from a cultural background other than that of the majority of the people for whom a given test was developed will definitely be handicapped35 This fact was illustrated by a study done in Puerto Rico, where one-third of the population scored in the mentally-retarded range of an I.Q. test developed for the United States culture, including one of the investigators who took the questionnaire in Spanish which is not his native language36 That culturally deprived individuals will tend to do poorly on intelligence and ability tests as they are «culturally unfair» is also established by Coleman37 A review of studies documenting this factor among children of a specific minority group often affected by this problem is presented by Brussell3$ Thus it becomes evident that intelligence tests do not measure only inherited ability, but to a large extent measure the individual's ability to use learned knowledge. All testing methods, even the nonverbal ones, must make use of learned skills. Therefore it is probably impossible to measure pure «native intelligence». As Goslin notes, Unless someone can succeed in creating a test to be given as the physician removes the newborn infant from his mother's womb, it is unlikely that anything approximating a `culture-free' test will be developed.39 If «native intelligence», or actual inherited ability cannot be measured, the question arises as to whether such an entity actually exists. There are definitive differences in ability among individuals, but many of these can be accounted for by environmental influences. This question is very controversial, and varying opinions have been offered with equal enthusiasm. Huntley, for example, has summarized the various genetic theories and their bases4° He notes that the pattern of finger ridges of 320 pairs of twins and all their available siblings correlate almost perfectly with theoretical heritability, and social maturity, a variable with environmental componentes only, correlates not at all. Intelligence test scores fall somewhere in between. After discussing assortive mating, he comes to the conclusion from his own data that approximately 70 % of the intelligence tests score factors can be accounted for by heredity. Burt reports similar results, studying one thousand pairs of siblings with as many of their relatives as

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

possible, and concludes that heritability can account for more than 80% of the variations 41 Faris, on the other hand, in a discussion of the collective ability of the United States, studies production and education figures and reaches the conclusion that the marked rate of increase in invention, innovation, production, and higher education in this country can only be accounted for by the fact that limitations to intelligence are mainly due to environmental influences, since limitations due to inheritance could not be overcome with sufficient rapidity to account for the actual rate of change42 Therefore, any inherited limitation of intelligence must be far enough beyond usual performance as to have very little application to actual individual differences. The most enthusiastic study in the support of «native intelligence» to date is a long and extensively documented study by Jensen43 He begins with the proposition that I.Q. levels seldom change when children are placed in improved environments, suggesting that environmental factors are thus of little importance. He then uses analysis of variance to distinguish genetic and environmental determinants of I.Q. His results suggest that genetic factors are much more important in producing I.Q. differences than environmental factors. He even suggests that prenatal influences may well contribute the largest environmental influence on I.Q45 For identification of inherited intelligence, Jensen suggests the use of the theoretical construct «g» or «general intelligence» developed by Spearman. This is the quality determined statistically which accounts for the intercorrelations of all the intelligence tests developed to date. While Jensen's study championed the concept of inherited intelligence, it also pointedly implied racial differences, and thus drew immediate and immense criticism4' Much of the criticism was due to the race issue raised, but there were some authors who criticized the concepts of intelligence as they were discussed. Elkin points out the work of Waddington with fruit flies showing that change in diet in one generation may lead to structural adaptations which are passed down through later generations even after the diet has been returned to normal, giving evidence that what is an hereditary trait now may have previously been environmental4$ Deutsch offers alternative evidence concerning prenatal influence, showing that many authors have linked prenatal factors to the mother's nutritional state and socioeconomic level, suggesting that Waddington's work with fruit flies is to some extent applicable to humans49 Hunt reviews evidence which suggests that marked central nervous system changes can result from environmental differences, and while he does not claim that these become hereditary in later generations, he does suggest that these

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

changes might well affect intelligence and therefore must be ruled out in any study on inherited intelligence50 Shuey has written a book which attempts to amass all evidence suggesting that there is a racial difference in intelligences' Klineberg, in discussing the first edition of Shuey's book and reviewing other evidence, reaches a conclusion which is still applicable to Jensen's study, which is that within-group differences in intelligence are so great as compared with betweengroup differences that the conclusion that there is an inherited difference in innate ability cannot yet be reached.52 Even if Jensen's paper is accepted as an adequate study, many of his findings can be explained in alternate ways. His major conclusions are that environment acts as a «threshold variable», and that extreme environmental deprivation can keep a child from performing up to his genetic potential, but an enriched educational program cannot push the child above that potential53 If one were to hypothesize that genetic characteristics act as threshold variables, and that brain damage can prevent a child from making use of his potential, but that increased genetic ability cannot push him above that potential, virtually the same statistics could be used to support the case, depending on the level of the threshold. Many of the lines of evidence offered by Jensen to show that racial differences in I.Q. are largely genetic are studies which have revealed that at all levels of socioeconomic status black children have been shown, on the average, to have lower I.Q.'s than caucasians. These studies do not necessarily imply that the difference is genetic, however. Race or ethnicity may well be an aspect in socioeconomic status, in which case it would be meaningless to consider a comparison of black physicians with white physicians, for example, as a comparison of two categories of people of similar socioeconomic status. Thus Jensen is drawing biological conclusions from sociological data when sociological explanations are available. To question the degree of inheritability of intelligence does not imply a rejection of the differences in congenital ability among individuals. Infants vary greatly on many parameters which might well be considered to predispose to ability, such as reflexes, behavioral development, and reactions to simple stimuli. They also differ in their ability to respond to complex stimuli, and this response is reproducible se Intelligence tests have been devised for children as young as three months of age, but since such tests for infants up to two years of age must be based on non-verbal functioning almost entirely, although they show wide differences between individual infants there is little correlation with adult intelligence tests56 Such differences observable in infants are probably relevant to adult intelligence for the children 4.

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

studied, but the presence of such differences does not give evidence for their inheritability. Erlenmeyer-Kimling and Jarvik have reviewed 52 studies relating genetic individuality to psychologic individuality which, in their opinion., avoid major methodologic difficulties.' They conclude that there is strong evidence pointing to inherited differences in mental abilities. However, they note that, whereas behavioral potential reflects genotypic differences, behavioral performance differences result from «nonuniform recording of environmental stimuli by intrinsically nonuniform organism.»58 Thus, while inherited differences exist, what we are able to measure reflects for the most part the environmental modifications of these differences. There are many investigators who strongly favor the view that environmental factors are the major determinants of individual intelligence. Various theories of environmental effect have been summarized by Wiseman 59 He concludes that environmental factors have more influence on younger children than on older ones as far as intelligence is concerned. Factors in the home, particularly those associated with maternal care and maternal needs, are far more powerful determinants of intelligence than are factors in the school. He also notes that adverse environmental factors are more detrimental to children of higher intelligence than of lower intelligence. Certainly one the primary contentions of the Coleman Report is that, although children of minority groups do poorly, or at least less well than white children, when they are placed in more advantageous environments they do better as a category6° The British educational system tends to follow the concept that inherited intelligence plays a large part and therefore directs students into programs which limit the total amount and kind of schooling they can receive at a relatively early age. In the U.S.S.R., however, educational policies are different, and all students, except a few who are physically or psychologically handicapped, such as those with brain damage, are required to follow a course of studies which is approximately at the level of the college preparatory courses in this country61 Apparently the majority of the students do well. There is certainly no evidence to show that either system fails. In summarizing concepts of intelligence, Hunt is able to amass large quantities of evidence supporting both the inheritance and environmental perspectives62 At present the weight of evidence is fairly well balanced between the two sides. To determine to what extent either of these factors, heredity or environment, contribute to achievement, either one must be completely controlled to measure the other. With our present state of knowledge, we cannot do this. However, despite

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

the evidence that individuals vary greatly in the amount of ability with which they are born, there is also evidence that this ability can be either developed or retarded by environmental factors. For this reason it can be assumed that «native ability» places few limitations on the development of modernity. In the light of the evidence presented, it would seem that the environmental factors are more amenable to manipulation, and therefore of more immediate relevance to increasing the level of intelligence of any category of individuals. They are of greater import to this study. Some psychologists have stopped using the terms «I.Q.» and «intelligence» with regard to ability, because of the frequent association of these terms with the concept of innate ability, and refer instead to the term «scholastic aptitude,» which avoids these connotations, but otherwise suggests the same qualities. Although the type of ability measured can thus be fairly well described, the validity of the various ability tests is more difficult to establish. Tests measure the ability of the individual to solve problems presented to him in the test situation. The central concern, therefore, is whether these problems are similar to, or representative of, the problems he must confront in other situations. The only way that this validity can be determined is to look at the predictability of ability tests in general. One factor that makes it difficult to determine the validity of ability and intelligence tests within the environment of the educational system is the self-fulfilling prophecy. When a child does well on an ability test he often is placed in special classes and given special instruction in an «advanced group». If he then is more successful in academic performance and in later life, it cannot be known with certainty whether this is a result of greater ability or of greater preferential treatment. Rosenthal has shown that the «self-fulfilling prophecy» has a definite effect on I.Q. development.M The children in an elementary school were given an I.Q. test represented as a test to predict academic «blooming». Twenty per cent of the students were chosen randomly and their teachers were told that these had shown special potential for increased academic performance. At the end of one year, these students, particularly the ones in earlier grades, had a significantly higher increase in I.Q. than had the other students. The correlation of ability with performance and with achievement is relatively high. There is a reasonably close correlation between intelligence measurements and scholastic achievement 65 Wolfle notes that, of the many factors essential to success in college, ability was the most essential and correlated the most closely with achievement.

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

Intelligence correlates better with social mobility than does level of education67 Rossi, in reviewing the literature also notes that intelligence correlates more closely with academic achievement than any other factor6$ In another rather extensive review of pertinent studies this estimation is agreed with, and the figure of .60 is given as the correlation between ability and school performance on the high school level. This is somewhat higher than the figure given for the same correlations at the college level, which was .5069 The high correlations of ability measurements with various forms of achievement suggest the usefulness of these measurements. However, the studies noted here do not offer sufficient evidence to establish discriminant as well as divergent validity.70 Many factors other than academic performance also have been correlated with intelligence or achievement. Two studies have related motivation to intelligence, but the positive correlation disappeared when environmental factors and academic success were held constant?' Creativity correlated very poorly with achievement 72 However, in a study in which children were given I.Q. tests at ages six and eight, children with the greatest increase over that period of time ranked high in competitive striving and curiosity.73 Moving frequently while in school has a negative effect on achievement testing.74 Braham discovered that the adolescent subculture also has a negative effect on achievement test scores, those adhering most rigidly to the subculture norms sometimes becoming progressively worse75 Behavior in class which was disapproved of also was related to lower intelligence76 Measuring Performance The line dividing the measurement of ability and the measurement of performance is a fine one. Although ability is a potential for activity and performance is an activity itself, ability is most frequently measured by the administration of various tests. The actual quality which is measured is the performance of the individual solving test questions. Therefore the actual quality measured is behavior rather than potential behavior. The behavior measured is considered a reasonable reflection of the potential, however, on two bases. The questions cover broad areas of problem solving and are thus considered to be more generally applicable in prediction than specific tests. Also they are standardized, which adds to their general applicability. The measurement of ability is therefore based on broad applications learned over long periods of time.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

The measurement of performance, on the other hand, is more specific. Ability is a general term relating to a general quality. Performance relates to a specific activity. One considers an individual's ability as a fairly stable entity, but an individual's performance is not necessarily so. Performance must always be related to a particular type of activity. Thus there is academic performance, athletic performance, literary performance, and so forth. As this project is concerned with modernization and schooling we are interested in schooling performance, or academic performance. From this point on, the term «performance» will be considered to refer to academic performance. Performance is measured in many ways, such as through tests, classroom participation, papers, and so forth, but the standard units to which these specific measures are converted, at least in the educational systems of most societies, are grades. Most schools report performances of their students as a gradepoint average which takes into account all the grades the student has made in all his classes over a given period of time. Specific grades are given by individual teachers in individual courses, and various courses are weighted differentially in determining the gradepoint averages. There are several sources of variation in grades. One is the individuality of each grade. Grades are given by different teachers. These different teachers may require different standards in participation; for example, some may grade highly on class participation, some may require high performance in retaining specific knowledge or information, others may emphasize ability and logical thinking, and so forth. Another source of variation is that grades are given for different courses. The content of a course in music appreciation differs markedly from that in a course in advanced mathematics, and different skills are needed in a course in instrumental music as compared to a course in world history. School environments vary also, so that a smaller amount of ability in a poor school could lead to a higher grade than a larger amount of ability in another school where there was more academic competition. Qualities of classes differ markedly, also. For example, some history courses are very difficult, while others are easy, variations occurring within schools as well as between schools. These factors make it very difficult to compare individual grades. Still another source of variation is the actual quality that the grade measures. As grades are given by individuals to individuals with whom the graders have interacted in an educational experience, grades reflect not only the performance of the student, but also the student-teacher interaction?? The variations mentioned in the previous paragraph do

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

not suggest differences in standards for grades given in the same school for the same course by the same teacher, but the interaction variation implies that even these grades cannot be compared. Another factor includes performance. Robinson and Cowen studied anxiety and performance, but found different results?$ The latter found a negative correlation, whereas the former found more anxiety in high performance. It was also found that students who exhibited behavior which was approved by their teachers tended to make better grades?' The effect of environment on grades and performance must also be considered. We are proposing that parents and peers have a definite effect on students, as they are very important elements of their environment. There are several reasons for parental attitudes to have an effect on student performance. Parental influence on the child's attitudes is well documented. Children's self confidence is enhanced if their parents have confidence in them.'° Boyle points out that, whereas peer groups had a marked influence on a high school student's short range plans, he was influenced more by his parents on long range goals, reflecting deep-seated attitudes81 Kahl noted a marked influence on aspirations and attitudes of middle class boys by their fathers Elder notes a negative correlation between parental dominance and educational achievement in a large cross-national study.n Authoritarianism is considered a traditional value by both Kahl and Inkeles in their development of modernity measurements. Pearlin notes parental influence in another cross-national study.84 That the expectation that peer influence is also very strong among adolescents can be supported by several studies. Boyle, Alexander, Kraus, Brittain, and McDill give evidence in support of this contention85 There are several studies which give evidence leading to the conclusion that peer influence might perhaps be stronger than parental influence. The basis for this conclusion lies in the concept of parent.. youth conflict. One of the major theorists to discuss this concept has been Davis86 He points out that there are three universal differences between parents and children which tend to be conflict-producing. The first is the obvious age difference. The second which he mentions is the fact that socialization decelerates with advancing age, so that the youth learns far more in a given time period than does the adult during the same period. The third of these differences includes intrinsic physiological, psycho-social, and sociological differences. These are illustrated by increasing physiologic drives in the young, most notably sex drives, as opposed to decreasing drives in the older individuals, the greater need for security and stability on the part of the aged as

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

opposed to the greater need for independence on the part of adolescents, and so forth. In going further, however, Davis notes that, whereas these universal differences act on all societies, parent-child conflict is especially marked in industrial societies or, as we would prefer to consider them, modern societies. This is due to certain particular characteristics of these societies which enhance the universal differences just discussed. These characteristics include the extent of complexity in the social structure, the degree of integration in the culture, and the velocity of movement within the structure and its relation to the cultural values87 For example, in the presence of rapid social change each succeeding generation has more to learn than the preceding one, and the content of the social learning of children is very likely to be quite different from that of their parents when they were the same age. In comparing peer-peer relationships with parent-youth relationships several marked differences become apparent. In the latter the relationship is usually based on authority, and as the parent always has authority, the child is always the one with less authority. Relationships between peers, on the other hand, are usually based on equality, and the individual in this relationship is able to demand as much as he gives88 Another problem arising in the parent-youth relationship which is absent in that between peers is that a marked difference in age will tend to bias individuals against each other.89 Neither will feel that the other defines basic concepts in the same way nor places similar emphases on those concepts, so neither can enter into a true friendship relationship with the other. Rosen has found that adolescents are much more likely to conform with the norms of their peer group than with those of their parents when these are in disagreement 90 He notes, in concluding his results, that «the peer group has more importance to the adolescent than to the individual at any other stage.» 91 Eisenstadt notes that the formation of peer groups is in part a mechanism for enabling the individual to pass from «the world of childhood to the adult world.» 92 He needs to be part of a group in which he is able to form a relationship in which he can often be an authoritarian figure. These differences between parent-youth and peer-peer relationships suggest that we might expect peer influence, in general, to be greater than parental influence. As noted, these differences would be even greater in a modernizing society. The environmental factors of parental and peer influence cannot be expected to have the same relative effects in all situations. Other factors in the environment modify the effects or add to them. That students from homes of higher socioeconomic status do better aca-

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

demically than those from lower classes is shown by Pihlblad, among others93 Variations in class values which tend to lead to variations in educational achievement have been summarized by Hyman, who notes that there are large numbers of individuals, particularly in the lower classes, who do not appear to accept the values of their class, and thus do better than would otherwise be expected. Toby suggests particular mechanisms through which class values modify performance, and among them lists the concern for education of the upper classes which results in more support for the student from family and relatives95 Morrow summarizes various factors in family relationships which modify children's performance96 Parents of high performers are more approving and affectionate, less restrictive and severe. It could not be shown that parental disharmony, parents' goals for their children, or pressure for achievement on the part of the parents have any effect. Snyder and Spady show that students who participate in many different extracurricular activities do better academically than do those who shun such participationY Hilton notes these various factors and concludes that although they correlate with performance they are, taken singly or together, less predictive of performance than is intelligence98 Nonetheless, these factors must be considered in the applications of performance measurement. Other sources of variation in grades include several miscellaneous factors which affect measurement of both ability and performance. There are such factors as health, state of mind of the subject at the time of the measurement, interest, previous experience with such measurements, and so forth. Many of these factor are listed by Goslin 99 Factors which are more temporary, such as state of mind of the subject at the time of the measurement, are more likely to have greater effect on ability measurements than on those of performance, as ability usually is measured in one test or a series of tests given over a short period of time, whereas performance as described above is likely to be measured over a longer period of time, and several different test situations are generally considered in one measurement. Another factor which will tend to have more effect on ability than performance for these same reasons is the recording; of scores, for even though much of the scoring is done by machine, a single mechanical error can cause a large difference in the ability measurement of a single individual. The specificity of grades as compared to the generality of ability scores indicates differences in the effects which all of these variables might have. Although there is variation between the qualities individual grades represent, gradepoint averages are more comparable and widely used

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

as performance measurements for predictive purposes. High school grades are of more reliability than college grades, probably because of the greater variations in curricula between colleges and between departments of the same college. Wolfle lists them as among the most important predictors of success in college.100 Lavin claims that high school grades are the most important single predictors of college performance, but also stresses that prediction of college success is more accurate if multiple variables are used.10' The second most important of these next to academic performance is ability.

Noyes 1. Arnold S. Feldman in Millard Hansen, editor, Social Change and Public Policy: A Seminar at the University of Puerto Rico 20-24 February, 1967 (Rio Piedras: Social Science Research Center, 1968), pp. 215-9. 2. See page 19 cf. 3. David A. Goslin, The School in Contemporary Society (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1965), p. 4. 4. Ibid., p. 3. 5. Edmund J. King, Education and Social Change (Oxford: Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1966), pp. 1-14 gives a historical review of educational change. In the rest of the book King notes the mechanisms by which education changes society and society changes education. This theme is also considered by David Goslin, op. cit., pp. 42-105. 6. This is not universally accepted. Robert White talks of competence which is the ability to interact with the environment. In higher animals, particularly man, this must be learned. The learning of competence develops efficacy in dealing with one's environment, and the feeling of efficacy itself is enough stimulus to further stimulate the development of competence, apart from the basic innate drives of the individual. See Robert W. White, «Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Confidence,» Psychological Review, Vol. 66 (1959), pp. 297-333. 7. C. Arnold Anderson, «The Impact of the Educational System on Technological Change and Modernization,» in Bert F. Hoselitz and Wilbert E. Moore, Industrialization and Society (Paris: Unesco-Mouton, 1963), p. 272. 8. Howard Schuman, Alex Inkeles, and David H. Smith, «Some Social Psychological Effects and Noneffects of Literacy in a Nation,» Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 16 (1967), pp. 1-13. 9. Ibid., p. 7. 10. Inkeles, «The Modernization of Man,» op. cit., and «Participant Citizenship in Six Developing Countries,» op. cit., p. 1139. 11. These differences in economic structure and resulting economic development are often the primary changes considered in the definition of the concept. See Daniel Lerner, «Modernization: Social Aspects,» op. cit.

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

12. Eli Ginzburg and Herbert A. Smith, Manpower Strategy for Developing Countries: Lessons from Ethiopia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), p. 1. 13. William Le Compte and Güney Le Compte, «Effects of Education and Intercultural Contact on Traditional Attitudes in Turkey,» Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 80 (1969), pp. 11-21. 14. McClelland, «Measuring Motivation in Phantasy: The Achievement Motive», op, cit. 15. Brown, op. cit., pp. 466 cf. 16. Melvin M. Tumin and Arnold S. Feldman, «Status, Perspective, and Achievement: Education and Class Structure in Puerto Rico,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 21 (1956), pp. 464-472. 17. Edwin J. Thomas and Bruce J. Biddle, «Basic Concepts for Classifying the Phenomena of Role,» in Bruce J. Biddle and Edward J. Thomas, eds., Role Theory: Concepts and Research (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), P. 26. It is recognized that academic performance may not be goal-directed in particular instances for a particular individual. In other words, a given student's performance may be means-directed. However, theoretically, performance is presumed to be goal-directed. 18. Thomas and Biddle, op. cit., p. 26. 19. Anderson, op. cit., states that there is a differential need between different areas, such as rural-urban, developing-developed, and so forth. We agree. But nonetheless a general increase in amount of education of whatever distribution will accelerate modernization to some extent. 20. Stephen Foster, Education and Social Change in Ghana (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965). 21. Anderson, op. cit., p. 264. 22. David A. Goslin, The Search for Ability: Standardized Testing in Social Perspective (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1963), p. 22. 23. Ibid., p. 23. 24. Isodor Chein, «On the Nature of Intelligence,» Journal of General Psychology, Vol. 32 (1945), pp. 111-26. 25. Ibid., p. 120. 26. Ibid., p. 115. 27. Piaget has written many books and articles discussing his concept of intelligence, as have many of his pupils. This discussion here is mainly based on material from Brown, op. cit., chapter 5, pp. 197-245. 28. David Elkin, «Piagetian and Psychometric Conceptions of Intelligence,» Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 319-37. 29. Jean Piaget, as quoted by Charles B. Brussell, Dis-Advantaged Mexican American Children in Early Educational Experience (Austin: Southwest Educational Development Corporation, 1968), p. 50. 30. J. P. Guilford, «Intelligence has Three Facets,» Science, Vol. 160 (1968), p. 50. 31. John Nisbet, «Family Environment and Intelligence,» Eugenics Review, Vol. 45 (1953), pp. 31132. 32. Ibid., pp. 31-2. 33. Two are: Lal Sukhendra Chopra, «Family Size and Sibling Position as Related to Measured Intelligence and Academic Achievement,» Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 70 (1966), pp. 133-7, and John D. Nisbet and

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

N. J. Entwistle, «Intelligence and Family Size,» British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 37 (1967), pp. 188-93. 34. Victor G. Cicirelli, «Sibling Constellation Creativity, I.Q., and Academic Achievement,» Child Development, Vol. 38 (1967), pp. 481-90. 35. David Goslin, The Search for Ability, pp. 137-8. 36. Carlos Albizu-Miranda, Norman Matlin, and Howard R. Stanton, «The Successful Retardate,» (San Juan: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Department of Education, 1966), mimeographed. 37. James S. Coleman, et al., Equality of Educational Opportunity (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966). 38. Brussell, op. cit., pp. 61-74. 39. David Goslin, The Search for Ability, p. 138. 40. R. M. C. Huntley, «Heritability of Intelligence,» in J. E. Meade and A. S. Parks, eds., Genetic and Environmental Factors in Human Ability (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966), pp. 201-18. 41. Cyril Burt, «The Inheritance of Mental Ability,» American Psychologist, Vol. 13 (1958), pp. 1-15. 42. Robert E. L. Faris, «Reflections on the Ability Dimension in Human Society,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 26 (1961), pp. 835-43. 43. Arthur R. Jensen, «How Much Can We Boost I.Q. and Scholastic Achievement,» Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 1-123. 44. This proposition that I.Q. does not improve with improved environment is specifically refuted by Jane W. Kessler, «Environmental Components of * Measured Intelligence,» School Review, Vol. 73 (1965), pp. 206-25. 45. Jensen, op. cit., P. 68. 46. Ibid., p. 29. Although the author describes this concept in his work, I am unable to find a footnote identifying the source. 47. Articles written specifically in criticism of aspects of the Jensen article include Jerome S. Kagan, «Inadequate Evidence and Illogical Conclusions,» Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 2747 who dismisses Jensen's conclusions as being based on insignificant evidence; J. McV. Hunt, «Has Compensatory Education Failed? Has It Been Attempted?,» Harvard Educational review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 278-300, who offers alternative evidence which questions a high degree of heritability of intelligence and reflects the presence of significant racial differences in I.Q.; James F. Crow, «Genetic Theories and Influences: Comments on the Value of Diversity,» Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 301-9, who questions some of the statistical methods Jensen has applied to heritability; Carl Bereiter, «The Future of Individual Differences,» Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 310-8, who agrees with Jensen's notion of heritability of intelligence but disagrees with the conclusion he draws that compensatory education will therefore be of little worth; David Elkin, «Piagetian and Psychometric Conceptions of Intelligence,» op. cit., who contrasts Jensen's analysis and conclusions with those of Piaget; Lee J. Cronbach, «Heredity, Environment, and Educational Policy,» Harward Educational Review, Vol. 93 (1969), pp. 338-47, who questions the whole relationship of intelligence measurements to long range educational policy; William F. Brazziel, «A Letter from the South,» Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 348-56, who criticizes Jensen on political and moral, as well as scientific grounds; Arthur L. Stinchcombe, «Environment: The Accumulation of Effects is Yet to be Understood,»

48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

55.

56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

64. 65. 66.

INEKE CUNNINGHAM Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 511-22, who states that so many environmental factors are incompletely understood that any calculation of the effects of heredity must be premature; and Martin Deutsch, «Happenings on they Way Back to the Forum: Social Science, I.Q. and Race Differences Revisited,» Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 523-57, who offers specific evidence in Jensen's article of inaccuracies, misinterpretations, and biases in the data he presents. Elkin, op. cit., p. 320. Deutsch, op. cit., p. 544. Hunt, op. cit., pp. 2848. Audrey M. Shuey, «Testing Negro Intelligence, Controlling Environmental Factors,» in Edgar F. Borgatta, ed., Social Psychology: Readings and Perspectives (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1969), pp. 157-65. Otto Klineberg, «Negro-White Differences in Intelligence Test Performance: A New Look at an Old Problem,» American Psychologist, Vol. 18 (1963), pp. 198-203. Jensen, op. cit., p. 122. A large number of studies concerning these parameters are reviewed by William Kessen, Marshall M. Haith, and Philip H. Salatapek, «Human Infancy: A Bibliography and Guide,» in Paul H. Mussen, editor, Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology, volume 1, third edition (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970), pp. 287-446, particularly pp. 311-29. Gordon N. Cantor, «Responses of Infants and Children to Complex and Novel Stimulations,» in Lewis P. Lipsitt and Charles C. Spiker, editors, Advances in Child Development and Behavior, Vol. 1 (New York: Academic Press, 1963), pp. 1-30. Nancy Bayley, «Development of Mental Abilities,» in Mussen, editor, op. cit., pp. 1168-70. L. Erlenmeyer-Kimling and Lissy F. Jarvik, «Genetics and Intelligence: A Review,)) in Daniel N. Robinson, editor, Heredity and Achievement (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), pp. 329-34. Ibid., p. 333. Stephen Wiseman, «Environmental and Innate Factors and Educational Attainment,» in J. E. Meade and A. S. Parks, ed., op. cit., pp. 64-80. Coleman, et al., op. cit. Goslin, The Search for Ability, op. cit., pp. 37-8. J. McV. Hunt, Intelligence and Experience (New York: Ronald Press, 1961), pp.10-34. Goslin, The Search for Ability, pp. 156-7. The concept of the «self-fulfilling prophecy» was developed by W. I. Thomas. It is discussed in detail by Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957), pp. 421 cf. Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobsen, «Teachers' Expectancies: Determinants of Pupils' I.Q. Gains,» Psychological Reports, Vol. 19 (1966), pp. 115-9. Lloyd G. Humphreys, «The Organization of Human Abilities,» American Psychologist, Vol. 17 (1962), pp. 475-83. Dael Wolfle, «Educational Opportunity, Measured Intelligence and Social Background,» in A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson, eds., Education, Economy and Society (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961), pp. 216-40.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

67. C. Arnold Anderson, «A Skeptical Note on Education and Mobility,. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 66, (1961), pp. 1-16. 68. Peter H. Rossi, «Social Factors in Academic Achievement: A Brief Review,. in Halsey, Floud, and Anderson, op. cit., p. 270. 69. David E. Lavin, The Prediction of Academic Performance (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965), pp. 55-6. 70. Donald T. Campbell and Donald W. Fiske, «Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod matrix,. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56 (1959), pp. 81-105. 71. Idel R. Bruckman, «The Relationships Between Achievement Motivation and Sex, Age, and Social Class, School Stream, and Intelligence,. British Journal of Social and Child Psychology, Vol. 5 (1966), pp. 211-20, and W. P. Robinson, «The Achievement Motive, Academic Success, and Intelligence Test Scores,. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 4 (1965), pp. 93-105. 72. Victor G. Cicirelli, «Form of Relationship Between Creativity, I.Q. and Academic Achievement,. Journal Educational Psychology, Vol. 56 (1965), pp. 303-8, and M. P. Edwards and L. E. Tyler, «Intelligence, Creativity, and Achievement in a Non-Selective Public Junior High School,. Journal Educational Psychology, Vol. 56 (1965), pp. 96-9. 73. Jerome Kagan, Lester W. Sontag, Charles T. Baker and Virginia Nelson, «Personality and I.Q. Change,. Journal Abnormal Social Psychology, Vol. 56 (1958), pp. 261-8. 74. John L. Morris, Mariana Pestaner, and Albert Nelson, «Mobility and AchieveExperimental Education, Vol. 35 (1967), pp. 74-80, and ment,. Journal Sister Mary A. Brockman and A. W. Reeves, «Relationship Between TranEducational Research, sciency and Test Achievement,. Alberta Journal Vol. 13 (1967), pp. 319-30. 75. M. Braham. «Peer Group Deterrents to Intellectual Development During Adolescence,. Educational Theory, Vol. 15 (1965), pp. 248-58. 76. John F. Feldstein, John R. Thurston, and James J. Benning, «Classroom Experimental Education, Behavior, Intelligence, and Achievement,. Journal Vol. 36 (1967), pp. 82-7. 77. Lavin, op. cit., p. 48. 78. Burton W. Robinson, «A Study of Anxiety and Academic Achievement,. Consulting Psychology, Vol. 30 (1966), pp. 165-7; and E. L. Cowen, Journal et al., «The Relation of Anxiety and Behavioral Measures,. Child Development, Vol. 36 (1965), pp. 685-95. 79. Raymond G. Williams and Charles Cole, «Factors in Scholastic Performance: The Behavior Differential,. Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 14 (1966), pp. 962-5. 80. Walter Katkovsky, Virginia C. Crandell and Susanne Good, «Parental Antecedents of Children's Beliefs in Internal/External Control of Reinforcement in Intellectual Achievement Situations,. Child Development, Vol. 38 (1967), pp. 765-76. 81. Richard P. Boyle, «The Effect of High School on Students Aspirations,. Sociology, Vol. 71 (1966), pp. 628-39. American Journal 82. Joseph A. Kahl, «Educational and Occupational Aspirations of Common Man Boys,. Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 23 (1953), pp. 186-203. 83. Glen W. Elder, Jr., «Family Structure and Educational Attainment: A CrossNational Analysis,. American Sociological Review, Vol. 30 (1965), pp. 81-96. 84. L. I. Pearlin and M. L. Kohn, «Social Class, Occupation and Parental Values:

85.

86. 87. 88.

89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94.

95. 96.

A Cross-National Study,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 31 (1966), pp. 466-79. Boyle, op. cit.; C. Norman Alexander, Jr. and Ernest Q. Campbell, «Peer Influences on Adolescent Educational Aspirations and Attainments,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 29 (1964), pp. 568-75; Irving Krauss, «Sources of Educational Aspirations Among Working Class Youth,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 29 (1964), pp. 867-79; E. L. McDill and J. Coleman, «Family and Peer Influence in College Plans of High School Students,» Sociology of Education, Vol. 38 (1965), pp. 112-6; Clay V. Brittain, «Age and Sex of Siblings and Conformity Toward Parents Versus Peers in Adolescence,» Child Development, Vol. 37 (1966), pp. 709-14. Kingsley Davis, «The Sociology of Parent-Youth Conflict,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 5 (1940), pp. 523-35. Ibid., p. 535. An excellent discussion of the development and nature of the authority and equality relationship is given by Jean Piaget, «Retributive and Distributive Justice,» in Edgar F. Borgatta and Henry J. Meyer, eds., Sociological Theory: Present-Day Sociology from the Past (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), pp. 90-7. William J. Chambliss, «The Selection of Friends,» Social Forces, Vol. 43 (1965), pp. 370-80. Bernard C. Rosen, «Conflicting Group Membership: A Study of Parent-Peer Group Cross-Pressures,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 20 (1955), pp. 155-61. Ibid., p. 161. Samuel N. Eisenstadt, «Archetypal Patterns of Youth,» Daedalus, Vol. 91 (1962), pp. 28-46. C. T. Pihlblad and C. L. Gregory, «Occupational Selection and Intelligence in Rural Communities and Small Towns in Missouri,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 21 (1956), pp. 63-71. Herbert H. Hyman, «The Value System of Different Classes: A Social Psychological Contribution to the Analysis of Stratification,» in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset, eds., Class, Status, and Power (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953), pp. 426-42. Jackson Toby, «Orientation to Education as a Factor in the School Maladjustment of Lower-Class Children,» Social Forces, Vol. 35 (1957), pp. 259-66. William D. Morrow and Robert C. Wilson. «Family Relations of Bright HighAchieving and Under-Achieving High School Boys, Child Development,» Vol. 32 (1961), pp. 501-510. In this study, subjects were matched for sex, grade, socioeconomic status and intelligence. Eldon E. Snyder, «A Longitudinal Analysis of the Relationship Between High School Student Values, Social Participation, and Educational-OccupaEducation, Vol. 42 (1969), pp. 261-70; tional Achievement,» Sociology William G. Spady, «Lament for the Letterman: Effects of Peer Status and Extracurricular Activities on Goals and Achievement,» American Journal Sociology, Vol. 75 (1970), pp. 680-702. Thomas L. Hilton and Albert E. Meyers, «Personal Background. Experience and High School Achievement: An Investigation of the Contribution of Educational MeasureQuestionnaire Data to Academic Prediction,» Journal ments, Vol. 4 (1967), pp. 69-80. Goslin, The Search for Ability, pp. 151-2. Wolfle, op. cit., pp. 224-6. Lavin, op. cit., p. 57. of

97.

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

98.

99. 100. 101.

MODERNIZATION AND EDUCATION IN PUERTO RICO Modernization The rapid social change which is observable in so many parts of the world today is a relatively recent phenomenon historically. Only toward the end of the seventeenth century did it get underway in England, and its appearance in other localities has been even more recent. Relatively few societies can actually be considered modern. North America, many countries in Europe, including the U.S.S.R., Japan, and Australia have reached this point. Most of Latin America, and especially large portions of Africa and Asia barely have begun to depart from the traditional stage. Puerto Rico has progressed some distance toward modernization, although it has not yet completed its course' The history of Puerto Rico is very salient to an understanding of its progress toward modernization. Until 1898 Puerto Rico was one of the Spanish colonies in the Americas, although under Spanish rule it has achieved a large amount of autonomy in governing its own internal affairs? This autonomy was lost, however, when the United States took the Island from Spain during the Spanish American War. From that time on administration of the Island from the mainland was based on the maintenance of Puerto Rico as a territory of the United States, with eventual statehood, although prospects did not appear likely in the near future. Political leadership among the Puerto Rican people themselves seemed concerned mostly with the political status issue, with leaders divided between the prospect of statehood and the prospect of complete independence. Little political energy was spent on other than status concerns. In the early 1940's, however, several changes took place. The results of the «New Deal» program were extending to Puerto Rico. Luis Muñoz Marín, son of one of the leaders instrumental in obtaining autonomy

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

from Spain, and a former advocate of independent status, formed the Partido Popular Democrático (Popular Democratic Party), which, with the slogan «Pan, Tierra, Libertad» ( Bread, Land, Freedom) , dedicated itself to improving the economic situation of the Island, and relegated the status question to a lesser place. This party swept the elections of 1940 and began to work out its new program. To resolve the status question, a Commonwealth was created in 1952 which would give Puerto Rico economic ties with the United States. Several public corporations were formed to administer public works such as electrical power, sewage diposal, public transportation, telephone and telegraph systems, and so forth. These also included the Industrial Development Company, Fomento. During the Second World War an increase of sales of Puerto Rican rum resulted in approximately 160 million dollars in excess excise taxes.3 This money was all used to establish the industrial development program, in which factories were built throughout the Island and rented to mainland industries on a tax-free basis for several years so that they could make use of the Puerto Rican labor force. This combination of change in political emphasis and economic development has led to rather rapid social changes in the direction of modernization over the past twenty-five years. TABLE 4.1 TOTAL PUERTO RICAN POPULATION AND POPULATION URBAN 1930-1960 Year

Total Population

Urban Population

Urban

1930 1940 1950 1960

1,543,913 1,869,255 2,210,703 2,349,544

427,221 566,357 894,813 1,039,301

27.7 30.3 40.5 442

Source: U. S. Census of Population: 1960, Part 53, Table 1. Some of the measurable parameters of Puerto Rico's modernization can be noted at this point. One of the characteristics of a modernizing society is an increase in urbanization, or an increase in the percentage of the population which live in larger population centers. As can be seen from Table 4.1 urbanization in Puerto Rico has been steadily increasing with a particularly rapid rise during the decade of 1940-

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

1950, the time of the major political and economic changes mentioned above. Another characteristic of modern nations is a decreased birth rate and a decreased death rate, as well as increased life expectancy. The crude birth rate for Puerto Rico in 1965 was 30.32, as compared to 17.30 for Japan in 1963 and 19.61 for the United States in 1965, two modernized countries, and 35.50 for Ceylon in 1962 and 37.92 for Colombia in 1964, two relatively non-modern countries.4 The death rates for all these countries, modern or relatively non-modern, are similar due to the age structures of the populations of the developing nations. For that reason the death rate in Puerto Rico for the above mentioned year was 6.74 and slightly lower than that of the United States, 9435 By birth rate, therefore, Puerto Rico lies closer to the non-modern countries than the modern ones, although the rate is decreasing, as it was 41.0 in 1944.6 In life expectancy it is more like a modern country, however. Female life expectancy in years for the countries mentioned above are as follows: United States 73.83; Puerto Rico 73.18; Japan, 72.43; Ceylon, 64.42; and Colombia, 61.52? Thus Puerto Rico lies between the developed and the relatively underdeveloped countries on these parameters. One factor which has helped to ease the effects of the high birth rate is migration out of the Island, principally to New York. This reached a net rate of nearly 70,000 per year in 1953, but by the early 1960's return migration had led to a balance, and in some years there have been more migrants returning than leaving.8 Increasing education is another characteristic of the modernizing society, as has been mentioned in chapter three. Table 4.2 illustrates how education has been increasing in Puerto Rico between 1940 and 1960. Figures shown represent the percentage of the total population of children of school age enrolled in school during a given academic year. As can be seen, elementary education has become nearly universal, and high school and university enrollment has increased four-fold. As noted above, economic development of the Island has been proceeding rapidly. Gross national product had increased from 499.3 million dollars in 1940 to 1,586.7 million dollars in 1961 (statistics given in the equivalents of 1954 dollars).9 The per capita share of this has risen from 269 to 673 dollars per year. However, a clearer picture of the nature of this increase is drawn when it is noted that in 1940, 31.6% of Puerto Rican income was obtained through primary industries, which employed 45.1% of the labor force, whereas in 1962, 12.8% of the income was from primary industries which employed 24% of the labor force. Income from employment in secondary and tertiary industries markedly increased during the same time period. 5. s

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

Government employment, for example, increased from 2.5% in 1940 to 11.4% in 1963, a large increase. Thus the Puerto Rican economy is not only increasing, but is acquiring the pattern of the more industrialized societies. TABLE 42 PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOL AGE POPULATION IN SCHOOL IN PUERTO RICO 1940-1960 School Year

Elementary (6-12 yrs.)

Junior High (13-15 yrs.)

Senior High (16-18 yrs.)

University (19-22 yrs.)

1940.41 1950-51 1959-60

69.4% 89.3% 92.7%

28.7% 47.4% 732%

10.6% 26.5% 45.5%

3.7% 82% 16.1%

Source: Luis Nieves Falcón, Recruitment to Higher Education in Puerto Rico: 1940-60 (San Juan: Editorial Universitaria, 1965), pp. 209-214.

Many studies have been carried out recently in Puerto Rico.'° However, only one of any magnitude attempts to touch on all of those aspects which would be considered in modernization. This is the one by Tumin and Feldman, which gives a good view of social change on the Island11 The study by Feldman mentioned previously is underway at present, but the results are not yet complete.12 However, some studies making use of the data have been reported. Drass has studied occupational careers over time, and has reached the conclusions that individuals do not enter a labor system which is modernizing homogeneously, but rather those who are highly educated enter a welldifferentiated and modernized system, while those on the lowest end of the educational scale enter at a level where there is little opportunity for occupational advancement.13 Gradually the occupational structure differentiates more, and takes individuals with less and less education. Many of the studies performed documented economic growth and industrialization of the Island, but these do not specifically measure modernization.14 There are two noteworthy studies about Puerto Rico which are concerned with policy as well as with change. Both aided in policy formation which brought about changes toward modernization in relatively limited areas. One was a study of the feasibility of population control methods among the Puerto Rican population,15 and the other was a study by Isard and his colleagues which resulted in the develop-

[TY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

ment of an oil-refinery-petrochemical industrial complex on the southern portion of the Island.16 However, none of the studies attempt to identify the general level of modernity reached by the people of Puerto Rico. Education In considering what influence education might have upon modernization in Puerto Rico, at least four sources of education, or socialization, must be noted. The first is the informal socialization which is part of everyone's life from his earliest years and prepares him for a place in society in a very general fashion, with no specificity. This process continues all through life1 7 Next the formal educational system should be considered, and this is what we shall focus upon shortly. Also education on the job should be mentioned. This varies from specific apprenticeship programs to teach a specific skill to in-plant training programs to teach the laborer general practices, such as efficiency, promptness, and so forth.18 Another factor in socialization which is important to the Puerto Rican situation is socialization through migration, both to urban centers, mainly San Juan, from the more rural regions, and migration, and particularly return migration to the Island.19 The experience of migration tends to change an individual's opportunities, and if his occupational opportunities increase, as they often do in the case of return migration particularly, the increased amount of informal education the migrant has received is often a factor. Although all of these forms of education have an effect upon the Puerto Rican, we shall concentrate in this paper on formal education. The educational system in Puerto Rico has an unusual history20 Prior to 1899 Puerto Rico was a Spanish colony, and schools were run by the Church as they were in other Spanish lands. Educational policy was directed towards educating people to be loyal to Spain and obedient to the Church. After the United States took the Island from Spain, educational policy took a different turn. From 1899, the United States administered Puerto Rican affairs with the consideration that statehood for the Island would be the eventual result. An attempt was therefore made to use the schools to teach English to the Puerto Ricans as their primary language, and that was the language used as the medium through which other subjects were taught. As stated by Rodriguez Bou, «a language policy, politically combined with Americanization, has traditionally substituted for a philosophy of education»21 This policy did not result in making English the primary

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

language of the Island. Probably education was delayed somewhat, as many children, not knowing English, had difficulty with other subjects since they were taught in English. The official policy of using English as the basic language in Puerto Rican schools, at least in classes above the fourth grade level, was not relaxed until the 1940's, when Puerto Rican officials were given the authority to make their own educational policy. The attempt to use English as a medium for teaching was abandoned, and English became just a foreign language, although the most important one. The result of this language policy was not successful as can be seen from the fact that in 1960, only 37.7% of Puerto Ricans over the age of ten were able to speak English. However, the actual effects of this policy on education in Puerto Rico are very difficult to estimate. Certainly other problems, such as severe material shortages and rapidly increasing enrollments, complicated the picture?3 Some indicators can be found as to how the educational system might be expected to contribute or detract from the process of modernization as it affects the Island. One noteworthy factor concerning education in Puerto Rico which has been discovered is the faith which the population displays in the educational system as a means for upward mobility for their children. Tumin and Feldman are perhaps the most enthusiastic about this, but many others also discovered it to be so24 Tumin has mentioned more than four years of formal education as the level at which aspirations change, and individuals begin to acquire such characteristics as orientation to the future and so forth, which we have considered here to be characteristic of modernity. The widespread faith which the population has in education as the door to upward mobility would seem to suggest that there is a definite goal-orientation to educational standards. There is one dissenting observation of expectation of social mobility from schooling. Oscar Lewis notes that the poorest have little faith that anything will enable them to raise their status, and certainly see no hope in education as a means to social mobility.w But this is perhaps a case of educational standards being so far beyond the reach of these people that their performance is very poor. Barbara Kendrick's data suggests that for those who have no education themselves, prospects of their children receiving any are slim, but for those who have entered the educational system, even if they have left after a few years, their children's education is to some extent dependent upon the level of occupation they are able to reach?' Contrary to the optimism shown by Tumin and Feldman, Rogler and Hollingshead note that, whereas many see the schools as the

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

point through which social mobility may be obtained, many are entirely unrealistic concerning the method of seeking this. Few had conceptions concerning the proper prerequisites to training for higher professions, and there was a general lack of real assistance on the part of parents in helping their children to realize this increased mobility. They did not attempt to instill in their children the ambition to achieve excellence. The subjects of this study were all from the lower class. This situation illustrates lack of motivation, probably due to inexperience with the available rewards as well as the appropriate channels through which to work. Reynolds and Gregory agree concerning the lack of realism in assessing chances, but note that, as children become older, the parents become much more realistic in their expectations29 Whatever benefits Puerto Rican individuals perceive the educational system as holding for themselves or their children, education has varying effects upon them, depending upon where they are in occupational skill or sector3° These effects vary to such an extent that individuals may even report their educational experiences differently when they change occupational positions, particularly when they have ascended to the white collar level. Performance in the Puerto Rican school system does not match the aspirations held by many concerning its availability as a creator of social mobility. This is most strikingly noted by Albizu-Miranda, Matlin, and Stanton, in a study in which 32% of all subjects in a representative sample of Puerto Ricans scored in the range of mental defective on intelligence testing31 This was considered to be almost entirely due to cultural deprivation, with regard to that which the subjects were tested on. That Puerto Ricans tend to have normal potentials for learning is suggested by Reynolds and Gregory who discovered that Puerto Ricans in a factory setting were quite able to learn to work efficiently as long as they were properly trained and treated responsibly32 But Nieves Falcón points to many reasons for lack of educational performance33 Many classrooms are overcrowded or two classes are held by the same teacher by different teachers in the same class-room, very low standards are set for university entrance, and so forth. Sussman attributes these problems to the postwar decision to make secondary and higher education available to all, in imitation of the United States? One primary factor which Nieves Falcón notes appears to have implications for the future. Generally less talented students at the university level enter the College of Education. This practice tends to perpetuate an inability to maintain adequate standards35

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

In adding to the amount of knowledge gathered in Puerto Rico, this study will attempt to link these two themes of education and modernization. If individual modernity is related to individual academic performance, then policy in the educational system might well be directed toward the more rapid modernization of the society. As we are interested in the future of Puerto Rico, and consider modernization to be desirable, such correlations may well have a bearing on the future of its course.

Nonos 1. Modernization is not a steady state. This concept was discussed earlier. However, there is a theoretical point beyond which a country can be referred to as «modernized». That this exists is shown by the fact that certain countries are considered modernized, as we have noted. This is the point that Puerto Rico is about to reach. After this point is reached, Puerto Rico will continue to change as do other modern countries, but the term modernization will no longer be applicable to this change. 2. This discussion following concerning the development of Puerto Rican political issues is based primarily on material from Robert J. Hunter, «Historical Survey of the Puerto Rican Status Question, 1898-1965,» in Status of Puerto Rico: Selected Background Studies prepared for the United StatesPuerto Rico Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico, 1966, pp. 50-146. Economic aspects of this discussion are from H. C. Barton, Jr., «Puerto Rico's Industrial Development Program 1942-1960,» a paper presented at a seminar for the Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 29, 1959. 3. Barton, op. cit., p. 2. 4. These figures are taken from Nathan Keyfitz and Wilhelm Flieger, World Population: An Analysis of Vital Data (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), pp. 26-30. Rates are live births per thousand population. 5. Ibid., pp. 26-30. Rates are deaths per thousand population. 6. Department of Health, Annual Vital Statistics Report, 1968 (San Juan: Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico), p. 2. 7. Keyfitz and Flieger, op. cit., pp. 26-30. 8. Clarence Senior and Donald Watkins, «Toward a Balance Sheet of Puerto Rican Migration,» in Status of Puerto Rico, pp. 689-795. 9. These and the following figures are taken from Lloyd G. Reynolds and Peter Gregory with Luz Torruellas, Wages, Productivity, and Industrialization in Puerto Rico (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1965), pp. 7-13. 10. A description of many recent Puerto Rican studies can be found in Ineke Cunningham, «An Inventory of Research in Puerto Rico Relevant to Social Change and Public Policy,» in Millard Hansen, ed., Social Change and Public Policy: A Seminar at the University of Puerto Rico, 20-24 February, 1967 (Río Piedras: Social Science Research Center, 1968), pp. 44-74.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

11. Tumin with Feldman, op. cit. 12. See footnote 59, chapter two, above. 13. Robert E. Drass, Jr., «Industrialization and Stratification Change in Puerto Rico» (Evanston: Northwestern University, unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1970). 14. See particularly Harvey S. Perloff, Puerto Rico's Economic Future: A Study in Planned Development (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950); Theodore Moscoso, «Industrial Development in Puerto Rico,» The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 285 (1953), pp. 60-70; and Reynolds and Gregory, op. cit. 15. This project resulted in two excellent reports: Rubin Hill, J. Mayone Stycos, and Kurt W. Back, The Family and Population Control: A Puerto Rican Experiment in Social Change (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1959); and J. Mayone Stycos, Families and Fertility in Puerto Rico: A Study of the Lower Income Group (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955). 16. Walter S. Izard, Eugene W. Schooler, and Thomas Vietorisz, Industrial Complex Analysis and Regional Development: A Case Study of Refinery-Petrochemical-Synthetic Fiber in Puerto Rico (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959). 17. Several studies deal with this aspect in Puerto Rico. See for example: David Landy, Tropical Childhood: Cultural Transmissions and Learning in a Rural Puerto Rican Village (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1959); and Kathleen L. Wolf, «Growing Up and Its Price in Three Puerto Rican Subcultures,» Psychiatry, Vol. 15 (1952), pp. 401-33. 18. Reynolds and Gregory, op. cit., pp. 139-68. 19. José Hernández Alvarez, Return Migration to Puerto Rico (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, 1967). 20. This discussion of the history of Puerto Rican education is based on material from Ismael Rodríguez Bou, «Significant Factors in the Development of Education in Puerto Rico,» in Status of Puerto Rico, pp. 147-314, and also from Gordon K. Lewis, Puerto Rico: Freedom and Power in the Caribbean (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1963), chapter 19, pp. 439-68. 21. Rodríguez Bou, op. cit., p. 153. 22. U.S. Census, 1960, as quoted by Rodríguez Bou, op. cit., p. 169. 23. Luis Nieves Falcón, Recruitment to Higher Education in Puerto Rico, 1940-60 (Río Piedras: Editorial Universitaria, 1965), pp. 29-49. 24. Tumin with Feldman, op cit.; Julian H. Steward et al., The People of Puerto Rico: A Study in Social Anthropology (Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1956); Reynolds and Gregory, op. cit.; and Hill, Stycos, and Back, op. cit. 25. Tumin with Feldman, op. cit. 26. Oscar Lewis, La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty (New York: Random House, 1966). 27. John M. Kendrick, «Inter-Generational Educational Mobility During the Industrialization of Puerto Rico,» (Evanston: Northwestern University, unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1970). 28. Lloyd H. Rogler and August B. Hollingshead, Trapped: Families and Schizophrenia (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956), pp. 390-1. 29. Reynolds and Gregory, op. cit.

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

30. Barbara J. Kendrick, «Education, Industrialization, and Occupation Career Consequences: Chameleon, Not Social Fact Effects,» (Evanston: Northwestern University, unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1970). 31. Albizu Miranda, Matlin, and Stanton, op. cit. 32. Reynolds and Gregory, op. cit., pp. 150-1. 33. Nieves Falcón, op. cit. 34. Leila Sussman, 'Democratization and Class Segregation in Puerto Rican Schooling: The U.S. Model Transplanted,» Sociology of Education, Vol. 41 (1968), pp. 321-41. 35. Nieves Falcón, op. cit., pp. 156-9.

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS The Sample The purpose of this project is to determine the feasibility of assuming that there is a strong association between educational performance and modernity. This question is of import to educational policy makers, as has been alluded to in previous chapters. Funding for the project was obtained under Title III funds funded through the Department of Education of the Government of Puerto Rico. This source of funding had some effect on the project sample, for it made it necessary for us to limit the study to schools in three Guide Districts which already had been established by the department. These Guide Districts, in three separate areas of the Island, were established for the purpose of providing locations for study concerning education in Puerto Rico. The sites of these three districts are in San German, a small town with a university in the southwestern part of the Island, Salinas, a town on the south coast near the industrial city of Guayama, and San José, an area of San Juan. Both funds and time were limited, and these were major factors considered in making a decision to limit the study to one district only, thus eliminating a need for travel between districts. No one district can be shown to be more representative of Puerto Rico than either of the others. Nor, if all districts are put together, can they be considered to be representative of all elements of the society. Therefore, no single district available has the advantage of offering greater generalizability to the Puerto Rican population than another. Choice of district was therefore based on reasons of economy and facility, as well as the decision that it would be better to study one area or system thoroughly. Two such reasons led to the choice of the San José district as the site for the study. As the district lies within view of the University of Puerto Rico, its location was much the most convenient of the three under consideration. Also, its choice enabled

INEKE CUNNING H AM

the recruitment of several of the approximately ninety honor students from the School of Education and other departments, who had been selected as apprentices in the San José Guide District, to assist with some of the interviewing. The San José area of Santurce, San Juan, is an area populated for the most part by members of the lower middle and lower classes. The area contains several public housing developments, and also sections of slum housing. There are some middle class dwellings in the area as well. The school district consists of six elementary schools, four junior high schools and one high school. Most of the children of school age in the area attend one of these schools in the district, bat a few go to others, including some private parochial schools. As we are interested in the relationship between modernity and academic performance, our sample must be measurable along both of these variables. From chapter two, we have seen that individual modernity can be measured either through attitudes or evidence of social mobility, or a combination of these. School children do not exhibit social mobility in the form of occupational changes or income variations, and although they may migrate, their migration is only a reflection of their parent's mobility, so a measurement of mobility is not a satisfactory index of modernity for this study. On the other hand, school children do have attitudes of their own, and although they probably reflect to some extent parental attitudes, this reflection is not nearly as direct as in the case of mobility. Also, as is mentioned previously, many other factors besides parental attitudes may be expected to affect or modify student attitudes. Therefore an attitudinal index of modernity, or one that is at least primarily attitudinal, would be acceptable to us. However, the older a child is, the more easily he can be expected to express his attitudes. For this reason we decided to use only high school students in the sample, as a measurement of their modernity levels can be expected to be more accurate than this measurement in younger students.1 Ponce de León High School, the high school of the district, had a total enrollment of 1,464 students at the beginning of the academic year of 1967-68, which is the period during which the field work for this project was completed. This enrollment included sixty students in the ninth grade which had been admitted to a new program for «advanced students». Because these were not actually high school students, even though they had special qualifications, they were left out of the sample. The remainder of the students were in the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades. As this left a total sample of less than 1,500 students, all were used as subjects of the study.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

The hypotheses with which this study is concerned necessitate the gathering of some evidence concerning the students' peers. It was assumed that most significant peers would also be students of the same high school, so the use of the total sample would ensure collection of the same measurements of most of the peers as of the students themselves. Although such an assumption might well be unwarranted, because such persons as siblings, dropouts, students at other schools and others not in school could well be significant peers in the experiences of the students, any distortion of the peer sample it might produce had to be accepted as there was no way these others could have been located and interviewed. The peers were identified, therefore, by asking each student to name his three closest friends in school. Most respondents did so readily, with a few giving no names and others names which we could not identify as belonging to fellow students. In addition to the ninth grade students who were omitted from the sample as noted above, all students who dropped out of school prior to the completion of the first semester of 1967-68 were also omitted, as no information concerning them, either with regard to performance or modernity attitudes, could be obtained. The staff of the school at the time of the study consisted of a principal, two associates, seven heads of departments, and 63 teachers. Also included were two counselors, one social worker, and one registrar. The teachers were interviewed with regard to modernity attitudes in the hope that teacher modernity could be correlated with student modernity in the same way that peer modernity was. However the overwhelming majority of students were unwilling to identify particular teachers who were of special significance. to them, probably because it was impossible to collect data anonymously, or perhaps because many students felt no particular closeness to any teacher. Whichever is correct, this material is not used. Teachers were also asked to evaluate all the students they felt they knew well enough on six variables concerning personality traits. This is the only data obtained which has any bearing on the student-teacher relationship, but this data cannot be considered to offer any meaningful description of the relationship. The hypotheses with which this studly is concerned, as noted in the first chapter, include statements about modernity levels of the students, their peers, and their parents. As noted, information concerning peers was automatically obtained from the students' questionnaires. The parents' interviews, however, had to be obtained separately. Identification of parents was a simple task, as the student questionnaires included parental names and addresses. However, parents were not as accessible

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

as their children, as the limitation of resources, time, and personnel precluded the location and interviewing of all of the parents of students included in the sample. A choice therefore had to be made between a random sample and a stratified one. A sample stratified on the basis of student academic performance was chosen to maximize the differences between high-performing and low-performing students. Randomization of the parents was thought to be less important as the students are the primary target of this study. Regression effects are not expected to occur, as the parents are measured only at one point in time? The performance measurement used as a criterion for the stratification of the parental sample was the student's gradepoint average for the first semester of that school year. The reason for this choice is that this was the only measure obtainable for all members of the student body. At the time the data was collected, several incomplete grades were recorded, although many of these were subsequently changed. All students with final grades recorded in less than three courses during the first semester were excluded from the stratification calculations. In each grade (tenth, eleventh, and twelfth), students were ranked by gradepoint average and divided into quartiles. The parents or guardians of those students in the top and bottom quartiles in each class were selected for the sample. Each quartile included a three percent oversampling. TABLE 5.1 STUDENT SAMPLE: REASONS FOR EXCLUSIONS

Students listed in the files * Non-existent Student listed twice Recent transfers (no grades available) Original Dropouts Cases removed** Total cases recorded

1,429 1 2 2 66 19 1,339

100.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.6 1.3 93.7

* Ninth grade students excluded. ** Less than two grades were recorded for the first semester for the specific student while he also failed to take our questionnaire. The student sample is listed in Table 5.1. When the data was collected, after the second semester of the 1967-68 academic year had

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

begun, enrollment had increased, through transfers and other means, to 1,429 students, excluding the special students in the ninth grade. Of these, the file of one student could not be found, and two others were listed twice in the files, under both the tenth and the eleventh grades, as the student's grade status was changed by the registrar during the period over which the data was being collected. Two sisters had transferred from New York approximately one week prior to the start of the project, and not enough data was available for them to enable their inclusion. Sixty-six students had dropped out of school either officially or unofficially the first semester, and no grades were recorded for them during the current academic year, although their records were still contained in the current files. Nineteen other students were omitted from the sample because less than two complete first semester grades were recorded for them, and they failed to attend classes on any of the three days on which questionnaires were administered, so it was decided that so little data was available for them that there was no reason to include them in the study. Nearly 94% of all the students listed were included in the sample, and, as can be seen from the above, this represented an even greater percentage of the students actually in attendance at the time of the study. As was mentioned previously, the sample was stratified according to performance. This was done also by year in school for several reasons. In chapter three various factors influencing school grades were discussed. For the reasons mentioned there, it was decided that a given grade for a twelfth grade student could not be considered, the equivalent of the same grade for a tenth grade student. Also it might be assumed that senior students would tend to get higher grades than sophomores, as they have fewer required courses and more electives, they are more used to high school and have probably formed better study habits, and so forth. Another possible reason could be that many of the poorer students drop out, and are therefore not included in the twelfth grade, although they are present in the tenth grade and their lower averages are noted here. Whether the reasons are correct or not, the assumption that seniors receive better grades was borne out in this study. To qualify for the top quartile, tenth and eleventh grade students only needed a gradepoint average of 2.60, while a senior needed 2.80. Conversely, sophomores with averages of 1.60 or less were in the lower quartiles, while for eleventh graders the cutoff point was 1.75, and for seniors it was 2.00. Senior students in both the upper and lower quartiles thus have higher grades than sophomore students in the same quartiles, but that does not suggest that their academic performance is either better or worse. The results of the stratification

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

calculations are shown in Table 5.2, as well as the exclusions noted in Table 5.1. All students who had fewer than three final grades for the first semester were excluded from the sample. First semester gradepoint averages were available for approximately 94% of the tenth and twelfth graders, but only 84.5% of the eleventh graders. This was due to a fairly high rate of dropouts (6.1%), and a large number of students who did not have enough recorded grades to be acceptable (4.4%). This greater number of exclusions from the eleventh grade may introduce a bias toward higher grades. Most of the exclusions were dropouts, and it might be assumed that at least the majority of these were among the poor performers. However, as no data on these is available, such an assumption could only be conjectural. Of the twenty students who had incomplete grades, one quarter later became dropouts, and did not complete their grades. Of the fifteen, eight were eventually given grades which would have resulted in their being chosen in the lower quartile, while the other seven would have been between the two quartiles. None of these students eventually received grades for the first semester which would have placed them in the top quartile. Thus some slight bias in the lower quartile was obtained, resulting in approximately 2% error in this sample, so the overall effect is not marked. Oversampling resulted in the fact that slightly more than a quarter of the students in the tenth and twelfth grades were included in each quartile. The reason that fewer eleventh grade students were included is the one stated. As shown in Table 5.2, there were 365 students in each quartile. Actually, because of confusions amongst the interviewers, the parents of 369 students whose grades entitled them to inclusion in the lowest quartile were interviewed, or rather their interwiews were sought. Four of the students in the upper quartile were not placed on the list, so the parents of only 361 students from the upper quartile were sought. Table 5.3 summarizes parental interviews. The parents or guardians of 41 students, or 5.6% of the total sample could not be located, or were absent during every attempt to interview them. Three separate attempts were made to locate each set of parents if earlier attempts had failed. The only exceptions to this policy were for a few parents who lived outside of the San Juan Metropolitan area in which case only one attempt was made. Of the students in the sample, 51 had siblings also in the sample, although not necessarily in the same quartile. Their parents were interviewed only once, but, as the data was recorded per student rather than by parent, in the statistical analyses the data from those parents with more than one child in the sample

5.2

STRATIFIED STUDENT SAMPLE BY GRADE

Grade

Total Number of Students

Dropouts

Other Exclusions*

Too Few Grades

Stratified Sample

Size of Quartile * *

689

(100.0)

(4.2)

(1.5)

(0.9)

644

(93.5)

180

(26.1)

458

(100.0)

(6.1)

(2.8)

(4.4)

387

(84.5)

108

(23.6)

292

(100.0)

(3.1)

(0.3)

(1.7)

276

(94.5)

(26.4)

Total

1,429

(100.0)

(4.6)

(1.8)

(2.2)

1,307

(91.5)

365

(25.6)

* See Table 5.1. ** Total number in the upper and lower quartiles determined by the method described.

INIEKE CUNNINGHAM TABLE 5.3 PARENTS AND GUARDIANS WHO WERE INTERVIEWED

TOTAL

TOP QUARTILE

BOTTOM QUARTILE

Male

Fernale

Male

Fernale

Male

Female

Mother and Father 427 Mother only (Father absent) — Mother only (widowed, separated, divorced) — 2 Mother and another male 7 Father only (Mother absent) Father only (widowed, 7 separated, divorced) 2 Father and another female 11 Two other relatives Female Relative only — 2 Male Relative only

427 36

230 —

230 14

197 —

197 22

131 2 —

— 2 2

57 2 —

— — 5

74 — —

— 2 11 13 —

3 1 5 — 2

— 1 5 5 —

4 1 6 — 0

— 1 6 8 —

Total

622

245

314

213

308

458

was considered more than once. Data from at least one of 638 pairs of parents or guardians was collected. As can be seen from the table, those interviewed were fairly equally divided between the top and bottom quartile samples. There were fewer households from the bottom quartile in which both the actual father and mother could be found, but this difference is not necessarily significant. Distinction was made between households where one parent was permanently absent, through death, separation, or divorce, and where one was temporarily absent, although the latter included some instances where the father was in New York for a period of time. In four cases step-parents were found and interviewed. Where the students were living with other relatives, these relatives were interviewed. These generally were grandparents, although in three cases they were uncles and aunts. There were no students who lived with people other than relatives. Among those parents who could not be located, four lived at some distance from San Juan, so perhaps their children lived with other people while going

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

to school. However, there was no way to identify these other people, if they existed. To summarize the sample, therefore, it can be noted that the data was gathered from three populations. 1,339 respondents were high school students, 458 male parents or guardians of these students, and 622 female parents of guardians. 559 parents, 245 of them male, were of high-performing students, whereas 521, including 213 males, were parents of low-performing students. Measurement of Modernity In chapter two several methods of studying modernity were discussed. The Inkeles measurement was chosen for this study for many reasons. Being in the form of a brief questionnaire, it could easily be administered to our large sample by the personnel available. A Spanish language version of the questionnaire was already prepared. The questionnaire had originally been pretested in Puerto Rico, so after some pretesting on students of high school age, it could be used for the population we were studying. The use of a prepared measurement also saved the time necessary to develop and pretest a new measuring device. The Inkeles approach to measuring modernity attempts to combine attitudes and behavior, although it emphasizes attitudes. The particular scale used is the OM scale, or Overall Modernity Scale, developed by Smith and Inkeles.4 They and their co-workers identified in the literature 33 themes and issues which they felt were useful in defining modernity.5 These themes are listed in Chart I. They developed questions relating to the various themes and, following extensive pretesting in Puerto Rico and the six countries under study (Argentina, Chile, India, Israel, Nigeria, and Pakistan), chose 119 questions according to the criteria listed in Chart II. In addition to these 119 questions on the themes mentioned, 23 items testing the respondent's ability to produce various types of information and 17 items describing behavior rather than attitudes were included. The resulting questions formed a questionnaire which took approximately four hours to administer. This is too long for facility, so the authors developed several shorter questionnaires which could serve the same purpose as this longer one in developing a scale of individual modernity. Two approaches to forming a shorter questionnaire from the longer one were considered. The first was to choose those questions whose answers correlated most closely with the results of the questionnaire itself. Item-to-test correlation scores were used.6 The fifty questions 6.

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

CHART I THEMES OF MODERNITY * 1. Political Activism 2. Role of the Aged 3. Educational Aspirations 4. Occupational Aspirations 5. Calculability of People's Dependability 6. Calculability of People's Honesty 7. Change Perception and Valuation 8. Citizens Political Reference Groups 9. Consumption Aspirations 10. Consumer Values 11. Dignity Valuation 12. General Efficacy 13. Efficacy and Opportunity in Life Chances 14. Efficacy of Science and Medicine 15. Family Size — Attitudes 16. Family Size — Birth Control 17. Growth of Opinion Awareness 18. Growth of Opinion Valuation 19. Political Identification 20. Extended Kinship Obligations 21. Kinship Obligations to Parental Authority 22. Mass Media Valuation 23. Openness to New Experiences — Places 24. Openness to New Experiences — People 25. Particularism-Universalism 26. Planning Valuation 27. Religious Causality 28. Religious-Secular Orientation 29. Social Class Attitudes 30. Time (Punctuality) Valuation 31. Technical Skill Valuation 32. Women's Rights 33. Co-ed Work and School * Source: Smith and Inkeles, op. cit., p. 354.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

CHART II CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS * 1. An item must measure a theoretically important aspect of one or more of the stated themes. 2. Every theme must be measured at least by two items. 3. None of the themes should be measured by more items than the complexity and importance of the theme demand. 4. The questions must deal with general human situations, understandable in other cultures and accessible to men to little or no formal education. 5. The items must be readily translatable into languages other than English without substantially changing the meaning or content. 6. The item must have elicited a good range or distribution of responses in each of the countries in which it was tested. in each of the six Countries which had the highest item-to test correlations were listed. Any question which appeared on at least four of these six lists was considered acceptable. In this way 38 questions were obtained which had a very high correlation with the original 119. However, there was no consistency in theme distribution. For example, 20 % of the chosen questions dealt with the themes of efficacy and opportunity in life chances. Therefore, although this questionnaire correlated well with the longer one, there was some question as to whether it was as theoretically representative of the concept of modernity as the original one. A second questionnaire was therefore developed in which the question representing each theme which had the highest item-to-test correlation was chosen. This resulted in 33 questions which did not correlate as highly with the long questionnaire as the previous selection, but were considered to more faithfully represent the concept of modernity. The correlations between the first shorter form and the longer one ranged from .910 in India to .832 in Argentina, whereas those between the second form and the longer one ranged from .903 in India to .805 in Pakistan. A second approach, somewhat different from the correlational approach just described, was also considered. This was the criterion * Source: Smith and Inkeles, op. cit., p. 356.

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

group method for deriving a reduced questionnaire. Education, urban experience, and occupation were determined to be three of the most powerful predictors of modernity from another study of the literature. Education was measured by years of formal education, urban experience by urban versus rural origin and years of urban residence since age 15, and occupation by years in factory work. Pearsonian correlations were computed for each of the questionnaire items with each of these three independent variables. Again this was done by country. The fifty items with the highest correlations from each country again were computed and listed, and all those items which appeared on at least four of the lists were accepted. Thus 34 items were used. Again, the correlations of the items of this questionnaire with the criterion group was high, but there was not an equal consideration of all the themes, so a fourth list was drawn up by themes and criterion groups. resulting in 33 items which had slightly lower correlations, but a better representation of the total modernity concept. The first of these criterion group questionnaires had a correlation with the long questionnaire ranging from .886 in India to .789 in Pakistan, while the second ranged from .880 in India to .775 in Nigeria. More than thirty questions were still considered a long questionnaire. Therefore an even shorter list was formed. It was noted that only twelve items appeared in all of the four short questionnaires just described. These items were studied to see if there was any overlap in their content concerning the area they dealt with, the relationship they concerned, or the psychological quality they reflected. Finally ten items were chosen as the minimal number which could be used in developing a scale of modernity. However, all these questionnaires had only considered the purely attitudinal questions included in the original long form of the questionnaire. As the original questionnaire had contained several information and behavior items, a similar analysis to the one just described was used to choose the smallest number of items in these fields wich could be expected to yield a reliable measurement of modernity. In this way three informational items and two behavioral items were added to the ten attitudinal ones, and a questionnaire of fifteen items resulted. The correlations between this questionnaire and the original long one in Inkeles' work ranged from .813 in India to .626 in Pakistan, lower than any of the previously mentioned correlations, but still high enough to be very useful. As the length of this questionnaire enabled us to administer it, we decided to use this questionnaire, called by Inkeles «Short Form 6», as our measurement of modernity. The steps in the formation of this questionnaire are summarized in Chart III.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

The next step in developing the instrument was to obtain a single value which could be considered to represent individual modernity rather than fifteen separate values. Responses to each question were coded as modern or non-modern, according to Inkeles' codes. Every modern answer was given a score of two and every non-modern answer was given a score of one. The average of all answers was computed for each individual. A score lying between 1.00 and 2.00 was thus obtained for each subject, which was multiplied in each case by 100 so that the decimal could be ignored. This score is referred to as the «OM score» in this project. It differs from the OM score used by Inkeles, which was based on the long original questionnaire, but was otherwise calculated in the same fashion. The OM score is thus our measurement of modernity. CHART III STEPS IN CHOOSING THE FIFTEEN-ITEM MODERNITY QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Development of the long form questionnaire. (119 items) 2. Choice of fifty items with highest item-to-item correlations in each of the six countries studied. 3. Choice of all items appearing on four of these lists. (38 items) 4. Choice of the question representing each theme which had the highest overall item-to-test correlation. (33 items) 5. Choice of fifty items with highest criterion group correlations in each of the six countries studied. 6. Choice of all items appearing on four of these lists. (34 items) 7. Choice of the question representing each theme which had the highest overall correlations with the criteria groups. (33 items) 8. Choice of all items appearing in all four of the shorter questionnaires (steps 3, 4, 6, 7). (12 items) 9. Elimination of overlapping questions. (10 items left) 10. Choice of three from a total of 23 informational items by these same steps. 11. Choice of two from a total of 17 behavioral items by these same steps. 12. Total of 15 items.

INBKE CUNNINGHAM

Measurement of Performance The same considerations which made it necessary to limit the sample and modify the measurement of modernity precluded the method of administering a test of performance or ability to the subjects we were studying, as the time and personnel for such an administration were not available. Therefore the school records were examined to see what information of this type might be available. Various ability test records were available and as many of these as could be recorded were so. However so few students took only one of the tests that only the scores of the Puerto Rican Habilidad General, a general ability (not I.Q.) test administered to most Puerto Rican high school students, were considered in the analysis of data for this report. The school did not keep records of I.Q. scores for any of the students. It is not known if any of them were tested for this. Grades were of course available for nearly every student, although former grades were available to a varying degree. As noted previously, current first semester grades were used to divide the sample into quartiles so that parents could be selected for interview. Grades as discussed in chapter three are an acceptable measure of educational performance, particularly for students, so it was decided tho use these in this study. All available grades were recorded for each student. Gradepoint averages were computed for the first semester of the current year and for every entire school year for which the information was available. All A grades were given a value of 4, B grades a value of 3, C grades a value of 2, D grades a value of 1, and F grades a value of 0. Other grades were discounted. The average was thus a value between 0.0 and 4.0. The average was computed to one decimal point for earlier grades and to two decimal point for high school grades. To show the reliability of the first semester grades in comparison to the grades of the entire year, which were calculated at the end of the year, the gradepoint averages have been cross-calculated. For reasons that will be explained below, the Goodman and ICruskal coefficient for ordinal association, or Gamma (G), is used in these calculations. G equals .950 for the tenth grade first semester grades as compared to the total year grades, .946 for the eleventh grade, and .957 for the twelfth grade. High associations are to be expected, and have been determined. Thus, the first semester gradepoint average can be accepted as the measurement of performance for the students. Parental performance cannot, of course, be measured in the same way as we have measured that of the students. There, are several

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

variables related to the parents which might be considered performance variables, such as educational achievement, occupational achievement, income, and so forth. Data on each of these variables is available, but none can be considered actually a performance variable in the same way that grades are indicative of a student's performance, nor would some combination of these variables resulting in a cummulative or calculated variable such as socioeconomic status suffice. A series of mathematical and verbal questions were given to the subjects studied here. The correlation of the results of this test with other intelligence tests is not known for certain, but when applied to a heterogeneous population can be expected to be between .70 and .80. It is to some extent a measurement of performance, but again, cannot be compared to the students' gradepoint averages. There is no satisfactory single performance measurement for parents which is applicable to this study. Data Collection The data relating to student performance and ability was gathered from the school records. All other data was gathered by questionnaire, either self-administered or administered by interview. Data from the teacher, as mentioned earlier in this chapter was obtained in interview with one of the assistant investigators. The student evaluations were obtained from questionnaires self-administered by the teachers. Questionnaires for the students were administered with the cooperation of school officials. Limitation of personnel necessitated that student questionnaires be self-administered. This was done during a home room period at the school under the supervision of home room teachers. Questionnaires were distributed to the supervising teachers immediately prior to the home room period by project personnel and collected from them immediately afterward. The students were assured that there were no «right» or «wrong» answers to the modernity questionnaire, and it was explained to them that results would not be seen by school officials nor have any effect at all upon their own records. The word and arithmetic scores used by Inkeles were included in the questionnaire and a time limit placed on answering them, but there was such poor enforcement of the time limit that that portion of the data was unusable. For those students who were absent from school on the day the questionnaires were administered, two additional days were used. Those students who were absent all three days were excluded from the sample, as noted above.

INEKE CUNNING H AM

Data from the parents was collected by interviews. Sixty-seven honor students from the University of Puerto Rico volunteered to serve as interviewers. They were given university credit for this task. Each was to complete eight to ten interviews. Female students were assigned to interview mothers and male students assigned to interview fathers; it was felt that this would generate more cooperation among the subjects, and the interviewers also preferred it. Six hours of training were given to the volunteers by the director and associate director of the Modernization and Schooling project.8 Two hours were spent on a brief history of the project and a discussion of the theoretical framework. The next two hours included a discussion of interviewing techniques and a interview demonstration. The last third of the training period consisted of supervised practice interviews by the volunteers of each other. Prior to the interviewing each of the student volunteers reviewed interviewing techniques with the associate director once again in a one-hour period. Every interviewer was instructed to make three separate attempts to locate each subject assigned to him. If all three attempts were unsuccessful, no further effort regarding that subject was made. Six part-time interviewers were hired to complete the interviewing. The parental questionnaire included, besides the modernity questionnaire and questions on other items to be discussed in chapter seven, both the word test and arithmetic test used by Inkeles. In contrast to the case with the students, however, the results here are acceptable as they were obtained by interview rather than by selfadministered questionnaire. Statistical Analysis It was noted in previous chapters that theoretical considerations do not enable us to hypothesize a causal relationship between the two main variables of this study, modernity and academic performance. Even if such a relationship could be postulated, the limitation of modernity measurement here to one point in time would greatly limit our ability to perform causal analysis to support the hypotheses. Thus the hypotheses developed here deal with correlation rather than causation, and statistical goals are correlational. The goal in correlational statistics is to show that correlations between two variables are due to relationships between them and not merely the results of random distributions of values for two unrelated variables. Therefore the most powerful statistic available should be

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

used, for the greater the power of the statistic, the less is the risk of failing to reject a false hypothesis Y There are very powerful correlational statistics available, perhaps the most powerful being the Pearsonian correlation coefficient. However, such statistics require that the variables being measured be arranged along interval scales. In this study, however, very few of the variables can be arranged in this way. The OM scale of modernity is accepted as interval data and was developed as such.10 So is such data as age, number of children, and so forth. Another variable which is used here as one of the performance variables for the parents, years of education, also has often been used as interval data, particularly when reported as a distinct number of years. This was one of the criteria used by Smith and Inkeles in the criterion group method of deriving a shortened modernity questionnaire mentioned earlier in the chapter.11 However, whether one year of education has half the value of two, or one tenth the value of ten, is debatable. It is even difficult to compare one year of education at one institution with that year at another. The central hypothesis of one recent study was that years of education can only be considered as ordinal data, even when an exact number of years is reported1 2 Therefore this variable cannot be organized as interval data in this study, since the only assumption concerning the data which can be accepted is that eight years of education is more than seven and less than nine, and so forth. It cannot be assumed that the value of eight years of education lies exactly midway between that of seven years and that of nine. Gradepoint average, the parameter of the second major variable of the study, academic performance, must also be considered questionable when analyzed statistically as interval data. For the many reasons outlined in chapter three one grade cannot be considered to measure the same quantity of performance, or quality of performance, as another. To compute a gradepoint average from many individual grades only compounds these differences. The parameter remains a decidedly useful one, but to treat it as interval data is likely to lead to statistical inaccuracies. Other background data, of less central importance to the study, but nevertheless useful, such as sex, whether or not the subject has spent an appreciable amount of his time outside the urban environment, whether the parent under question is the head of the household or not, and so forth, can only be used as nominal data, and limits analysis to less powerful statistics when these particular variables are under direct consideration.

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

As the statistical goals are correlations, and the data available can easily be classified in the three levels just mentioned, interval, ordinal, and nominal, three basic statistics have been used. For that analysis in which interval data is compared with interval data, primarily modernity scores, the Pearsonian correlation coefficient, or Pearson's r, is used.13 This is the same statistic used by Smith and Inkeles in the development of the modernity scale,14 so it allows for comparability between the data offered here and the data collected by Inkeles. Correlations involving ordinal data are computed as the Goodman and Kruskal coefficient of ordinal association, Gamma, or G.15 Computations are made on the basis of ties. The significance of the G value is tested by computing the z value, and then determining the area under the normal curve which would be equal to or more than (less than, when z is negative) that value of z.' 6 The statistic used to show association where nominal data is used is the chi-;square test.'' Where statistics other than these are used, they will be noted at the time of their use.

Nones 1. Another advantage to beginning with a sample of high school students is that, if later it is desirable, the research may be extended in either direction: junior high school students could be added, or college students could be interviewed, or even an attempt could be made to reinterview these students ten years later, at which point in time they again could be questioned on their attitudes vis-a-vis modernity while at that time it could be ascertained what type of occupation these persons had actually entered, thus linking modernity potential with occupation later achieved. 2. Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, «Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Desings for Research on Teaching,» in N. L. Gage, ed. Handbook of Research on Teaching (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963), pp. 171-246. 3. Smith and Inkeles, op. cit.; Kahl, The Measurement of Modernism; and Allan Schnaiberg, «The Modernizing Impact of Urbanization: A Causal Analysis,» (Evanston: Northwestern University, January, 1970), mimeographed. 4. Smith and Inkeles, op. cit. 5. Ibid. A footnote on page 355 of their study gives their sources for this list. 6. J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, Third Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1956), p. 454. 7. Smith and Inkeles, op. cit., pp. 364-5. 8. The author was the assistant director of the project at that time, becoming director when the actual data collection phase was in process. The original director was Millard Hansen of the University of Puerto Rico.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

9. Hubert M. Blalock, Jr., Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1960), pp. 188-9. 10. Smith and Inkeles, op. cit. 11. Ibid., p. 369. 12. Barbara Kendrick, op. cit. 13. Helen M. Walker and Joseph Lev, Elementary Statistical Methods, Third Edition (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1969), pp. 212-5. 14. Smith and Inkeles, op. cit., p. 368. 15. Linton C. Freeman, Elementary Applied Statistics (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965), pp. 79-87. 16. Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Analysis, Third Edition, (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Ins., 1969), pp. 117-9. 17. Blalock, op. cit., pp. 212-7.

THE STUDENTS AND THEIR PEERS Student Characteristics The students who comprise the core of this study were described briefly at the beginning of the previous chapter. Here they will be described in more detail according to the background material obtained from the questionnaire which they took. Of the 1,339 students, 614 are male, 725 female. In age they vary from 13 to 21 years, with a mean of 16.71 years. They do not come from a geographically mobile population, for 89% had lived in Puerto Rico consistently following their tenth birthdays, and 93% never attended school outside of the San Juan Metropolitan area. It is not known whether they had moved within the San Juan school districts. Probably some had. But during their teens practically all had been urban dwellers. Most of the students in school had no outside occupations, but 12% said they were working part-time in salaried jobs outside of school hours. These were not asked a reason for their working, but 10% of those with jobs professed to dislike this work. They might have been dissatisfied with the salary, unhappy that it was necessary for them to work, or had some other reason. Two questions which were asked the students had some bearing on their aspirations. Much of the literature cited in chapter three discussed the close relationship between aspiration and academic performance among high school and college students. The data here could not be considered to say enough about the aspirations of these students to confirm or deny any hypotheses about this relationship, but nonetheless some information can be obtained. The students were asked whether they thought it would be possible for them to become doctors or lawyers, providing they made good grades and worked sufficiently hard. Only 706 students, or 53%, responded either positively or negatively to the question. The rest either responded «don't know»

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

or left the item blank on the questionnaire. Why the response rate was so poor for this question is unknown. Only two questions elicited such a poor rate of response: this one and the one considered immediately below. All other response rates were considerably higher. Of those students who did answer the question 592, or 84%, thought a professional occupation would be open to them while only 114, or 16%, felt they could never attain such a position. The responses were fairly evenly divided between male and female students and there was little sex difference in the responses, as 83% of the male respondents answered positively and 84% of the female respondents also did so. It can be assumed, therefore, although with little certainty, that the students perceive the occupational structure to be fairly open to them. The other question which can be considered to have an indirect bearing on student aspirations was a question asking students to tell us what occupation they thought they would hold eight years after graduation from high school. Only 690 students, or 51.5%, were able to indicate an occupation with sufficient specificity that a skill level could be assigned to it. Again, no reason can be offered to explain the very poor response rate. Responses to this question coded by occupational skill necessary to perform the predicted occupation are presented in table 6.1. A large number of students responded «don't know» to this question and their responses as well as those of female students who responded «housewife» were not included in the tabular results. TAsu 6.1 SKILL ASPIRATIONS OF STUDENTS BY SEX Skill of Aspired Occupation

Total

Females

Males N

Unskilled Semiskilled Skilled Lower White Collar (Clerk, Typist, Police) Upper White Collar (Nurse, School Teacher) Professional

2 7 137

( 0.6) ( 22) (43.1)

0 10 35

( 0.0) ( 2.8) ( 9.4)

2 17 172

( 0.3) ( 2.4) (24.9)

( 9.1)

151

(40.7)

180

(26.1)

89 54

(28.0) (17.0)

142 34

(382) ( 9.1)

231 88

(33.5) (12.9)

Total

318

(100.0)

372

(100.0)

690

(100.0)

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Overall the predictions of future jobs by the students indicate rather high expectations. The types of responses differ markedly between males and females. Probably one of the major reasons for the differences is the lack of opportunity among skilled occupations for females, and the preponderance of positions open primarily to females, such as secretarial work, in the lower white collar classification. If skilled and lower white collar occupations are classified together there is very little difference in responses by sex. The same can be said if upper white collar and professional positions are classified together. The increase of aspirations for the more skilled positions is probably due to the fact that it is high school students who are being questioned and most anticipate an occupation which will require at least the education which they are presently obtaining. Although no definite conclusions can be inferred from these scanty data, it might be expected that performance levels among these students would be higher than for the normal population because their skill aspirations are quite high. However there is no reason to expect these to be higher than for any other population which contains high school students exclusively. Variables which are factors in the students' home environments, such as number of siblings, parental occupations and incomes, and so forth, were obtained from the parental questionnaires. Therefore they are only available for students in the upper and lower quartiles according to academic performance. For this reason they will be discussed in the following chapter rather than at this point. Student Modernity Modernity levels of the students of the Ponce de León high school were measured by the OM score described and discussed in chapter five. Fifteen questions were used in computing the score. Appendix I lists the questions used. For questions two, eleven, and twelve open coding was used. For the others, space was left in the questionnaire for «don't know» and «other» responses. Other responses were evaluated as to whether they had a different meaning from one of the stated responses or not. If the meaning was incoherent, the response was ignored, as were the «don't know» responses, and these answers were not included in the computations. No score was accepted which could not be based on at least eight valid responses from the fifteen. Using these criteria only 1,253 of the 1,339 students were scored. Possible results in the scale ranged from 100 to 200, and the results for the students covered the entire range. The mean score was 160.28,

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

with a standard deviation of 15.37. If a «perfectly» normal distribution were to be postulated, the mean score would be expected to be 150. Unfortunately the data gathered by Inkeles has not yet been published in its final form, so there is no other population to compare our data to at this time except the other populations, parents and peers, dealt with in this paper. Whether the differences between the mean found for those students and the «perfect» mean suggests a significant high level of modernity for the students or not therefore cannot be determined. There are reasons to believe it does not. In the first place, as has been pointed out, there is no available data to show that the mean for the general population would be the same as the central score. Also, for those three questions which could be scored along a continuum an attempt was made to divide the responses as near to the median as possible. However, the category in which the median response fell was always considered modern in these cases. The decision to consider this category modern was arbitrary, but consistent with Inkeles' coding instructions, also. As many respondents chose each possible answer, this method led to some preponderance of answers to certain questions being coded as «modern», and a resultant upward skewing of the distribution. The curve of answers for the students, therefore, has little meaning in itself, but can be compared with those of other populations, in this case particularly some of their parents, which will be done later. Although characterization of the OM score of the students in the sample does not allow a description of these students as modern or nonmodern, comparison with other characteristics of the students will yield meaningful information. Students were described previously by age and sex. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 show the relationships between age and sex of the students, respectively, and their modernity levels. Crosstabulation tables are presented. As mentioned in the section on statistical analyses, both parametric and nonparametric statistics are used in the analysis of this data. As most of the data is not suitable to parametric methods, nonparametric statistics are used for the major portion. In this instance, both the OM score and student age might be considered amenable to a more powerful statistic than the Gamma score. However, in the range under consideration here the consistent effects of age are questionable, as the association between chronological age and rate of maturity can vary greatly in the teenager. Therefore the nonparametric statistic is chosen. As this inconsistency of age effects covers the entire age range of the students in this sample, 13 to 21 years, it would be expected that age would have little if any association with modernity levels. As

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

TAsi.E 6.2 ORDINAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN STUDENT AGE AND MODERNITY SCORE Student Age OM Score

13-15

16-18

19-21

Total

100-125 126-150 151-175 176-200

2 45 98 33

22 253 549 165

0 26 37 15

24 324 684 213

Total

178

989

78 1,245 Gamma = —.044

can be noted in table 6.2 no significant association is present, and no prediction whatsoever can be made concerning the modernity level if the student's age is the only information at hand. Sex might be considered to exert a differential effect on modernity in a society where the differences in sexual roles are marked. Men and women have very different positions in the Latin society.1 But, as TABLE 6.3 STUDENT SEX AND MODERNITY Student Sex OM Score

Male

Female

Total

100-125 126-150 151-175 176-200

11 141 314 103

13 183 376 112

24 324 690 215

Total

569

684

1,253 x 2 = 1.013

II•IEKE CUNNINGHAM

we have noted, Puerto Rico is in the process of modernization, and it can be assumed that some of the differences in sex roles will be diminished as modernization occurs. Two of the themes used in developing the scale were women's rights and coed work and school, thus illustrating this. Secondly, the respondents are high school students and have not yet entered into the adult life of their society, so they have not experienced sex role differentiation in its fullest manifestations, but are somewhere between childhood and adulthood. Also the fact that they are in high school means that they are more highly educated than many of their peers. Differences in education are frequently a part of sex role differences, but the girls responding in this study have not had less education than the boys. This also might tend to blur some of the observable sex role differences. As can be seen in table 6.3, sex differences in modernity levels among students in this sample are nonexistent. One implication of this data might be that socialization in the school has to some extent overtaken socialization in the home for these students, as socialization within the home or the family would be expected to include a greater amount of sex differentiation. Urbanization and increased geographic mobility are a part of the general activity of modernization, as discussed in chapter two. The mobility data available in this study concerns questions asked the students as to whether they had lived outside of the San Juan Metropolitan area for any length of time after their tenth birthdays, and whether they had lived in the United States during that time. Comparisons of the results of these questions with the student OM scores are shown in tables 6.4 and 6.5. 1,110 students, or 89 % of those answering, claimed never to have been in the United States. Nonetheless, when the length of time spent in the United States was cross-tabulated with the OM score, there is a tendency for the student who has spent the longer time in the United States to have the higher OM score. The Gamma value for this correlation is .305, which is significant to the .001 level. Whether this result can be attributed to the student's geographic mobility or not is a different question. Analysis of the correlation between migration to San Juan and student OM scores does not yield a significant result, as can be seen in table 6.5. The statistical computation of this correlation is also hampered by the fact that 1,143 students, or 93 %, had not migrated into the San Juan Metropolitan area from elsewhere in Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic after their tenth birthdays, but even if this large group is ignored, those who have moved into the city do not show a specific nonrandom distribution of OM scores. Therefore some reason other

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE TABLE 6.4 ORDINAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN NUMBER OF YEARS STUDENT LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES AND MODERNITY Years lived in the United States 3 moil

1-4

Total

23 300 613 174

1 10 31 17

0 6 23 7

0 6 22 14

24 322 689 212

1,110

1,247 42 Gamma = .305 ***

OMScore

None

100-125 126-150 151-175 176-200 Total

*** Significant at the .001 level. than mobility should be considered as responsible for the higher modernity of those students who have been to the United States. Exposure to the culture of that country, and the educational system, may be major factors. Another factor which should be considered here is that discussed by Hernández Alvarez, which is that many migrants to New York return to Puerto Rico with new skills which enable them TABLE 6.5 WHETHER OR NOT STUDENTS HAVE MIGRATED TO SAN JUAN AND MODERNITY SCORE Moved to San Juan OM Score

None

From Rural Puerto Rico

From Caribbean

Total

100-125 126-150 151-175 176-200

23 291 630 199

1 21 49 10

0 2 2 1

24 314 681 210

1,143

1,229 x' = 2.519

Total

loo

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

to do better in Puerto Rico than they were able to do prior to their migration? That experience in the United States is a major factor in changes which take place in the migrant rather than in the fact or the act of migration is supported by the data presented here. The only data available in this report relating modernity to student aspirations associates OM scores with the skill level necessary for the occupations the students expect to hold eight years after leaving high school. For male students the Gamma score for this association is .410, which is significant to the .001 level. For the female students it is .213, which is significant to the .01 level. Although these associations are quite significant the data is not presented in tabular form for it is of questionnable relevance. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the expected skill levels of the students are very tenuous an index of student aspirations at best. It was mentioned in chapter five that teacher evaluations for each student were solicited. The personality characteristics on which the teachers were requested to rate the students were characteristics which were considered to reflect some of the characteristics of modernity noted in chapter two. The specific characteristics are initiative, ambition, desire to learn, responsibility, leadership, and respect towards all people. Initiative was described to the teachers as the ability of the student to solve problems in his own way, to initiate and carry out interesting projects, and to respond voluntarily in class. Ambition was considered in a creative aspect rather than a competitive one, being described as a desire on the part of the student to improve himself (without specific reference to the aspects to be improved, whether it be conduct, performance, appearance, or something else), a perseverance in attempting this improvement, and evidence of action toward this end. Desire to learn was judged on the basis of the asking of critical questions and similar activities. Responsibility was described as being reflected in the conscientiousness with which the student carried out his assignment and his reliability in carrying out extra tasks. Leadership was judged by the apparent acceptance of student leadership status by his peers and by the student's ability to interpret his peers' wishes to teachers. Respect was considered to be evidenced by courtesy in all interpersonal relationships, listening to others without interruption, and appropriate behavior in the classroom. These characteristics touch on several of the themes included in the development of the modernity measurement by Inkeles, as shown in Chart I, chapter five, particularly educational and occupational aspirations, change perception, general efficacy and growth of opinion awareness and valuation.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

101

TABLE 6.6 ORDINAL ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS AS EVALUATED BY THEIR TEACHERS AND MODERNITY SCORES Characteristic

Gamma

Initiative Ambition Desire to Learn Responsibility Leadership Respect

1087 1087 1095 1088 1075 1105

—.265 *** _ 334 *** _.310*** —.286 *** _.283*** -.108

*** Significant at the .001 level. Table 6.6 shows the results of the evaluations received. Each teacher was asked to evaluate each student he felt he had sufficient contact with to form an useful evaluation. In the cases of students for whom more than one evaluation was submitted, each answer was averaged for all the evaluations received. The average answer to each evaluation point was then used. Each characteristic was evaluated on a threepoint scale, as high, average, or low. Evaluators were also allowed a «don't know» response for each specific response. TABLE 6.7 ORDINAL ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS AS EVALUATED BY THEIR TEACHERS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE MEASURED BY SAMPLE POSITION Characteristic

Gamma

Initiative Ambition Desire to Learn Responsibility Leadership Respect

1125 1124 1132 1124 1109 1142

.684 *** .682 *** .662*** .650 *** .565*** •344***

*** Significant at the .001 level.

102

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

As can be seen from the table, the first five characteristics mentioned each had a very high association with modernity among the students. Gamma values are reported as negative values because, as in student sample position, the evaluation «high» was coded as one and «low» as three, rather than vice versa. The characteristic of respect has a lower association than the others. Respect for equality such as in the themes of efficacy and opportunity in life chances and women's rights are a part of the constellation of the themes comprising modernity. But the teacher might well be evaluating respect as respect for authority or, in other words, evaluating the student as regards the respect he shows for the teacher rather than the respect he shows for his fellow students. Thus the teacher might well be valuing highly a characteristic of the authoritarian traditional culture, and not measuring a characteristic indicator of modernity. Table 6.7 shows the relationship between these teacher evaluations and student performance, measured as sample position. On comparing the results of this data with that presented in table 6.6, it becomes immediately apparent that all Gamma scores are higher when evaluations are correlated with the performance variable than when they are correlated with the modernity variable. There is a marked difference in the characteristic of respect, particularly. There is a high degree of significance in the association between teachers' evaluations of respect and student grades, whereas the association between this characteristic and student modernity levels is much less significant. An explanation of the poor association of this characteristic with modernity scores has been offered. The fact that the teachers' evaluation of respect varies concomitantly with academic performance does not necessarily suggest that teachers give high grades to students who exhibit what they consider to be respect. The characteristics of which evaluations were sought from the teachers were broadly defined, but nonetheless presented as positive characteristics. Grades are also teacher evaluations as was noted in chapter three, and also broadly defined. They are also positive characteristics, in that all teachers consider high grades as positively related to the goals of schooling. Perhaps teachers tend to evaluate their students generally positively or negatively, and then if they are asked to evaluate these students in a more limited, but still broadly defined aspect, will continue to evaluate them in the same way as they did generally; that is, the same students that were originally evaluated positively will be given a positive rating for the more limited characteristic. Another explanation for this data is that both modernity and grades are evaluative, and the same characteristics are being evaluated by teachers in both instances. This explanation

103

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

TAsi.E 6.8

ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN STUDENT PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND STUDENT MODERNITY SCORES WITH STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE MEASURED BY SAMPLE POSITION CONTROLLED SAMPLE POSITION Middle Bottom

Characteristic

Top

Initiative Ambition Desire to Learn Responsibility Leadership Respect

_.189* —249 ** _.166* _.221** —.013

—.095 _.168* -.109 -.179 * -.160 -.076

.063 -.130 -.101 .016 .004 .092

Note: Statistic used is the Gamma Score. Range of N's for the top sample is from 309-312. Range of N's for middle sample is from 460-478. Range of N's for bottom sample is from 278-288. * significant at the .05 level. ** significant at the .01 level. Tint

6.9

ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN STUDENT PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE WITH STUDENT MODERNITY SCORES CONTROLLED

Characteristic

100.125

OM SCORES 126-150 151-175

176-200

Initiative Ambition Desire to Learn Responsibility Leadership Respect

.476 .660** .882 *** .660 ** .600 .667 *

.482 *** .519 *** .450 *** .414*** .305 ** .056

.653 *** .738 *** .697 *** .669 *** .627 *** 255 **

Note: Statistic used is the Gamma Score. Range of N's, score 100-125 is 17-18. Range of N's, score 126-150 is 254263. Range of N's, score 151-175 is 587-604. Range of N's, score 176-200 is 188-193. * significant at the .05 level. ** significant at the .01 level. *** significant at the .001 level.

.678 *** .703 *** .673 *** .694*** .577 *** .456 ***

104

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

would refute the contention that there is a difference between student academic performance and modernity. One way to determine which of these explanations is more likely to be correct is to look at the associations between the evaluated characteristics and both modernity and academic achievement again, this time with the third variable, either performance or modernity, held constant. This is done in tables 6.8 and 6.9. In table 6.8 the Gamma scores refer to the correlation between the teachers' evaluations and OM scores for the student, whereas in table 6.9 the correlations are between the teachers' evaluations and the students' sample positions. When the variable of student performance is removed from the relationship of the teachers' evaluations with student modernity, the association is reduced markedly. This suggests that the teachers' evaluations and student modernity are distinct variables, and are related to each other through academic performance. In other words, student modernity and academic performance are highly correlated, as is hypothesized in this report, and academic performance, particularly when measured by grades, is evaluative and therefore tends to correlate highly with other general evaluations by teachers. This latter is supported further by the data presented in table 6.9. The probability levels for the students with low OM scores are higher because of the smaller number of cases, and not because the Gamma scores are low. Again, the one characteristic which varies from the rest is respect. The significance of its correlation with performance for the most part diminishes when modernity is held constant, even though the correlation between respect and modernity is in itself not very significant. The relationship between concepts of the characteristics of respect, grade evaluations and modern attitudes is more complicated than for the other characteristics listed. The other characteristics are probably more clearly and simply positively valued in general by the teachers. Unfortunately, no data is available here to go into the concept of respect more fully. Student Academic Performance Gradepoint averages are poorly comparable because of the lack of qualitative consistency in grade assignments. Nonetheless gradepoint average is a valid index of student performance for this study, as has been discussed previously. However, whereas performance by a twelfth grade student can roughly be compared to the performance of a tenth grade student, the gradepoint averages cannot themselves be

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

105

directly compared. This was shown in chapter five where the quartile division was explained. Many students in the twelfth grade who were selected in the lowest quartile had identical first semester gradepoint averages with many students in the tenth grade whose averages were too high to qualify for the bottom quartile. This inability to make comparisons between grades given in different years prevents the use of a single variable to represent student performance. Actually three variables are used: first semester tenth grade gradepoint average, first semester eleventh grade average, and first semester twelfth grade average. A profile of the gradepoint averages for the students in this study is presented in table 6.10. Of the tenth grade students, 650 had completed grades for more than two courses for the first semester, and therefore had recordable gradepoint averages. In the eleventh grade 409 students had recordable averages, and in the twelfth grade the number of students was 280. A student with A grades in every course received an average of 4.00, while one who made all F's received an average of 0.00. Students in each grade received grades ranging from 0.00 to 4.00. The profiles of the tenth and eleventh grades are quite similar whereas grade averages for twelfth grade students are higher. Two alternative conclusions may be drawn from this data. If the poorer students in the tenth and eleventh grades either drop out or fail to gain promotion, the overall grades for the twelfth grade students will be higher, as only the better students remain. On the other hand, the same data could result if grades were assigned to twelfth grade students on a slightly different basis from those used in assigning grades to others. In either event, further evidence is offered to the effect that gradepoint averages for different classes cannot be directly compared. There are two other variables obtained for the students which can be considered performance variables. These are previous grades and ability tests. As they, with current grades, are all performance or ability indices, they can be expected to have a high correlation with each other. These correlations will be studied at this point. Table 6.11 shows a profile of the gradepoint averages for early grades. There is a difference between the gradepoint averages for the first six grades (elementary school) and seventh through ninth grades (junior high school). Profiles for the elementary grades are similar to those for the twelfth grades, and for the junior high grades similar to the tenth and eleventh. One possible explanation for this is that poorer students in elementary school never continue further, so a profile of elementary school grades for students picked in high

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

106

TASI E 6.10 PROFILES OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADEPOINT AVERAGES* Grade

Number Students

Mean

Standard Deviation

Median

Tenth Eleventh Twelfth

650 409 280

2.10 2.16 2.40

0.70 0.72 0.67

2.00 2.00 2.40

* First Semester gradepoint averages used. school would be more likely to show elevated grades during the eairlier years, at which point in their school careers these individual students were the better students. Similarly, twelfth grade students in our sample have survived the high school dropouts, many of whom can have been expected to have made lower grades during the previous years. Thus the twelfth graders represent a more select group of students than those in the earlier grades. It is impossible to eliminate the possibility that all the differences noted are due primarily to differences in grading criteria between various schools and various years. The profiles have shown that there is some variation from year to year. Whether this is primarily due to differences in class makeup TAst.E 6.11 PROFILES OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADEPOINT AVERAGES * STUDENTS IN THE SAMPLE

Grade

Number Students

Mean

Standard Deviation

Median

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth

124 218 299 336 373 470 1,136 1,141 1,186

2.47 2.51 2.43 2.39 2.37 2.30 2.04 1.96 2.01

0.73 0.76 0.73 0.79 0.75 0.65 0.69 0.67 0.65

2.3 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.3 22 1.9 1.8 1.9

107

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

TAst,E 6.12

ORDINAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN FOURTH GRADE GRADEPOINT AVERAGE AND SAMPLE POSITION Gradepoint Average Sample Position

0.0-1.0

1.1-2.0

2.1-3.0

3.1-4.0

Total

Top Middle Bottom

0 2 1

11 60 52

35 58 36

31 36 7

77 156 96

Total

123

129

329

Gamma = — .463 *** *** Significant at the .001 level. from year to year or differences in the grades made by the individual students from year to year cannot be ascertained. But the fact that the differences exist has made us reject «first semester gradepoint average» in general as a single performance variable, as for some students this average has been attained in the tenth grade, and for others in the eleventh or twelfth. The question arises, then, as to TABLE 6.13

ORDINAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN NINTH GRADE GRADEPOINT AVERAGE AND SAMPLE POSITION Gradepoint Average Sample Position

0.0-1.0

1.1-2.0

2.1-3.0

3.1-4.0

Total

Top Middle Bottom

0 7 17

62 314 273

177 178 39

84 9 1

323 508 330

Total

649

394

**t

Significant at the .001 level.

94 1,161 Gamma = —.772 ***

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

108

whether the students tend to keep their general class standing throughout their school careers. In other words, are those in the upper quartile in the tenth grade the same ones who made high grades during the first, second, third, etc. grades? Two previous grades were chosen so that correlations with all nine of the previous grades would not be necessary. The student grade averages from the fourth and ninth grades were correlated with his sample position; that is, whether he was in the top quartile, middle quartiles, or lowest quartile at the time of the study. Results are shown in tables 6.12 and 6.13. As the first quartile is the top one, the correlations are reported as negative scores. Both grades yield gradepoint averages which are predictive of the student's high school performance, but in the ninth grade, as could be expected, the grades are more predictive than those of the fourth grade. It is closer in time to high school, and probably also in type of work necessary for good grades, and types of classes. However, these results indicate that previous gradepoint averages are significantly indicative of a student's performance at a later date, and thus can be used as performance indices. The ability test, Habilidad General, is described in the previous chapter. Tables 6.14 through 6.16 show the correlations between the Habilidad General-4 ability test scores and grade averages for the TABLE 6.14 ORDINAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SCORE OF HABILIDAD GENERAL-4 ABILITY TEST AND TENTH GRADE GRADEPOINT AVERAGE Gradepoint Average

00-20

Habilidad General-4 Scores 21-40 81-100 41-60 61-80

0.00-0.50 0.51-1.00 1.01-1.50 1.51-2.00 2.01-2.50 2.51-3.00 3.01-3.50 3.51-4.00

0 4 16 10 3 2 0 0

3 27 104 188 108 48 9 2

0 6 30 77 84 98 39 10

0 1 0 7 15 26 24 5

0 0 0 0 2 3 4 4

3 38 150 282 212 177 76 21

Total Gamma = .591 ***

489

344

959

*** Significant at the .001 level.

Total

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

109

TABLE 6.15 ORDINAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SCORE OF HABILIDAD GENERAL-4 ABILITY TEST AND ELEVENTH GRADE GRADEPOINT AVERAGE Habilidad General-4 Scores

Gradepoint Average

00-20

2140

41-60

61-80

81-100

Total

0.00-0.50 0.51-1.00 1.01-1.50 1.51-2.00 2.01-2.50 2.51-3.00 3.01-3.50 3.51-4.00

1 1 3 3 2 1 0 0

3 13 34 83 55 27 5 1

1 5 9 35 51 38 26 8

1 0 1 1 12 12 10 5

0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1

6 19 47 123 121 80 41 15

Total Gamma = .527 ***

221

173

452

*** Significant at the .001 level.

TABLE 6.16 ORDINAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SCORE OF HABILIDAD GENERAL-4 ABILITY TEST AND TWELFTH GRADE GRADEPOINT AVERAGE Habilidad General-4 Scores

Gradepoint Average

00-20

21-40

41-60

61-80

81-100

Total

0.00-0.50 0.51-1.00 1.01-1.50 1.51-2.00 2.01-2.50 2.51-3.00 3.01-3.50 3.51-4.00

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 1 1 9 23 13 0 1

0 0 0 11 18 23 9 3

0 0 0 2 5 7 4 5

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0

0 1 1 22 47 45 14 9

139

Total Gamma = — .372

110

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grades, respectively. Sample sizes are relatively high in the tenth grade averages for all those who took the Habilidad General-4 ability test are compared, as well as the eleventh grade averages for all those who had been in the eleventh grade, and the twelfth grade averages for all the senior students. There is a satisfactory correlation between gradepoint average and ability test results for the tenth and eleventh grades, thus suggesting that ability test scores can be used as indices of academic performance. The correlation for the twelfth grade is a negative one. The reason for this cannot be explained by the data available in this study. The sample for which gradepoint averages and ability test score results were available was relatively small, but not so small as to be expected to provide statistical distortion. However, since the results of table 6.16 are at such variance from the two previous tables, and the sample it reflects is smaller, it can perhaps be discounted to some extent. In any case, the association between ability test scores and modernity levels is much more consistent, as will be discussed later. Modernity and Academic Performance Correlations between modernity and performance are illustrated in table 6.17. Pearsonian correlations have been calculated between the student OM score and their gradepoint averages for the fourth, ninth, and high school grades. As in previous considerations, first semester averages are used for the high school years as these are the performance indices by which the sample was separated. There is a high correlation between student modernity levels and gradepoint averages at all levels, with significance at the .001 level except for the fourth grade correlation. The fourth grade is the one farthest removed from the student's current performances, and thus would be expected to be the poorest index. Therefore higher correlations with the higher grades have even more significance. It has also been our contention in this project that gradepoint averages cannot be considered to represent data which can be properly organized in intervals. The use of Pearsonian correlations in demonstrating the correlation of this data with modernity levels might therefore be suspect. Table 6.18 is thus presented to show this same relationship through nonparametric associations. The sample position is used as the ordinal index for performance and, again, this results in an inverse correlation which becomes more significant as it is more negative. The fact that table 6.18 shows the presence of a significant

111

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

s 6.17

PEARSONIAN CORRELATIONS OF STUDENT MODERNITY SCORES WITH GRADEPOINT AVERAGES Grade Fourth Ninth Tenth Eleventh + Twelfth +

Cases

Pearsonian r

322 1,109 596 388 269

.158 ** .316*** .341*** .270*** .338 ***

+ First Semester Gradepoint Averages. ** Significant at the .01 level. *** Significant at the .001 level. correlation is evidence that the results noted in table 6.17 were not merely artificial or due to unwarranted statistical assumptions regarding the nature of the performance index. There is a significant positive correlation between modernity levels and educational performance of the students in the present sample. The positive correlation here noted is the basic hypothesis submitted in the introductory chapter of this thesis. If these two tables furnished absolute proof of this correlation further analysis would be TABt.E 6.18

ORDINAL ASSOCIATION OF STUDENT MODERNITY SCORES WITH STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AS MEASURED BY SAMPLE POSITION OM Score

Top

Middle

Bottom

Total

100-125 126-150 151-175 176-200

2 46 198 96

8 140 313 85

11 129 161 33

21 315 672 214

361 Total Gamma = —.372 ***

578

369

1,222

*** Significant at the .001 level.

112

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

redundant. But positive proof is never absolute. One can only absolutely prove a given statement to be false; truth is only a probability, no matter how great that probability is. Therefore the relationship between modernity and academic performance must be studied in greater depth. One approach to strengthening the probability shown by this study that modernity is positively correlated with educational performance is to show positive correlations between modernity levels and other indices of performance which have been measured here. Gradepoint averages from earlier school years have been found to correlate rather well. The other indices of performance which have been studied are Habilidad General de Puerto Rico test forms 3 and 4. Table 6.19 shows TABLE 6.19 PEARSONIAN CORRELATIONS OF STUDENT MODERNITY SCORES WITH ABILITY TEST SCORES Habilidad General Test

Cases

Pearsonian r

3 4

832 920

.264*** .330 ***

*** Significant at the .001 level. the correlations between student modernity scores and their ability test scores. The ability test scores may be treated as interval data as well as the OM scores, so Pearsonian correlation coefficients are used. Correlations with both ability tests are highly significant, giving further evidence for considering modernity and academic performance as highly correlated. The Habilidad General test form 4 grade correlation is slightly higher. This is perhaps because this test was taken by the students more recently than the Habilidad General test form 3, and therefore more closely reflects their ability at the time their modernity was measured. It was pointed out previously that migration from the United States, or more accurately length of time living in the United States, correlated fairly well with the student modernity score. The association of this variable with student sample position yielded a Gamma value on only —.123, a very weak association. This does not subtract from

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

113

the evidence for our hypothesis, however, for the length of time which a student has lived in the United States as compared to San Juan, Puerto Rico, is very vague and nonspecific as an index of modernity. The fact that it correlates positively with a modernity index is a point of interest, but of no great significance. The fact that it does not correlate with an academic performance index is also of no great significance. Peers The peers were taken of necessity from the same population as the students.3 They were identified by asking each student to name his three closest friends in the school. The OM scores and gradepoint averages for the first semester of the current year's total grade were determined for each peer, and the three peers' scores and grades were averaged for each student. Peer averages were only included and computed for those students who mentioned more than one peer. The OM score for peers were quite similar to those for students, as is shown in table 6.20. However, although the means were similar, the TABLE 6.20 MODERNITY SCORE PROFILES FOR STUDENTS AND PEERS

Students Peers

Cases

Mean

St. Dev.

Range

Minimum

1253 988

160.28 160.11

15.37 10.76

100 70

100 121

range for the peer modernity scores was quite constricted, being only 70 as compared to 100 for the students in the sample. Both the highest and lowest scores in the category peers are missing, the lowest OM score being 121, and the highest being 191. This is due to the fact that an average OM score was taken from the scores of the peers identified by each student. The same procedure was used in computing peer grade averages, so that only one peer modernity average, one peer first semester gradepoint average, and one peer total year gradepoint average are available for each student. As might be expected, mean gradepoint averages for the peers are slightly higher than for the students in the tenth and eleventh grades, 8.

114

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

and slightly lower for the students in the twelfth grade. This data is presented in table 6.21. As peers include students from all grades, it is not surprising that their grade profile is more or less an average of the profiles shown in table 6.10. The range for the peer first semester averages is from 0.70 to 3.87, while for the total year averages it is 0.55 to 3.75. TAstE 6.21

PEER GRADEPOINT AVERAGES FOR THE CURRENT YEAR Time Period 1st semester Total year

Number Students

Mean

St. Dev.

Median

1,013 1,007

2.27 2.23

0.56 0.56

2.26 2.20

Table 6.22 shows that correlations between students and peers are high for both modernity and academic performance indices. This table treats gradepoint average as an interval statistic so that correlations between performance indice can be more directly compared with correlations with modernity indices. The next table will show the associations between student and peer gradepoint averages using nonparametric statistics since we have claimed that gradepoint average is really ordinal data. From the table under study at present, however, it can be seen that correlations between student and peer gradepoint averages are consistently higher than that between student and peer modernity scores, even though all the correlations shown are highly significant. The correlations between modernity scores and gradepoint averages for both students and peers are more variable. More will be said about these correlations presently. As was stated above, table 6.23 presents the gamma scores for the associations between peer gradepoint averages and student gradepoint averages. The associations are highly significant, as were the correlations. The fact that these associations are all highly significant tends to make assumption of the validity of the results shown in the previous table more tenable. A question which should always arise in correlational analysis must be considered at this point. This is the question of spuriousness. Do two variables correlate highly with each other because they are in fact related to each other through a third variable? If such is the case, the

Tn&B 6.22 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN STUDENT AND PEER MODERNITY SCORES AND GRADEPOINT AVERAGES

Student OM Score

Peer OM Score

Peer ' First Semester Gradepoint Average

10th Grade First Semester Gradepoint Average

11th Grade First Semester Gradepoint Average

12th Grade 1st Semester Gradepoint Average

.289

.295

.341

.270

.338

.490

.337

.172

.348

.541

.470

.482

Peer OM Score Peer First Semester Gradepoint Average

Statistics Used is the Pearsonian Correlation Coefficient. All results are significant at the .001 level.

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

116

TABLE 6.23 ORDINAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PEER ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE MEASURED AS GRADEPOINT AVERAGES Student Grade

Number Cases

Gamma

473 318 222

.531 *** .481 *** .497 ***

Tenth Eleventh Twelfth *** Significant at the .001 level.

relationship between the two measured variables is spurious rather than real, and if the third variable is identified it will be discovered that, when it is held constant, the originally discovered correlation will disappear.4 The correlations dealt with to this point in the analysis have for the most part been either fairly peripheral to the main hypotheses of the study, such as those in the first two sections of this chapter, or preliminary and to be dealt with further, such as those in the immediately preceding section. But here we have shown a correlation between student and peer modernity, and student and peer performance. Since these correlations are a part of the major hypotheses, the possibility that they are spurious must be disproved prior to further discussion. The correlation between modernity and performance, also raised, will, as was noted in the preceding section, be dealt with below, and will therefore not be considered until after parental data has been introduced. In consideration of the question of spuriousness the modernity score correlations will be examined first. Theoretical considerations must be used in the search for a third variable to prove the relationship between the two measured variables spurious. A host of variables could conceivably be found, and to show that none of them would erase the original correlation could prove to be an interminable task. For example, color of skin could, through differential environmental opportunities, be related to both modernity level and performance. The data available in this project does not include a variable to determine skin color, nor was it considered necessary to collect such data, for the variable can be considered distant from both the major variables in the study on theoretical grounds, and therefore need not be specifically tested. On

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

117

the other hand, certain variables may be so closely related to one or the other of the variables in question that they may cause the correlation to disappear, but this does not necessarily prove spuriousness. For example, it is likely that intelligence test score results for the students and peers, were they measured, would probably greatly diminish and perhaps even erase a correlation between OM scores and gradepoint averages. But in chapter three it was noted that intelligence scores are very similar to other indices of performance such as gradepoint averages, and this similarity with one of the original variables rather than a relationship with each of the variables would be the cause of lessened correlation. Probably the variable most likely to erase a relationship between student and peer modernity would be a performance variable. If modernity scores are only functions of performance then, by holding performance scores constant, the correlation between student modernity and peer modernity should decrease. To make sure that the performance scores were really held constant, both peer gradepoint averages and student sample positions were considered. While these two variables were held constant, cross tabulations of student OM scores and peer OM scores were studied. As before, the Gamma values were computed. These values are presented in table 6.24. All Gamma values represent correlations between student OM and peer OM scores. It was considered that when fewer than seventy cases were available reliable statistics could not be obtained, therefore the statistics under these conditions are omitted. For all those peers with grades less than 3.00, the correlation between modernity variables holds even when performance variables are held constant. For those peers with higher grades, the correlation is less constant. There are three possible explanations: 1) the small numbers of peers with high grades cause a distortion of the statistics at the extreme end of the data; 2) there is little correlation of modernity scores between peers with high modernity levels; and 3) the correlation of modernity scores between students and their significant peers is a spurious relationship. The third reason is unlikely, as the significance of the correlation, although decreased slightly, is greater than .05 for the great majority of the sample. There is insufficient data present to distinguish between the first two possibilities, but because of the high correlations between student and peer OM scores for the entire sample, the first reason may be considered the most likely reason. The conclusion to be reached from table 6.24 is that the relationship between student and peer modernity levels is not spurious with respect to the academic performance of either students or peers.

118

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

TABLE 6.24 ORDINAL ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PEER MODERNITY SCORES AND STUDENT MODERNITY SCORES WITH PEER GRADEPOINT AVERAGE AND STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE MEASURED BY SAMPLE POSITION CONTROLLED

Peer Grade All All All All 0.00-1.00 1.01-1.50 1.51-2.00 1.51-2.00 1.51-2.00 1.51-2.00 2.01-2.50 2.01-2.50 2.01-2.50 2.01-2.50 2.51-3.00 2.51-3.00 2.51-3.00 2.51-3.00 3.01-3.50 3.51-4.00

Sample Position All Top Middle Bottom All All All Top Middle Bottom All Top Middle Bottom All Top Middle Bottom All All

Gamma

988 288 447 230 10 76 274 29 130 97 325 80 165 72 205 101 68 27 85 14

.386 *** .338 *** .275 *** .364 *** — .307 * 294 ** — .333 * .359 ** .315 ** .455 * .420 *** .387 .265 .337 * — — —.176 —

— Unreported Gamma scores represent categories for which there are insufficient cases for reliable statistics. * Significant at the .05 level. ** Significant at the .01 level. *** Significant at the .001 level. The performance variables may be studied in the same way. It is to be expected that if the correlations between modernity variables remain while performance variables are held constant, correlations between performance variables will also remain when modernity van-

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

119

ables are held constant. Table 6.25 shows the results of nonparametric associations between student and peer academic performance variables when modernity variables are held constant. Peer first semester gradepoint averages and student sample position are used as the performance variables, while OM scores of the students and peers are used as the modernity variables. Once again, since sample position is used as the student performance variable, significant Gamma values are negative. The distribution of OM scores for the populations of both students and peers has a high central tendency, so there are few cases at the extremes, making it impossible to calculate valid statistics for the more extreme cases. Nevertheless, it can easily be seen that performance correlations are highly significant even when the modernity TABLE 6.25 ORDINAL ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PEER ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE MEASURED BY GRADEPOINT AVERAGE AND STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE MEASURED BY SAMPLE POSITION WITH PEER MODERNITY SCORES AND STUDENT MODERNITY SCORES CONTROLLED Student OM All All All All All 1.00-1.25 1.26-1.50 126-1.50 1.26-1.50 126-1.50 1.51-1.75 1.51-1.75 1.51-1.75 1.51-1.75 1.51-175 1.76-2.00

Peer OM All 1.00-1.25 1.26-1.50 1.51-1.75 1.76-2.00 All All 1.00-1.50 1.51-1.75 1.76-2.00 All 1.00-1.25 1.26-1.50 1.51-1.75 1.76-2.00 All

Gamma

989 13 255 549 172 3 168 63 83 8 734 1 177 422 29 57

_.518*** -.472 *** -.435 *** -.629 *** -.455 *** -.373 ** _ 473 *** -.296 *** -.375 *** — —

— Unreported Gamma scores represent categories for which there are insufficient cases for reliable statistics. ** Significant at the .01 level. *** Significant at the .001 level.

120

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

variables are held constant. It may therefore be concluded that studentpeer modernity correlations are significant and not spurious with regard to either student or peer academic performance. Student-peer performance correlations are also significant and not spurious with regard to either student or peer modernity levels.

Nonas 1. 2. 3. 4.

Landy, op. cit., outlines these roles. Hernández Alvarez, op. cit. This necessity was explained on page 75 above. Although one variable may partially account for two others which are highly correlated with each other, it cannot be demonstrated that the correlation between the latter two is indeed spurious unless it actually disappears when the former is held constant. Compare with an illustration given by Travis Hirschi and Hanan C. Selvin, Deliquency Research: An Appraisal of Analytic Methods (New York: The Free Press, 1967), pp. 82-84.

PARENTS AND STUDENTS Parental Characteristics There are two parental samples dealt with in this study: parents of the top quartile of students with regard to academic performance and parents of the bottom quartile of the students.1 Characteristics of all the parents interviewed would not be meaningfully descriptive, therefore. The function of this portion of the chapter is to note the characteristics of each sample of parents, and particularly to note dissimilarities between the two, as such dissimilarities might well suggest factors which have a bearing on differences in school performance. The differences between parents of high performers and parents of low performers on several modernity and performance variables may be seen in tables 7.1 and 7.2. The variables measured are the OM score as an index of modernity, and years of education, word score and arithmetic score as indices of performance. The use of the variable «years of education» as an interval variable has been questioned above. However, as was noted above, there is some precedent for treating it as an interval variable. There is a significant difference, as can be seen in these tables, between mean years of education of parents of high performers and of low performers. There is a similar difference between the medians of these same variable distributions. However, a more meaningful comparison with other variables can be made if the same statistic is used for all, so the mean is used for this particular variable as it is for the others, and the statistic used to compare the two samples is the difference-of-means test? It should be noted from the tables that there is a very significant difference between modernity scores of parents in the top quartile and those of the bottom quartile, mothers and fathers. In every case the parents of high performers have higher modernity scores than the parents of low performers. It should also be pointed out that the

TnsLB 7.1

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MOTHERS IN THE TOP QUARTILE AND THOSE IN THE BOTTOM QUARTILE (BASED ON STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE) CONCERNING MODERNITY SCORES, YEARS OF EDUCATION, AND PERFORMANCE ON THE WORD AND ARITHMETIC TESTS

Variable OM Score

Education (Years)

Word Score

Arithmetic Score

Mean

Standard Deviation

Top

152.00

16.49

315

Bottom

145.74

15.98

309

Top

6.01

3.83

315

Bottom

4.86

3.06

309

Top

6,19

4.83

315

Bottom

4.49

425

306

Top

1.84

1.53

315

Bottom

1.33

1.39

306

Quartile

t value

3.69**

14.85 **

12.69 **

Significant at the .01 level.

36.88 **

TABLE 7.2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FATHERS IN THE TOP QUARTILE AND THOSE IN THE BOTTOM QUARTILE (BASED ON STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE) CONCERNING MODERNITY SCORES, YEARS OF EDUCATION, AND PERFORMANCE ON THE WORD AND ARITHMETIC TESTS

Variable OM Score

Education (Years)

Word Score

Arithmetic Score

Mean

Standard Deviation

Top

161.12

15.11

244

Bottom

155.94

14.78

216

Top

7.05

3.64

245

Bottom

6.18

3.83

218

Top

7.98

4.72

244

Bottom

6.75

4.60

214

Top

3.32

1.76

244

Bottom

2.79

1.70

214

Quartile

t value

2.64**

7.18**

6.42**

20.05 ** **

Significant at the .01 level.

124

INEKE CUNNING H AM

scores of the fathers are higher than those of the mothers, the mean OM score of the fathers of the bottom quartile being slightly higher than that of mothers of the top quartile. The scores of the parents, however, cannot be compared by the difference-of-means test, as the two samples are not independent of each other.3 It can be stated, however, that the parents of students who perform well in high school tend to have higher modernity scores, and thus to be more modern, than parents of students who perform poorly as compared to their peers. The indices of performance are also significantly higher among the parents of high performers than among those of low performers. In fact the differences between the means of these variables are greater than for the modernity variables. Actually a significant difference-ofmeans test in this instance is similar to a correlation, in that the significant difference-of-means indicates that the parents vary in the same direction that the students vary. Although it is recognized that this is not a correlation, essentially a relationship between student academic performance and parental performance is presented. Since the students are differentiated along performance criterion it would be expected that similar differentiation of the parents would be greater for performance variables than for modernity variables. The data herein presented gives support for such a case. Two types of characteristics which were mentioned for the students in the previous chapter were characteristics dealing with mobility and ambition, as these seemed to be related to performance theoretically. Mobility data for the parents is from the same questions as were asked the students, that is, how long had they lived in the United States and whether they had lived in Puerto Rico outside the San Juan Metropolitan area. As far as migration to the United States is concerned, data for the parents is very similar to that for the students. About the same percentages of parents have spent periods of time in the United States as the students. Probably this is due to the fact that families tend to move as a unit. It is perhaps surprising that essentially no more fathers have lived for periods of time in the United States than mothers. There are two possible reasons for this. Either very few of the fathers worked in the United States, or most of those who did were there at the time the interviews were made. As noted in chapter five, in many homes where parents were interviewed the male parent was absent, and in several cases it is known that he was living in the United States for the summer. There is a difference between students and their parents as to whether they have lived outside of the San Juan Metropolitan area elsewhere in Puerto Rico for any length of time. As was noted in the

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

125

previous chapter very few students had lived outside of the city, whereas their parents have been more mobile than this. Approximately fifty per cent of the mothers and 60 per cent of the fathers have lived outside of the city. There is no correlation between the presence or absence of this mobility characteristic and student performance, for the percentage for both male and female parents are approximately the same in both the high and low performance quartiles. For the students ambition could be theoretically related to the skill of the occupation the student is expected to hold, but parental ambition cannot be correlated to the skill of the parent's job, as he may or may not have fulfilled his ambition. Skill of the parent's job is a performance variable, and will be discussed as such later in this chapter. There is no data available in this study which can be related to parental ambition. Parental Modernity Modernity studies have not determined whether males or females are more modern. The index of modernity used here has not previously been used on female subjects, so it is not known whether they, as females, have a greater tendency to be modern or not. The figures in tables 7.1 and 7.2 show that, for every variable noted, the mean for the mothers of students in each category (high or low performance) is lower than that for the fathers of the same category. The difference-of-means test cannot be used to determine the significances of these differences as mothers and fathers of the students are not chosen independently of each other. It has been shown in the previous chapter that there is no significant correlation between student sex and student modernity. Male and female students, however, all being high school students, share with each other many more social variables, such as years of education, age, length of stay in the urban environment, and so forth, than do parents. Therefore the lack of sexual difference in modernity levels at the high school age would not necessarily be expected to be indicative of presence or absence of sexual differences in modernity among their parents. Tables 7.3 and 7.4 show the correlations between the modernity scores of parents, students, and their peers for both top and bottom quartiles. It may be noted that correlations between mothers' and fathers' OM scores are significant at the .001 level in both categories. Thus, although there may be a difference in that the wife's score may tend to be lower than that of her husband, a husband who had a high

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

126

TABLE 7.3 PEARSONIAN CORRELATIONS BETWEEN STUDENT, PARENT, AND PEER MODERNITY SCORES, TOP QUARTILE

Student OM Mother OM Father OM

Mother OM

Father OM

Peer OM

.059

.190 *** .211 ***

.243 *** .059 .096

*** Significant at the .001 level. modernity score with respect to other husbands could be expected to have a wife whose score is also relatively high as compared to those of other wives. The correlations of student modernity with parental modernity are less significant, however. The correlation between father and student in the high performance quartile is almost as high as those between parents and is also significant at the .001 level. However, that between father and student in the low performance quartile is virtually insignificant, the significance level being .099. The correlations between mother and student in either quartile are even less significant, levels being .169 for high performers, and .101 for the low performers. There is a slight sex differentiation in the correlations of modernity between parents and their children as well as in modernity levels among parents. There is a performance differentiation in these correlations, also, which will be discussed following a discussion of performance in general. The effect of sex on these correlations will be discussed here. TABLE 7.4 PEARSONIAN CORRELATIONS BETWEEN STUDENT, PARENT, AND PEER MODERNITY SCORES, BOTTOM QUARTILE

Student OM Mother OM Father OM Significant at the .05 level. * *** Significant at the .001 level.

Mother OM

Father OM

Peer OM

.073

.088 .223 ***

285 *** .061 .170 *

127

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE TABLE 7.5 ORDINAL ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PARENTAL AND STUDENT MODERNITY SCORES BY SEX, TOP QUARTILE Sex of Parent

Sex of Student

Gamma

Female Female Male Male

Female Male Female Male

169 145 130 113

.347 *** .203 * .059 .307**

* Significant at the .05 level. ** Significant at the .01 level. *** Significant at the .001 level. As the sex of the parent has an effect on parent-child modernity correlations, the next stept is to see if the sex of the child has any effect. Tables 7.5 and 7.6 provide this information. Among the students who perform well, there is a higher correlation between their modernity scores and those of their parents of the same sex than there is between their scores and those of their parents of the opposite sex. Generally the correlation is better for the top sample than for the bottom sample. For those in the bottom sample there is a high correlation between the OM scores of sons and their mothers. It might be stated that those boys whose modernity scores are closer to those of their mothers than their TAsi.E 7.6 ORDINAL ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PARENTAL AND STUDENT MODERNITY SCORES BY SEX, BOTTOM QUARTILE Sex of Parent

Sex of Student

Gamma

Female Female Male Male

Female Male Female Male

163 145 110 104

—.101 .406 *** —.111 .117

*** Significant at the .001 level.

128

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

fathers tend to show poorer academic performance. However, although this is one possible explanation of the data, there is no further supporting evidence for this point. The evidence presented above definitely suggests that sex is an important variable in determining modernity correlations between generations. Those students in the top quartile according to academic performance tend to be similar to parents of the same sex when it comes to modernity, but overall, all students have modernity levels correlating more highly with their fathers than with those of their mothers. This is perhaps due to the fact that their fathers, whose work and lives are centered more outside the home and more within the community, have more contact with modernizing experiences than do their mothers, and therefore tend to have higher modernity levels. This assumes that more experience with modernization processes will lead to higher modernity levels, but such an assumption seems safe to make, and the more familiar one becomes with any situation the better he is likely to perform in it. An alternative reason for the differences is that student fathers tend to have more education than their mothers, and therefore are closer to the students' own level of education, which at this point is a high school level. Thus they tend to have similar levels of modernity. This line of reasoning assumes a close correlation between modernity levels and educational performance. The major hypothesis of this study proposes such an assumption. But repeated presentation of evidence of the closeness of the correlation between modernity and academic performance necessitates proof that the two variables are not indeed the same thing. This chapter and the previous one deal with the positive correlations between the two. The final chapter will contain a discussion concerning the differences. It should also be noted that correlations of parental OM scores with those of their children's peers are generally lower than with their children's own modernity levels. This is just what would be expected, as there is less direct communication between parents and their children's peers than between parents and their children. The other aspect of this relationship is that the correlation between OM scores of the students and those of their peers is distinctly greater than that between the OM scores of the students and those of their parents. Even in the relationship of students who are high performers with their fathers, in which the significance of the correlation is the same as in those between students and peers, the correlation itself is lower. This finding, that modernity correlations between students and their peers are higher than between students and their parents, supports

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

129

Ti s 7.7 ORDINAL ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN MODERNITY SCORE AND AGE, MARITAL STATUS, NUMBER OF CHILDREN, RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION DETERMINED BY LENGTH OF TIME LIVED OUTSIDE SAN JUAN, AND UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICAN MIGRATION DETERMINED BY LENGTH OF TIME LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES AMONG MOTHERS Variable

x 2

1. TOP SAMPLE Age Marital Status Number of Children Rural-Urban Migration U.S. — Puerto Rican Migration

311 314 315 315 314

9.657 5.712 24.238 * 5.759 4.638

2. BOTTOM SAMPLE Age Marital Status Number of Children Rural-Urban Migration U.S. — Puerto Rican Migration

304 309 309 308 306

9.848 9.074 11.025 2.200 7.945

* Significant at the .05 level.

another hypothesis mentioned in the first chapter. This finding and its possible significance will be reviewed in the following chapter. Certain other non-performance variables concerning the parents have been recorded and are measurable. Tables 7.7 and 7.8 show some of this data. It will be remembered from the previous chapter that some correlation was shown for the students between modernity scores and the period of time during which they had lived in the United States. This correlation disappears when measured for the parents. Chi square values are reported in tables 7.7. and 7.8 because some of the variables are only nominal rather than ordinal, although variables for years having lived in the United States and number of children are both amenable to ordinal classification, although, because of the way in which they were coded, not to interval classification. None of the Gamma scores for any of those variables for which they were appropriate 9. s

130

INEKE CUNNIN.H AM

TASI.E 7.8 ORDINAL ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN MODERNITY SCORE AND AGE, MARITAL STATUS, NUMBER OF CHILDREN, RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION DETERMINED BY LENGTH OF TIME LIVED OUTSIDE SAN JUAN, AND UNITED STATES-PUERTO RICAN MIGRATION DETERMINED BY LENGTH OF TIME LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES AMONG FATHERS Variable

1. TOP SAMPLE Age Marital Status Number of Children Rural-Urban Migration U.S. — Puerto Rican Migration

242 244 237 244 244

6.893 0.942 7.581 3.233 8.620

2. BOTTOM SAMPLE Age Marital Status Number of Children Rural-Urban Migration U.S. — Puerto Rican Migration

211 216 206 216 216

17.981 * 7.211 15.172 0.467 7.505

* Significant at the .05 level. were of significance, so nothing has been lost in treating all the variables as nominal variables for the sake of tabular clarity. One possible explanation for the fact that there is no correlation between years in the United States and parental modernity while such a correlation is significant for students is as follows. Perhaps parents, while in the United States, are as Puerto Ricans less integrated into the general society through work and home life than are their children at school, and this isolation protects them from changes in their attitudes leading to modernity, while their children do have less of such protections. Such an explanation actually suggests that this variable, for the student, is an index of exposure to modernity, whereas for the parent it is not such an index. The variable which gives an index of rural-urban mobility, the number of years living in Puerto Rico but outside of the San Juan

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

131

Metropolitan area, is no more significant for the parents than it was for their children. As was noted earlier, this is not evidence against a correlation between rural-urban residence and modernity. Urbanization is part of the concept of modernization, as was pointed out in chapter two. This merely suggests that the variable we measured is not sufficient as an index of urban-rural residence, or it may indicate that rural-urban migration is as indicative of modern attitudes as is urban living for this class of people, and thus, whether one has lived in the city all the time or moved there from a rural area, one is essentially «urban» in attitudes concerning modernity as compared to «rural». Another possibility is that the fact that most of the students have lived in the San Juan Metropolitan area all their lives indicates that their parents have been living there for a long time also, and have therefore become urbanized even if they were not when they originally migrated to the city. Also, for those who have recently migrated to San Juan, the Island, being small in area, has urbanized to such an extent that these migrants may well be migrating from a «rural» area to an «urban» one, but from a rural area that experiences urban influences to an urban area. Whichever of these explanations is applicable, the variable used here to indicate rural-urban mobility will not differentiate this sample. Marital status has no correlation with modernity in any section of the sample. The effect of number of children, however, cannot be dismissed simply. Number of children might well have some correlation with modernity, if not directly, through intervening variables such as socioeconomic status. But although number of children appears, from these tables, to have a greater correlation with modernity than any of the other nonperformance variables here described, particularly for the mothers, the significance level of this is slight, and any effect of the variable «number of children» on modernity must be indirect. The reason for a slight association between age and modernity level for fathers of those students in the lower quartile is obscure. Age is amenable to ordinal arrangement. The use of an ordinal association statistic for these two variables does not yield a significant result. Parental Performance It is far more difficult to determine a variable which can serve as an index of parental performance than it is to find one which represents student performance. For the students with which this study is concerned, gradepoint average is a useful performance index for it

132

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

represents academic performance as was noted in chapter three, and that academic performance is the important aspect of performance for these subjects is implied in the role of the student. Modernity does not have as specific a relationship to the role in society played by an individual as does performance, so it is therefore much easier to compare student modernity and parental modernity than to do the same for performance. Academic performance certainly has a different meaning with relation to the parent than with the student, and there is no single aspect of performance which relates in the same way to the parent as does academic performance to the student, as the parent is not in an academic situation. Performance in the academic sphere is the goal of the student role. But it is much less easy to identify the major goal of the parental role. Academic performance can perhaps best be described for the parent by the variable «years of education». However, that this is in many respects an unsatisfactory variable has been pointed out previously in this report. Perhaps an ability measurement would be more satisfactory than one of performance. The word test and the arithmetic test described in chapter five are used in this regard, but they are less than satisfactory, also. For one reason, theoretic defense of their use is somewhat weak, for we are unable to cite specific literature describing their development or use.3 For another, both tests are so short that results would probably have poor reliability. Intelligence test data is not available for these parents, and the resources of the project did not permit consideration of the use of such a test as variable to indicate parental performance. Another possibility for a performance variable would be to combine the variables here mentioned in some fashion so that a single variable representing them all would result. However, there is no precedent using such a combination of variables, and to show theoretical justification for such a collective variable would be even more difficult than to show it for any single specific variable itself. There are other measurements of performance concerning parents besides measurements of academic or educational achievement. Occupation should be considered here. Occupational performance is certainly very important to the parent, particularly the male parent. Perhaps one of the primary roles of the parent is to provide for his children, or work. In this way occupational status, or skill, could be roughly compared, from the parental aspect, to academic performance from the student's aspect. In chapter four it was noted that a discussion of education in Puerto Rico must include not only consideration of those institutions the purposes of which are primarily educational,

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

133

but also consideration of industrial and on-the-job training programs. Therefore occupation not only provides an individual with a means of livelihood, but also secondarily a means for further education. Inkeles uses factory workers as subjects in testing the validity and usefulness of the measure of modernity as used here, and one of the factors which correlates strongly with modernity is the length of time one has worked in a factory.4 The measurement used by Tumin and Feldman in studying modernity, as shown in chapter two, is occupational mobility. Therefore there is some theoretical precedence and justification for having occupation as an index of performance. As the data of this study is collected at one time there is only one occupational skill noted for each parent, and therefore a variable of occupational mobility cannot be used. Occupational skill is used instead. Another index of parental performance is income. This measures the financial benefits of education and occupation. Although this variable would be expected to correlate highly with the others just mentioned, there is no particular theoretical reason for substituting it for one of the others. It is just another index of parental performance. One variable which should be considered in a discussion of parental performance or achievement indices is that of socioeconomic status. This variable represents some combination of factors which indicates an individual's standing within the society in which he lives with regard to other individuals. Unfortunately, the variable has no standard definition, and thus cannot be directly measured, nor can it be computed. It must be derived theoretically, and thus the use of a variable for socioeconomic status practically merits a thesis in itself. Several methods of determining a variable for socioeconomic status have been derived. Kahl and Davis measured 219 students by 19 of the measurements proposed for socioeconomic status.5 They used tetrachoric correlations and factor analysis and came to the conclusion that, since there were relatively high positive correlations between all measurements, all measurements were probably indices of the same variable, but measured it in varying degrees of approximation. However, although the study showed that all 19 measurements attempted were satisfactory indices of socioeconomic status, they did not lead to a more accurate definition of socioeconomic status than has been present previously. A different approach to socioeconomic status has been attempted by Lensky, who has tried to develop a functional variable from the concept.6 He begins with the assumption that individuals do not occupy a single position on a vertical hierarchical socioeconomic structure, but rather several parallel positions on a series of vertical hierarchical structures which are usually imperfectly correlated with each other.

134

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

It is the consistency of these positions which is important in determining the way in which an individual is likely to function in his society, rather than the vertical location of these positions. In other words, those ranking rather high on all parameters and those ranking low on all parameters are expected to act in certain ways in a similar fashion, whereas those who rank high on some parameters and low on others are expected to act in a different fashion. The parameters Lenski has used are the same as the performance variables listed here, education, occupation, and income, with the addition of ethnicity. Those who have a high degree of consistency in their rankings along these parameters are considered to have high status crystallization, while those with a high degree of inconsistency in their rankings are considered to have low status crystallization. Among the characteristics more prone to be found in those individuals with low status crystallization are included greater social mobility and a greater tendency to push for change. A major problem which has arisen in the application of this approach has been one of defining the variable of status inconsistency in such a way that it can be exactly computed for the members of each group to which it might be applied. This difficulty is well illustrated by a study in which Kenkel attempts to apply the measurement to a group other than the one used by Lenski, but is unable to replicate his findings? Lenski points out how substitutions in variables, using rental value of dwelling and dwelling area prestige instead of income and ethnicity, account for the changes in findings.8 However, his arguments are probably more empirical than theoretical. Stehr summarizes the use of the variable of status consistency in a recent paper.9 He states that the concept of status consistency is reliable but challenges its validity on two grounds. In the first place, he notes that the activity which status inconsistency is presumed to cause, some form of stressrelieving activity, actually results directly from the subjective feeling of stress felt by the subject and not from the objective measurement of status inconsistency which affects him. Secondly, he points out that status inconsistency is identified subjectively by the subject and then evaluated objectively by the researcher with an insufficient theoretical basis for the evaluation, so that the result is that an objectively defined dimension of inconsistency is assumed to lead to a subjectively perceived dimension of subjective stress. Stehr claims that the theory would have more validity if it proceded from a subjective feeling to an objective measurement, rather than vice versa.10 It can also be noted that, although some of these indices such as parental skill level, years of education, and so forth, can be shown to

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

135

have a particular association with student modernity and academic performance today, the expansion and combination of these indices into a socio-economic index for the purpose of studying this relationship becomes problematic for another reason. Drass has pointed out that entry into an expanding or relatively nonexpanding economy and thus occupational mobility is dependent to some extent on the year when one enters the labor force, and Barbara Kendrick has noted that the report of years of education may vary according to when the individual reports it 11 These individual variables thus not only have varying impacts with respect to each other, but also may have differing impacts independently with regard to when they are measured, so a rationale for their combination becomes more difficult. Due to the many difficulties inherent in attempting to develop a single variable which would suffice as a parental performance or achievement variable, as illustrated above, there will be no effort invested in such a feat here. Instead, each performance variable will be used separately. The three performance variables considered here are education, occupation, and income. All of these were used by Lenski in his development of the concept of status crystallization. The fourth variable he used, ethnicity, is not used here. This is primarily because there is no great variation in ethnic background among Puerto Ricans.12 Racial characteristics also present a problem if used as a differentiating variable, because very few Puerto Ricans are pure caucasian or pure negroid, and the degree of mixture is very difficult to evaluate. Ethnicity and race do not have as marked consequences in the Puerto Rican society as they do in that of the United States. Therefore these effects on socioeconomic status in Puerto Rico can be assumed to be less. Thus they were not included among the variables used in this study. Education is measured in years of education reported as completed. That it is not very satisfactory to consider this variable as interval data has been repeatedly emphasized in this report, even though there is precedent for doing so, and it has been used as interval data in this report for comparison. The reason for its inclusion as interval data at the beginning of this chapter was due to the fact that years of education is the closest variable to an index of academic performance among adults available. The possible inaccuracies of its use in that form are admitted. At this point it will be considered as ordinal data as it is, indeed, such data. The index used here to represent occupational performance is the skill necessary to carry out a given job. Each reported occupation has been classified according to skill into six categories, ranking from

136

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

lowest to highest as follows: unskilled, semiskilled, skilled, lower white collar, upper white collar or semiprofessional, and professional. This obviously must also be treated as ordinal data in statistical computations. Income has been measured in two ways. Total family income as reported by the head of the household in which the student was living, whether the head was female or male, is one of the parameters. Per capita income is the other. This amount was determined by dividing the total family income by the number of individuals reported to be living in the household at the time the interviews were carried out, whether these individuals were related to the subjects interviewed or not. Excluded from the computation were siblings living at home who worked, but did not contribute part of their income to the total family income. These two variables are also considered as ordinal data at this point, since there are several incomes which are considerably distant from the mean on the high side of the range, but not on the low. Therefore to arrange the data into intervals would leave so few cases per category in the higher categories that these scores would essentially be ignored in correlations. Therefore they are also treated here as ordinal data. Both incomes used in the data are monthly. Table 7.9 shows data comparing these variables for the parents of high performers with those of low performers. As the data is to be considered ordinal, the difference-of-means test used above cannot be applied. It has therefore been decided to use the median test to show these differences.13 This statistical test is of rather low power, particularly when used with larger samples as in this case. Nonetheless it is chosen for use here for several reasons. In the first place, we are as concerned with comparisons between the variables as with the actual significance level. The lower the power of the statistic used, the greater the chance of accepting a null hypothesis which is in fact false. Therefore, a significant difference discovered with a statistic of low power will not be less significant if a statistic of higher power is substituted, although it cannot in any way be assumed that the difference will be more significant if the higher power is used. Secondly, the median test is relatively simple to use, and it is most useful if one has a relatively normal distribution in each sample and few extreme cases. Such are the conditions of our data. The data presented in table 7.9 shows a relatively significant difference between mothers of top and bottom quartile students concerning occupational skill and particularly years of education. The income differences are also significant. However, there is very little significance present in skill levels and years of education for fathers

137

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

TAai.E 7.9

DIFFERENCES BY MEDIAN TEST BETWEEN PARENTS IN THE TOP QUARTILE AND THOSE IN THE BOTTOM QUARTILE (BASED ON STUDENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE) CONCERNING THE SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES OF YEARS OF EDUCATION, OCCUPATIONAL SKILL, TOTAL FAMILY INCOME, AND PER CAPITA FAMILY INCOME Median of Top Quartile

Median of Bottom Quartile

Mother's Education (Years of Education Completed)

6.982 **

Mother's Skill (Occupational Skill Level 0)

4.418

Father's Education (Years of Education Completed)

2.590

Father's Skill (Occupational Skill Level 0)

0.003

267

220

6.338 *

7.036 **

Variable

Total Family Income (Dollars per month) Per Capita Income (Dollars per month)

°1 = unskilled; 2 = semi-skilled; 3 = skilled; 4 = lower white collar (clerk, typist, etc.); 5 = upper white collar (nurse, school teacher, etc.); 6 = professional. * Significant at the .05 level. ** Significant at the .01 level. of top and bottom quartile students. It should be pointed out that occupational skill has only been determined for mothers who were employed at the time of the interviewing and did not list their occupation as that of housewife. Therefore the sample size is much smaller, and for this variable the median test is more powerful. Education and income variables show greater differences between parents of high-performing and low-performing students than do occupational variables. Perhaps students are affected by parental educational levels because these have a limiting effect on their own interrelations with their parents, and by income levels because these have

138

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

a limiting effect on their material environments (room to study, and so forth), whereas the effect of occupation would be more likely to be mediated through the income variable. The data available gives no direct evidence in support of these contentions. However, one small indirect piece of supporting evidence might be seen in the fact that there seems to be a more significant difference in per capita income levels as compared to student performance than to total family income levels. As will be shown in the next section of this chapter, the relationship between income and parental modernity is reversed. The per capita income would be more likely to show a greater effect on the student than total family income if the effects on the student were direct. It can be noted that in the relationship of parental performance to student performance there is a sex diferentiation, and that there seems to be a more significant relationship between the mothers' performance and that of the student than there is between the fathers' and the students' performances. In table 7.9 this difference is marked, as the father-student associations are hardly significant at all. In tables 7.1 and 7.2 a similar sex differentiation is also present, but much more subtle. All the results are significant at the .01 level, but the t values are lower for all fathers regarding performance variables in table 7.2 than for mothers regarding the same variables in table 7.1. Another interesting aspect is that, in the section concerning parental modernity, it was noted that there was sexual differentiation and that in general student modernity levels correlated better with those of the parents of the same sex than either mothers or fathers separately. Therefore sex differentiation between parent and student works differently for modernity and performance characteristics. This fact yields indirect evidence that student academic performance and modernity are distinct variables. It would be necessary, in attempting to ascertain this, to make sure that the student-parent modernity correlations and the studentparent performance associations presented here are not contaminated by each other. In other words, we must be certain that the relationships observed are the true relationships between the variables and not due to the effects of a third variable. As in the discussion in the last section of chapter six, the variables with which we are most concerned are performance in the case of modernity correlations and modernity in the case of performance correlations. In the earlier discussion on the relationship between parental modernity and student modernity it was not considered necessary to introduce the variable of performance since, as the parents represent two stratified samples,

139

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

~,.

student performance was controlled in this fashion. There is no such control, however, in a consideration of the relationships between parental and student performance. It is therefore necessary to correlate the parental performance variables we have introduced with student modernity levels while controlling for student performance. This is done instead of correlating parental and student performance, and then controlling for modernity, because student performance is automatically controlled with regard to parental variables due to the stratified sampling, so it is difficult to vary student performance while controlling modernity. However, if there is little correlation between parental performance variables and student modernity when student performance is controlled, it can be assumed that the correlations already shown between parental performance variables and student performance are real, and that - modernity is not an intervening variable in this situation. The correlations between the variables chosen to represent parental performance and the variable of student modernity are presented in tables 7.10 and 7.11. It quickly becomes evident, on examining this data, that there is virtually no correlation between the parental performance variables and student modernity. Only the correlation between per capita income and student modernity is of acceptable significance, and then only in the top quartile sample. This particular correlation will be mentioned again below. The others are not acceptably significant. If correlations between parental performance variables and student TAsis 7.10 ORDINAL ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN STUDENT MODERNITY SCORE AND THE PARENTAL SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES OF YEARS OF EDUCATION, OCCUPATIONAL SKILL, TOTAL FAMILY INCOME, AND PER CAPITA INCOME FOR THE TOP QUARTILE

* **

Performance Variable

Gamma

Mother's Education Father's Education Mother's Skill Father's Skill Total Family Income Per Capita Income

314 244 78 211 288 288

.107 —.003 .140 —.129 .152 * .172 **

Significant at the .05 level. Significant at the .01 level.

140

INEKE CUNNINGHAM TABLE 7.11

ORDINAL ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN STUDENT MODERNITY SCORE AND THE PARENTAL SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES OF YEARS OF EDUCATION, OCCUPATIONAL SKILL, TOTAL FAMILY INCOME, AND PER CAPITA INCOME FOR THE BOTTOM QUARTILE Performance Variable

Gamma

Mother's Education Father's Education Mother's Skill Father's Skill Total Family Income Per Capita Income

308 216 56 181 257 257

.099 .054 —.156 .071 —.093 .014

No associations significant at the .05 level. modernity were significant it would be necessary to study them again while controlling for parental modernity, as we have shown a slight correlation in some instances between parental and student modernity, and it would therefore be necessary to prove that parental modernity is not an intervening variable. However, the correlations are not significant when student performance is controlled. This means that, were the correlations between parental performance and student modernity significant in the absence of control of student performance, the significance would have to be attributed to the effects of student performance rather than the effects of parental performance. The conclusion to be reached from this data is that effects of parental performance with regard to their socioeconomic status will be manifested in the student's academic performance rather than his attitudes, if at all. On the other hand it is less easy to say how the student will manifest the effects of parental modernity if, again, he manifests them at all, for we have shown effects both in student modernity and student academic performance. However, the effects on student performance seem to be somewhat more consistent. Modernity and Performance A word should be stated about the relationship between performance and modernity variables among the parents themselves. It has

141

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

been shown, and will be reiterated, that there is a high correlation between student modernity and student academic performance, which is the main hypothesis of this study. Further it has been noted that, although parental modernity relates to parents as a variable in the same way that student modernity relates to students, academic performance has no counterpart among parents. We have explained several possible substitutes for the missing counterpart in an attempt to obtain a clearer picture of how student modernity relates to parents as well as peers. The data relating parental performance with parental modernity are presented in tables 7.12 and 7.13. The performance variable is correlated with the mother's OM score for all mothers and with the father's OM score for all fathers. There is a much greater significance between parental performance and parental modernity than between parental performance and student modernity, as is expected. The closest correlations are with the variable of education. This is what we would expect if the correlation between academic performance and modernity were high, as we have TABLE 7.12 ORDINAL ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PARENTAL MODERNITY SCORES AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES OF YEARS OF EDUCATION, OCCUPATIONAL SKILL, TOTAL FAMILY INCOME, AND PER CAPITA INCOME FOR THE TOP QUARTILE Performance Variable

Gamma

1. MOTHERS Years of Education Occupational Skill Total Family Income Per Capita Income

315 80 282 282

.486 *** .537 *** .120 .166 *

2. FATHERS Years of Education Occupational Skill Total Family Income Per Capita Income

244 213 237 237

.521 *** .432 *** .344 *** .180 ***

* Significant at the .05 level. *** Significant at the .001 level.

142

INEKE CUNNINGHAM TABLE 7.13

ORDINAL ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PARENTAL MODERNITY SCORES AND SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES OF YEARS OF EDUCATION, OCCUPATIONAL SKILL, TOTAL FAMILY INCOME, AND PER CAPITA INCOME FOR THE BOTTOM QUARTILE Performance Variable

Gamma

1. MOTHERS Years of Education Occupational Skill Total Family Income Per Capita Income

309 56 250 250

.361 *** .280 * .311 *** .180 *

2. FATHERS Years of Education Occupational Skill Total Family Income Per Capita Income

216 183 199 199

.312 *** .325 *** .430 *** .206 *

* Significant at the .05 level. *** Significant at the .001 level. shown is the case. Those parents who have spent a longer period of time in the educational system tend to be more modern, a correlation which lends further indirect support to our primary hypothesis. The variable of occupational skill correlates better with parental modernity than does income. This would support the theoretical material presented in chapters two and four concerning the relationships of occupations to modernity. There is a slightly better correlation between skill and modernity among men than among women. Perhaps women are more ready to take an occupation which does not demand of them the skill of which they are capable, or they are unable to find occupations which make use of their skills as easily as men. But the difference between men and women concerning this correlation is not marked. Perhaps the reason that the significance of the correlation between skill and modernity is low for mothers of the low performers is that the sample is relatively small. The weakest correlations between parental performance and modernity are to be found with income. Correlations are very significant for

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

143

fathers when total family income is used as the income variable. However, correlations using per capita income show very little significance. This is probably due to the fact that per capita income is dependent to a large degree on factors such as number of children in the family and number of relatives living in the home. Such factors correlate poorly with modernity, as is shown in tables 7.7 and 7.8. Thus there is a more direct relationship between parental modernity and total family income than between parental modernity and per capita income. The correlation between modernity and total income for mothers of high performers is of poor significance, which may be due to the fact that the father is usually more directly the one who earns the income than is the mother. As was noted previously, the data suggests that total family income is a more significant income variable for parents, whereas per capita income is a more significant variable for the students.

Nones 1. The rationale for studying these two quartiles of parents is discussed on pages 89-90 above. 2. Blalock, op. cit., pp. 170-6. 3. Alex Inkeles, personal communication on December 12, 1967, in Río Piedras, Puerto Rico. 4. Inkeles, The Modernization of Man. 5. Joseph A. Kahl and James A. Davis, «A Comparison of Indexes of SocioEconomic Status,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 20 (1955), pp. 317-25. 6. Gerhard Lenski, «Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical Dimension of Social Status,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 19 (1954), pp. 405-13; and Gerhard Lenski, «Social Participation and Status Crystallization,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 21 (1956), pp. 458-64. 7. William F. Kenkel, «The Relationship Between Status Consistency and Politicoeconomic Attitudes,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 21 (1956), pp. 365-8. 8. Gerhard Lenski, «Comment on Kenkel's Communication,» American Sociological Review, Vol. 21 (1956), pp. 368-9. 9. Nico Stehr, «Status Consistency: The Theoretical Concept and its Empirical Referent,» Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 2 (1968), pp. 95-99. 10. Ibid., p. 97. 11. Drass, op. cit., and Barbara Kendrick, op. cit. 12. With the exception of a very small uper class which attempts to keep pure caucasoid, see Julian Steward, op. cit. 13. Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956), pp. 11-6i.

DIFFERENCES IN MODERNITY Measurement of Differences

The previous chapters have dealt with the relationship between modernity and academic performance among the various categories sampled for this study. In this chapter we shall concern ourselves totally with the modernity measurement we have used. The modernity measurement is a score derived from the OM questionnaire.1 We have determined the modernity of the students and their parents from this score. Here we want to examine the individual questions of the modernity questionnaire to see if there are significant differences between students and their parents in the patterns of their answers. In other words, we would like to know if the students tend to be more modern in their answers to certain questions and the parents more modern in their answers to others. This material does not furnish information which is useful in determining the acceptability of any of the hypotheses proposed in the first chapter. Rather it will shed more light on the nature and usefulness of the modernity questionnaire. If significant variations in this respect are found between categories in this study, perhaps further studies may be done to determine more precisely the nature of individual modernity as measured by the OM questionnaire. This chapter is therefore exploratory in nature. The data collected will be examined to see if it results in conclusions of interest, but it will not, at this point, be applied to specific hypotheses. Comparisons will be made between students of the top and bottom quartiles, between students and their fathers, in both quartiles, between students and their mothers, also in both quartiles, and finally between fathers and mothers, again in both quartiles. Generally, as has been shown in chapter six, students in the top quartile answered more questions with a modern response than did those in the bottom quartile. The question to which we will address ourselves here is lo. S

146

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

whether they did this for all of the fifteen questions in the questionnaire, or whether differences were significant for only part of the questions. In similar fashion we would expect students to have given more modern responses than their parents in both quartiles, and fathers to have given more modern responses than mothers in both quartiles? As was noted in chapter five, the questions of the OM questionnaire were divided into three types.3 Ten give attitudinal information, three are informational items, and two are behavioral items. The fifteen questions are listed in Appendix I along with the choices the subjects were offered for responses. The first ten questions are the attitudinal items, questions eleven and fifteen the behavioral items, and questions twelve through fourteen the informational ones. The statistic used in determining the significance of differences is the test involving proportions described by Blalock.4 The proportion of modern responses given to each question by those in each group was first determined, and for the differences between these proportions a Z value was computed. The significance level was then determined by using the table of areas under the standard curve.5 Differences Between Students in the Top and Bottom Quartiles The first comparisons to be made in this chapter will be those between the students in the top quartile and those in the bottom quartile with respect to academic performance. The differences in responses to the modernity questionnaire for these students are presented in table 8.1. In chapter six it was noted that there was a significant difference between the modernity levels of the students in the top quartile and those of students in the bottom quartile. Therefore it would be expected that there would also be a significant difference between the percentage of modern answers to each separate question among each of these two categories of students. Perhaps the most interesting finding in the data presented in table 8.1 is, therefore, that there is not a significant difference between these two quartiles of students on every item of the questionnaire. As can be seen from the table, only eleven of the fifteen questions show differences between the two quartiles which are significant. One of these, the question concerning the types of news in which the students are interested, shows a negative_ difference between these quartiles. In other words, students in the bottom quartile gave a higher percentage of modern answers to this question than did students in the top quartile, and

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

147

the differences between these percentages is significant at the .05 level. The differences between the two quartiles on two other questions are also negative, but these lack statistical significance, as do the differences for the other two questions. In analyzing the data shown, it is best to divide the questions into categories to the extent this can be done. The first possible categorization has been provided by Smith and Inkeles in the construction of the OM questionnaire as noted in chapter five and mentioned in the introduction to this chapter. The majority of the questions deal with attitudinal items, while others deal with informational items, and the rest with behavioral items. If we place the questions in their proper categories on this basis, it can be seen that all the questions of an TAsi a 8.1 DIFFERENCES IN PERCENTAGES OF MODERN ANSWERS ON THE OM QUESTIONNAIRE BETWEEN STUDENTS IN THE TOP AND BOTTOM QUARTILES BY GRADEPOINT AVERAGE Question t 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Concern for Public Issues Education Level Desirable Usefulness of Change Qualifications for Office Future of Puerto Rico Beneficience of Research Birth Control News Interests Understanding Foreigners Need for Religion Number of Organizations Number of Problems Location of Moscow Location of Lima Frequency of News Source

t + '* * ***

Top Quartile %

Bottom Quartile %

Difference

37+ 88 80 98 69 62 82 80 38 49 51 55 88 87 46

22 71+* 69 88 60 68 77 86 17 52 32 22 71 77 40

15*** 17*** 11*** 10*** 9*** — 6 5 — 6* 21*** — 3 19*** 33*** 17*** 10*** 6

For the entire questions see Appendix I, pp. 173-5. N Range is from 190 to 340 except where noted. N is 68. Significant at the .05 level. Significant at the .001 level.

148

IIHEKE CUNNINGHAM

informational nature, questions twelve through fourteen, show significant differences. The questions deal with information which the respondents already have, specifically whether they know what problems are facing Puerto Rico and whether they can identify the location of the cities of Moscow and Lima. It is not surprising that those students in the top quartile of academic performance have more information than those in the bottom quartile, for the imparting of information is probably the primary function of the school and those who perform best show evidence of acquiring the most information. Behavior and attitudes are less directly related to academic performance than is information. Of the two questions relating to behavior, those students who are in the high performance quartile give evidence of belonging to more organizations than do those in the low performance quartile, which is considered to be an indication of modernity. However, the frequency with which the students listen to or read the news does not significantly differentiate between the two quartiles. It is interesting to note that the attitudinal question for which there are a significantly greater percentage of modern answers among the bottom quartile students is 'the one dealing with the type of news one prefers, whether it deals with Puerto Rican or international affairs, the modern response, or with local or religious affairs or sports events, the nonmodern responses. The reasons for these answers are not clear. Less than half the students in each quartile gave a modern response to the frequency with which they read the news, whereas more than 80 % gave modern responses to the attitudinal question concerning the type of news preferred. In constructing their questionnaire, Smith and Inkeles used questions representing various themes which they described as indicative of modernity.6 It would not be useful in this chapter to categorize the questions according to these themes, however, because Smith and Inkeles, in deriving the short OM questionnaire from their longer one of 119 questions, picked those questions which were considered to represent two or more of the themes, and also because they offered as little overlap as possible. At this point, therefore it will just be noted that three of the attitudinal questions showed insignificant differences in the percentage of modern answers they received from the top quartile students as compared to those in the bottom quartile. These were the questions concerning the benefits of scientific research, birth control, and the necessity of being religious. Over sixty per cent of the students gave modern answers for the first of these, approximately eighty per cent for the second, and fifty per cent for the third.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

149

Differences Between Students and Their Fathers In chapter seven there was a tendency to mention mothers first when discussing data concerning all of the parents sampled. This tendency carries no significance, but merely reflects the way in which the data was organized for analysis. Here the order will be reversed, and the fathers will be discussed first. This is because fathers tend to have higher modernity levels than mothers, as was discussed in chapter seven. If the fathers are discussed first, there will be fewer negative percentage differences when comparing the parents with each other. The data comparing students and their fathers are presented in tables 8.2 and 8.3. The top and bottom quartiles are considered as two TABLE 82 DIFFERENCES IN PERCENTAGES OF MODERN ANSWERS ON THE OM QUESTIONNAIRE BETWEEN STUDENTS IN THE TOP QUARTILE OF GRADEPOINT AVERAGE AND THEIR FATHERS Question t 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

t + * ***

Students %

Fathers %

Difference

37+ 88 80 98 69 62 82 80 38 49 51 55 88 87 46

24 24 83 84 52 59 62 82 35 49 44 68 67 58 40

13*** 4 — 3 14*** 17*** 3 20*** — 2 3 — 7* —13*** 21*** 29*** 6

For the entire questions see Appendix I, pp. 173-5. N Range is from 190 to 342. Significant at the .05 level. Significant at the .001 level.

150

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

separate samples, as the parents were chosen by stratified sampling rather than random sampling. Percentage differences in modern answers for students in the top quartile and their fathers will be discussed first. Perhaps the most obvious difference between table 8.1, discussed previously, and table 8.2 is that there are fewer questions, the modern answers to which show a significant difference between top quartile students and their fathers, than there are which show a difference between top quartile students and bottom quartile students. The reason for this is rather simple. As there is a significant correlation between student academic performance and student modernity, a significant difference in modernity would be expected between two categories differentiated on the basis of academic performance. On the other hand there is also a significant correlation between the modernity levels of students in the top quartile and their fathers, so very few differences in percentages of modern answers would be expected between these two categories. For the fifteen questions only eight show significant differences, and one of these is only significant at the .05 level. In all but one of these instances where there is a significant difference the students answered with a higher percentage of modern answers than did their fathers. In all three questions concerning information there is a significant difference. However, for the two questions soliciting specific geographic information, similar to specific factual information imparted in many school classes, the students gave the more modern answers much more frequently, but for the questions relating to problems facing Puerto Rico, the students' fathers gave more modern answers more frequently. This would suggest that, whereas students would be likely to have more specific factual general knowledge, fathers might have more practical general knowledge and experience. It must be remembered that this chapter tends to be exploratory in nature, and conclusions reached from the data presented here should be suggestive with regard to future research, rather than explanatory with regard to present theory. There is very little difference between students in the top performance quartile and their fathers regarding questions concerning behavior. Students gave modern answers more frequently concerning the number of organizations to which they belonged, but there was no significant difference in the frequency with which they listened to or read the news. Four of the attitudinal questions differentiated between the students and their fathers. These were the questions concerning involvement in public issues, qualification for leadership, factors most important

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

151

for the future of Puerto Rico, and birth control. In all these questions, students gave a higher percentage of modern responses than their fathers. The differences in the first three questions are perhaps mildly surprising, since the fathers gave a significantly greater number of modern answers to the question regarding the number of problems facing Puerto Rico. Table 8.3 contains the data for comparison of the answers of students in the bottom quartile with their fathers. The data presented in the previous chapter gives evidence that there is no significant correlation between the modernity levels of students in the lowest quartile and the modernity levels of their fathers. Therefore it is not surprising to find that although among the fifteen questions nine show significant differ8.3 DIFFERENCES IN PERCENTAGES OF MODERN ANSWERS ON THE OM QUESTIONNAIRE BETWEEN STUDENTS IN THE BOTTOM QUARTILE OF GRADEPOINT AVERAGE AND THEIR FATHERS Question t 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

t + ++ ** ***

Students Rio

Fathers %

Difference

22+ 71++ 69 88 60 68 77 86 17 52 32 22 71 77 40

21 72 80 84 48 66 65 70 30 45 44 71 51 47 35

1 —1 —11** 4 12** 2 12** 16*** —13*** 7 —12**

For the entire questions see Appendix I, pp. 173-5. Range is from 203 to 334 except where noted. N is 68. Significant at the .01 level. Significant at the .001 level.

20*** 30*** 5

152

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

ences between these two groups, in four it is the fathers who give the higher percentage of modern answers and in five it is the students. With regard to the questions concerning information, it can again be seen that the students give a higher percentage of modern answers to the questions concerning the location of Moscow and Lima. On the questions concerning the number of problems facing Puerto Rico, however, modern answers are three times as frequent among the fathers as among the bottom quartile students. Approximately the same percentage of fathers of bottom quartile students -gave modern answers to this question as of fathers of top quartile students. Only 22% of the lower quartile students themselves, however, answered this question in a modern fashion as compared to 55% of the top quartile students. Once again there is virtually no difference between bottom quartile students and their fathers with regard to the frequency with which they read or listen to the news. The other question concerning behavior, the one about the number of organizations to which the subject belongs, however, shows significant results. A higher percentage of modern answers came from the fathers than from the students. This result is directly opposite to the one between top quartile students and their fathers. Concerning the attitudinal questions, significant differences are found with five. For questions three and nine, dealing with the usefulness of change and the ability to understand foreigners, the fathers of the students respond with more modern answers than do the students themselves. Neither of these questions differentiated between students in the top quartiles and their fathers. For questions five, seven, and eight, on the other hand, dealing with factors important for Puerto Rico's future, birth control, and type of news interests, respectively, the students responded with more modern answers. The first two of these showed similar results in the data presented in table 8.2. Differences Between Students and Their Mothers The differences in percentage of modern responses between students and their mothers will be considered next. Table 8.4 presents the data for students in the top quartile and their mothers. Virtually every question yields a significant response, and the differences are all in the same direction, in that students give a higher percentage of modern answers than do their mothers. There is no correlation between the modernity levels of top quartile students and those of their mothers, as can be seen from the data presented in chapter seven, but it seems

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

153

that the mothers' modernity scores, on the average, are lower than those of the students. Data for the questions on informational items show that the students have a much higher modernity percentage for the two questions dealing with location of Moscow and Lima than do their mothers. For the other informational question concerning the number of problem facing Puerto Rico, however, the difference is insignificant. The relationship between top quartile students and their mothers regarding the informational questions is similar to that between the same students and their fathers, except that the mothers appear to respond with fewer modern answers than the fathers on all three of these questions. Differences between mothers and fathers will be discussed specifically later in this chapter. TABLE 8.4 DIFFERENCES IN PERCENTAGES OF MODERN ANSWERS ON THE OM QUESTIONNAIRE BETWEEN STUDENTS IN THE TOP QUARTILE OF GRADEPOINT AVERAGE AND THEIR MOTHERS Question t Concern for Public Issues Education Level Desirable Usefulness of Change Qualifications for Office Future of Puerto Rico Beneficience of Research Birth Control News Interests Understanding Foreigners Need for Religion Number of Organizations Number of Problems Location of Moscow Location of Lima Frequency of News Source

j+ * ** ***

Mothers %

Difference

37+ 88 80 98 69 62 82 80 38 49 51 55 88 87 46

23 79 76 81 36 52 68 63 17 24 43 50 27 45 36

14*** 9** 4 17*** 33*** 10** 16*** 17*** 21*** 25*** 8* 5 61*** 42*** 10**

For the entire questions see Appendix I, pp. 173-5. N Range from 190 to 342. Significant at the .05 level. Significant at the .01 level. Significant at the .001 level. is

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Students %

154

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

For both the behavioral questions the top quartile students gave a significantly larger percentage of modern responses than did their mothers. The difference on the question regarding the number of organizations to which the subject belongs is significant at the .05 level, while the differences on the question regarding the frequency with which the subject reads or listens to the news is significant at the .01 level. There is only one of the attitudinal questions which does not differentiate between the top quartile students and their mothers. This is the third question, dealing with the usefulness of change. For all of the other attitudinal questions, the students give a higher percentage of modern answers than do their mothers. The data comparing the students in the bottom quartile with their mothers is presented in table 8.5. There are four questions which do not differentiate between the two categories. But of the eleven which do, in contrast to the data presented in the previous table, for one of them the mothers give a significantly higher percentage than do the students. For the three informational questions, results of comparison between the lower quartile students and their mothers are similar to the results between both quartiles of students and their fathers. For the two questions concerning the location of Moscow and Lima the students give a much higher percentage of modern answers than do their mothers, but for the number of problems facing Puerto Rico, the mothers give a higher percentage of modern responses than do the students. Concerning the behavioral questions, the frequency with which the news is read or listened to significantly differentiates these two groups. There is, however, no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the number of organizations to which the respondents belong. The results of the answers to these questions are different here as compared to the results between either quartile of students and their fathers. In those cases, the questions concerning organizations showed more differentiation than did the one concerning the news. Three of the attitudinal questions show no significant differences between bottom quartile students and their mothers. These are again, question three concerning the usefulness of change, and also questions one and nine, dealing with activity on public issues and the ability to understand foreigners, respectively. For all the others, the students' responses were significantly more modern.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

155

TAr.E 85

DIFFERENCES IN PERCENTAGES OF MODERN ANSWERS ON THE OM QUESTIONNAIRE BETWEEN STUDENTS IN THE BOTTOM QUARTILE OF GRADEPOINT AVERAGE AND THEIR MOTHERS Question t 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

***

Students %

Mothers %

Difference

22+ 71++ 69 88 60 68 77 86 17 52 32 22 71 77 40

18 57 75 70 34 58 67 61 12 24 38 43 13 29 26

4 14* — 6 18*** 26*** 10** 10** 25*** 5 28*** — 6 —21*** 58*** 48*** 14***

For the entire questions see Appendix I, pp. 173-5. N range is from 224 to 334 except where noted. N is 68. Significant at the .05 level. Significant at the .01 level. Significant at the .001 level.

Differences Between Parents In comparing fathers and mothers, the top and bottom quartile parents will again be treated as two completely separate samples, which they are. Table 8.6 contains the data comparing modern responses for the parents of the top quartile students. The modernity levels of mothers and fathers correlate significantly for both quartiles. Only eight of the fifteen questions on the OM questionnaire differentiate significantly between fathers and mothers of the top quartile students. For all of these eight questions, the fathers' percentage of modern responses is higher than the mothers' percentage.

156

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

TABLE 8.6 DIFFERENCES IN PERCENTAGES OF MODERN ANSWERS ON THE OM QUESTIONNAIRE BETWEEN FATHERS AND MOTHERS OF STUDENTS IN THE TOP QUARTILE OF GRADEPOINT AVERAGE Question t 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

t + * ** ***

Fathers %

Mothers Rio

Difference

24+ 84 83 84 52 59 62 82 35 49 44 68 67 58 40

23 79 76 81 36 52 68 63 17 24 43 50 27 45 36

1 5 7* 3 16*** 7 — 6 19*** 18*** 25*** 1 18*** 40*** 13** 4

For the entire questions see Appendix I, pp. 173-5. N range is from 230 to 315. Significant at the .05 level. Significant at the .01 level. Significant at the .001 level.

Breaking these responses down into the categories we have been using shows fairly clearly marked differences. In all of the three informational questions the fathers give a significantly greater percentage of modern answers than do the mothers. In the two informational questions, 'on the other hand, there is no significant difference between the two categories. Five of the ten attitudinal questions produce significant differences. These are the ones relating to the usefulness of change, factors important for the future of Puerto Rico, types of news considered of most interest, ability to understand foreigners, and the necessity of religion. The weakest of the five items in terms of significance is the first one concerning change, which is significant only at the .05 level.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

157

Comparisons between percentages of modern answers given by parents of the students in the bottom quartile are given in table 8.7. Eleven of the questions show significant differences, and once again, for all these questions for which a significant difference is obtained, the fathers of the students give a higher percentage of modern answers than do the mothers. For all three informational questions a strongly significant difference is obtained, which was the case concerning the parents of the top quartile. Concerning the two behavioral questions, the question regarding the number of organizations to which the subject belongs does not differentiate between the parents, but the question regarding the frequency with which news is read or listened to gives a difference between mothers and fathers which is significant at the .01 level. TABLE 8.7 DIFFERENCES IN PERCENTAGES OF MODERN ANSWERS ON THE OM QUESTIONNAIRE BETWEEN FATHERS AND MOTHERS OF STUDENTS IN THE BOTTOM QUARTILE OF GRADEPOINT AVERAGE Question t 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

j+ * ** ***

Fathers %

Mothers %

Difference

21+ 72 80 84 48 66 65 70 30 45 44 71 51 47 35

18 57 75 70 34 58 67 61 12 24 38 43 13 29 26

3 15*** 5 14*** 14*** 8* — 2 9* 18*** 21*** 6 28*** 38*** 18*** 9**

For the entire questions see Appendix I, pp. 173-5. N range is from 203 to 307. Significant at the .05 level. Significant at the .01 level. Significant at the .001 level.

158

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

Three of the attitudinal questions fail to differentiate between the mothers and the fathers of the bottom quartile students. One of these, question three, dealing with the usefulness of change, was one of the questions for which a significant difference was demonstrated between the top quartile parents. The other two for which no difference was shown between the bottom quartile parents, questions one and seven, regarding activity on public issues and birth control, respectively, also failed to differentiate between the fathers and mothers of the students in the top quartile. Conclusions The previous sections of this chapter have been concerned with describing the data obtained concerning differences in the percentage of modern answers given to questions of the OM questionnaire by the subjects studied in this project. In this concluding section an attempt will be made to see if any pattern can be detected in the way the questions differentiate between the members of the various categories studied. As was noted previously, the purpose of these conclusions is not to prove a point or a hypothesis already offered, but rather to suggest a basis for further research. It will probably be best to begin with the same categories used up to this point: informational, behavioral, and attitudinal questions. As far as the informational questions are concerned, the two regarding the location of Moscow and Lima are the most consistent. For these two questions the top quartile students give more modern answers than students of the bottom quartile, students of either quartile more than parents of either sex, and fathers of students in either quartile more than the mothers. As was suggested previously, this is perhaps because this type of factual information is similar to type of factual information with which the classroom deals directly, making it more likely that those experiencing classroom activity and performing well there will tend to have more of this information than will others. The factual informational questions would therefore be expected to correlate most closely with level of education, and the students since all of they are all in high school, have a higher level of education collectively than do their parents of either sex. For the informational questions regarding the number of problems facing Puerto Rico, the pattern is different. Here the parents, except for top quartile mothers, consistently give more modern responses than do the students of either quartile, and fathers in both quartiles

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

159

give more modern responses than do mothers. Perhaps the reason for these results is that this question measures, in part, information gathered from experience, and therefore parents, who have had more experience than students, give more modern responses to the question. Although the data is not shown in tabular form here, it can be noted that, although the students gave fewer problems as facing Puerto Rico, the problems they listed tended to relate to the Vietnam war, and other broad issues. The parents, on the other hand, tended to list more local issues. This perhaps shows again the idealism of the students as compared to the practical experience of their parents as well as a greater concern with a world beyond Puerto Rico. About the only thing which can be noted about the two questions concerning behavior is their inconsistency. Neither the question relating to the frequency with which news is read or listened to nor the one concerning the number of organizations to which the subject belongs yield any consistent pattern of results among the various categories of subjects under study here. The answers to the questions do not even correlate with modernity levels themselves. For example, there is no differentiation between students in the top and bottom quartiles on the first of these questions, although the modernity levels for the former category are higher than those for the latter. In determining what conclusions may be drawn from the attitudinal questions, an attempt will first be made to identify which questions show particular patterns of response. There are two of the attitudinal questions for which students consistently give higher percentages of modern responses than either of their parents, for both quartiles. These are question five, dealing with factors important for the future of Puerto Rico, and question seven, dealing with birth control. For question five, top quartile students give a significantly higher number of modern responses than do bottom quartile students, and fathers give a significantly higher number of modern responses than do mothers in both quartiles under consideration. Question seven, concerning birth control, however, although significantly differentiating between students and their parents in both quartiles, does not differentiate between top and bottom quartile students, nor does it differentiate between fathers and mothers of students in either quartile. The fact that there is little difference between parents by sex regarding ideas on birth control is not surprising, for this has been suggested in studies of this particular issue in Puerto Rico? It is interesting, however, to find that students generally are more modern on this issue. This is perhaps due to the fact that information on which this issue is based tends to come from peers rather than from parents, at least where the students are

160

INEKE CUNNING H AM

concerned. The results of question five, on the other hand, are somewhat confusing. It was just pointed out that the parents generally tended to be more modern concerning the question dealing with the number of problems facing Puerto Rico, and the question under consideration now seems to be similar to that one, although it gives very different results. Perhaps the difference has to do with idealism and practical experience. If this is so, students would tend to be more modern with regard to the former, and parents more modern with regard to the latter. Question two, regarding the amount of education which is desirable, differentiates strongly between the top quartile and bottom quartile students, which is not surprising, . as they are already differentiated on an educational variable. It also differentiates between students and their mothers for both quartiles, but not between students and their fathers. Perhaps fathers with their closer relationship to the occupational structure, have a greater awareness of the value of education than do the mothers. Two other questions differentiate between students and their mothers for both quartiles, but not between students and their fathers for either quartile. These are questions six, dealing with the benefits of scientific research, and question ten, dealing with the necessity of being religious. Neither question differentiates between the students of the top and bottom quartiles, but both differentiate fathers and mothers, although only for the bottom quartile in the case of question six. Religion is probably more important to the women of Puerto Rico than to the men. However, the reason for the answers concerning scientific research is more obscure. Perhaps it was unfortunate to use the example of being able to predict the sex of a child as part of the question, and this example accounts perhaps for the differentiation of parents by sex. Question eight, concerning the type of news which most interests the subject, also seems to differentiate more significantly between students and their mothers than between students and their fathers, but the results are inconsistent, in that there is a significant difference between students of the lower quartile and their fathers, and a negative difference between top and bottom quartile students or, in other words, bottom quartile students give more modern answers than do top quartile students for this question. It is therefore dif• ficult to offer a reason for the difference. Two of the questions seem to differentiate better with regard to performance of the student than with regard to the sex of the parent, as those above have done. These are question one, regarding activity

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

161

on public issues, and four, regarding qualifications considered necessary for public office. For these questions there is a significant difference between students in the top quartile and their parents of either sex, but, with one exception, no difference between students in the bottom quartile and their parents. The exception is that there is a significant difference between students of the bottom quartile and their mothers. Both questions differentiate students of the top quartile from those of the bottom, but neither differentiates between parents. Theretore these questions are likely to be linked more closely with academic performance than some of the others, although the exact nature of this linkage is obscured. Questions three and nine, relating to the usefulness of change and the ability to understand foreigners, respectively, show no consistent patterns of differentiation between the categories studied here. For the question concerning foreigners, however, it is interesting that no category studied gave a percentage of modern answers to this question that was higher than 38 %. This would suggest, therefore, that Puerto Ricans perhaps have little empathy, in general, with foreign people, empathy used, in this case, concerning a person-person relationship rather than a person-environment relationship, as contrasted to the sense in which it is used by Lerner.8 It would be interesting to pursue this question further to learn why this is the case. The attitudinal questions have therefore been categorized losely into four categories: those that show a consistent differentiation between all the students and all their parents, those that show a consistent differentiation between all students and their mothers but not their fathers, those that show differentiation between top quartile students only and all their parents, and those that show no consistent pattern of differentiation at all. It remains for further research to identify reasons for these groupings and patterns. The data available here only allows for the identification of these patterns, and not for their full explanation.

Noiss 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

See Appendix I, pp. 173-5. See data and conclusions from chapter seven. See page 84 for explanation. Blalock, op. cit., pp. 149-52. Edwards, op. cit., pp. 22433. See page 82 above. Hill, Stycos, and Back, op. cit.; Stycos, op. cit. See page 19 above.

CONCLUSIONS Findings This report has dealt with the concepts of modernity and academic performance in a select group of high school students, their peers, and the parents of those who were among the top and bottom quartiles in academic performance. An attempt has been made to relate these two concepts in several ways. In this chapter the methods and findings of the document will be reviewed, and some comments will be offered both as to how the project might have been improved upon and the implications the findings may have on the possibilities of further study of the present data, as well as policy implications. Our interest which formed the basis for this project lies in the relationship between modernization and the school system. We proposed in the initial chapter that modernity could be developed more easily in the school system than in the home environment, and, therefore, attitudes of modernity should be taught to students if they are to participate fully in the course of Puerto Rico's modernization. As causal analysis cannot be accomplished because of the limitations, previously mentioned, which have been placed on this study, the central aim of the report has been to examine three hypotheses, the acceptance of which would make the proposed theory more tenable. These three hypotheses are: (1) that there will be a significantly positive correlation between the individual student's modernity and his academic performance; (2) that there will be a significantly positive correlation between student modernity levels and the modernity levels of their peers; and (3) that although there may be a positive correlation between parental modernity levels and student academic performance, it will be less significant than the correlation between student modernity and student academic performance, and also less significant than the one between peer modernity and student academic performance.

164

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

As a measure of modernity, one of the two major variables, the OM score developed by Inkeles and his colleagues has been chosen. This is a measure of both attitudes and behavior, with a definite emphasis on attitudes. The theoretical basis and statistical derivation of the measurement have been carefully delineated in chapters two and five. The OM score is basically a questionnaire based on certain themes considered to be important components of the attitude set of modernity. In other words, it is a collected measurement of subjective feelings, developed into an objective score through statistical manipulations. The use of such a variable in this study needs to be defended, particularly in light of the fact that another variable which has probably had even wider use in the field of sociology, Lenski's concept of status crystallization, has been rejected as an acceptable measurement of adult socioeconomic status on the basis that it is of questionable validity. The major basis for questioning the validity of status consistency was the observation by Stehr that status consistency is an objective measure which supposedly causes stress, a highly subjective measure' However, the use of the OM score as a modernity measure does not have the same methodological problem. In the first place, modernity is not an objective construct. It is a very subjective variable, being objective only in its computation. Also, in contrast to status crystallization, it can lead to behavior, or modernizing activity, or participation in modernization. These are objective and theoretically measurable variables. Therefore the variable used here proceeds from subjective to objective measurement. Defending a major variable of a thesis under the chapter heading, «Conclusions», perhaps seems a little strange. However, this is not the sole defense of this variable presented. This section is included here only because the use of socioeconomic status as a parental performance variable was considered in an analysis chapter. The point must therefore be clarified that, although we are willing to reject one variable, we do not accept another that is in some ways similar chiefly because of its utility. The theoretical background presented in chapter two is a sound enough defense of the use of the OM variable. There is no question as to the usefulness of gradepoint average as an index for the other major variable, academic performance. However, one suspicion that arises frequently in the analysis of the data here presented is that, although modernity and academic performance are useful variables, they are not really distinct from each other. As will be noted presently, they are definitely highly correlated. But they also vary in very similar ways with respect to almost every variable

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

16$

against which they have been measured. There is some indirect evidence of some differences, such as the fact that sexual differentiation of correlations between parental and student modernity is slightly different from that between parental and student performance. However, the force of this evidence is somewhat weakened by the fact that the correlations between parental and student performance, though for the most part positive, are not for the most part marked. Probably the strongest statistical evidence which can be mustered here to show that the two variables are really distinct from each other is the evidence that when students and peers are being compared, the positive correlation between student academic performance and peer academic performance does not disappear when modernity is controlled, nor does the positive correlation between peer modernity and student modernity disappear when academic performance is controlled, as can be seen in tables 6.24 and 6.26. If modernity and performance were measuring the same variable the relationship between either one and some other variable would be expected to weaken considerably if the other one were controlled. However, the fact that variables do not lose their significance when other variables are controlled is not in itself sufficient basis to judge the variables as operationally distinct from each other. Modernity is derived from themes covering social psychological attitudes. As the measurement of modernity is not based in any way on academic performance, and the measurement of academic performance is not contingent on modernity, academic performance and modernity are operationally distinct variables. Theoretically they should be positively correlated, also. As we claimed in chapter one, modernization is a positive goal for the society, and it was implied in the first section of chapter three that the educational system should be oriented to a large measure toward the goals of the society. Therefore education and modernity should be highly correlated. That there is a close association between modernity and academic performance is borne out by this study. Whether modernity is the independent variable and education or academic performance is the dependent variable, however, or vice versa, cannot be determined here. Perhaps the fact that increasing years in school do not correlate with greater modernity, that is, that tenth graders are as modern as twelfth graders, and that there is no relationship between age and modernity among the students, gives indirect evidence that modernity is the independent variable and academic performance is the dependent one. However, this evidence is not sufficient, because the data gives no further evidence as to the source of modernity if it is not dependent

166

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

upon education, in this project. When the problem was stated in chapter one it was acknowledged that causality would be beyond the limits of this report, and indeed it is. It has also been found in this study that there is a very close association between peer modernity and academic performance and student modernity and academic performance. This is particularly true for performance measurements, althoug the significance of the student-peer modernity correlation is also significant to the .001 level. Again there is merely a highly significant correlation established. There is no information present which would establish which of these is the dependent and which the independent variable. There is also a positive association between student performance and parental performance and in most instances a positive correlation between student and parental OM scores. The significance of these relationships is consistently lower than that for relationships between students and peers concerning the same variables. There is also a sex difference in these relationships. Students tend to correlate with their fathers' modernity levels and performance variables to a slightly greater degree than they do with their mothers, although girls' modernity levels correlate better with their mothers' levels than with their fathers'. After reviewing evidence presented in the body of this report, we now can turn again to the hypotheses which have been the bases for this study. Hypothesis (1), concerning student modernity and student academic performance, can be accepted according to the data which has been presented. Hypothesis (2), concerning student modernity and peer modernity, can also be accepted, although performance variables are more higly correlated between students and peers than are modernity levels. Hypothesis (3), concerning parental modernity and student performance as compared to student modernity and student performance and peer modernity and student performance also can be accepted. The correlations between the parental performance variables chosen here and student academic performance are not as strong nor as consistent as that between parental modernity and student performance. As was pointed out earlier, this is perhaps due as much to the difficulty in choosing a variable to represent parental performance as to actual lack of correlation between parental performance and student performance. The correlation between parental modernity and student modernity is weak and inconsistent, whereas there is very little correlation, if any, between parental performance variables and student modernity.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

167

The correlation between student and peer modernity is higher than that between student and parent modernity, which gives evidence for the consideration that modernity is a quality developed to a greater extent at school than at home for those who go to school. A student is modern, therefore, not because his peers are, but because he has been exposed to a system, the educational system, in which the qualities of modernity are regarded highly. His peers are modern because they have been exposed to the same system. Both student and peer are modern to the extent that they perform better in this environment. Thus the weak correlation between parental and student modernity is a result of the strength of the school as an institution that teaches those attitudes which lead to modernity as compared to the home. Limitations Every research project has certain limitations and this one is no exception. Many of the limitations faced are material limitations because of lack of funds, time, or similar resources. Those faced in this study were mentioned in chapter five. Other limitations involved in research deal not so much with what is done, or the methodology, but rather with interpretation or analysis. These are questions of limitation which will be discussed below. There were some limitations placed on the project which, like funds, limited what could be done in gathering data. Chief among these was the time limit placed on the student questionnaire. The director placed a time limit of about thirty minutes on the student questionnaire so that co-oporeation would be better obtained from the high school administration. This made it necessary to use the shortest of the modernity questionnaires developed by Inkeles. Although, as shown in chapter five, this was satisfactorily correlated to the original measuring instrument, any of the longer but still abbreviated versions had higher correlations and tapped more items. Also, as the questionnaire time was limited to what could easily be administered in one home room period and administration was therefore carried out by instructed home room teachers, timing for the word test and arithmetic test portions of the questionnaire could not be controlled. If the student volunteers from the University of Puerto Rico who interviewed the parents had also administered these questionnaires to the students this portion of the data as well as information about student-teacher relationships might have been salvaged, but such was not done.

168

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

Perhaps the most unfortunate consequence of the questionnaire time limitation was that due to this limitation there was no satisfactory way to include a measure of motivation in the testing instrument. The very indirect evidence concerning motivation which was gathered is hardly sufficient to give a view as to what the relationship of motivation is to either academic performance or to modernity. The nature of the variable would indicate that its effects would not be negligible concerning either. McClelland in his measurement uses as one of the major aspects of his modernization variable motivation. The conclusions of this study would be strengthened by the inclusion of a motivation variable, and should an attempt be made to replicate the study such a variable should be included. One of the major problems faced by any researcher is that of the generalizability of his information. As the basic sample here is a total sample, it is completely generalizable, but only to the student body of the Ponce de León High School during the school year of 1967-68. There is no way of determining that the same findings would result from a similar study of any other school or even of students of this school in any other year. The Ponce de León High School has no merits which would make it «representative» of any category of high schools. Its student body, as was noted in chapter five, is not a representative student body. Therefore our data is not generalizable to more than one high school in a society with dozens of high schools. However, the fact that the data generated by this study is not widely applicable does not destroy the utility of the project. The data does support the hypotheses originally proposed, which were developed on a much broader basis than the Ponce de León High School. Therefore we can believe our hypotheses have merit and apply them with more confidence. Proof has not been offered that Ponce de León High School is a typical high school in the Puerto Rican educational system. Rather, evidence has been gained from the Ponce de León High school that our hypotheses are generally applicable to Puerto Rico. Only evidence has been gathered, and not proof. But evidence is sufficient to lend confidence to our hypotheses, even if it will not impart certainty. The need to choose between a stratified and a random sample of parents was another limiting factor of the research. A stratified sample loses some of the validity because, even though an effect may be seen consistently through all stratifications of the sample, it cannot be declared with absolute certainty that the same effects may be seen in the rest of the sample. In studying the parents of high performers and low performers exclusively, we may have discovered effects which themselves distinguish parents who are at the extremes of performance

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

169

(either high or low) from parents of «average» students. There is a difference between parents of high performers and parents of low performers, but whether the parents of those students whose academic performance lies between these extremes would be indistinguishable from either of these groups or lie somewhere in between cannot be stated. Once again, it is important that the differences noted support the hypotheses formed independently from the sample. But this support for the hypotheses does not restore the generalizability lost when the decision was made in favor of a stratified sample of parents. Another limitation placed on data interpretation by the nature of this project is the inability to perform causal analysis. This has chiefly occurred through an inability to make measurements at more than one point in time. If such measurements could have been made, a study of changes in one variable as compared to changes in the other would have shed light on causation. Another possible method to study causation would have been to manipulate either student modernity or student academic performance in one way or another, and then study the effects of this manipulation on the other variable, which is almost impossible. This of course would have been experimentation. The circumstances of this study, however, only permitted measurements at one point in time and such are insufficient for causal analysis. Implications The implications of this study will be considered from three aspects. First, implications for further use of the present data will be discussed. Then there will be a discussion of implications for further research in the area. Lastly we will consider policy implications which may be taken from the conclusions of the study. There are two directions which may be explored with the data gathered for this study. Both deal with the nature of modernity itself. As the measurement is the same, the modernity data gathered for this study could be compared with that gathered by Inkeles and his colleagues, broadening further the basis for the measurement. As the measurement of modernity is somewhat of a compendium of themes it would perhaps be of interest to determine if the quality of student modernity is the same as that of parental modernity. For example, it would be expected that a higher percentage of students than parents would give answers considered modern to the question concerning birth control, whereas parents might be more modern concerning the

170

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

extent to which they would involve themselves in public issues. Such differences are speculative, but a study of such differences would be possible with the presently available data, and should be undertaken at a later date. Implications for furthering the present study have been alluded to above. Studies over time could be attempted; either later at the same high school, or a measurement of the same students after they have entered the labor market. The study also implies that there is no satisfactory variable which can represent parental performance. All these possible directions for further research are beyond the scope of the present study, but the need for such studies is implied by our results, and is being considered. This project is to some extent policy-oriented. That is, there is some desire to discover implications for educational policy from the results. In a society which is rapidly modernizing in terms of increases in education, urbanization, industrialization, and so forth, it appears that certain students have a greater chance for social mobility in the occupational structure than do others. From our analysis it is clear that students who have modern parents, and particularly modern peers, tend to be more modern themselves, and there is a highly significant relationship between modernity and academic achievement. Although the results of this study do not permit any determination concerning causality in the relationship between academic performance and modernity, there is some extent to which academic performance can be manipulated by the educational system. Since peer modernity correlates with student modernity so much better than does parental modernity, it can be concluded that the school environment is a better environment for forming the attitudes for modernity than is the family and home environment. Therefore schools as institutions could provide students not only with skills such as reading, writing, history, and so forth, but teachers could impart such modern attitudes as empathy, planning orientation, efficacy, and so forth. These goals might require a redefinition of teacher training programs and of the objectives and the philosophy behind student education. Such objectives should be given serious consideration so that opportunities of modernity are more available to all who enter the educational system, enabling them thus to have a chance for a wider educational opportunity. It would also seem that further research is necessary concerning the topics of intelligence and ability, particularly as they relate to academic performance and modernity as discussed in this study. From the material presented in chapter three we must conclude that there well

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

171

may be differences in inherent abilities and inherent intelligence of individuals and cohorts. However, at the present time no one can measure these. All that can be measured and is measured in intelligence or ability as acquired in the home, from peers, in the social setting (e. g. the urban versus the rural place), the school, at work, and so forth. Different exposure to these variables, which are not constant for anyone, therefore, can markedly handicap many students in their academic performance in terms of grades, ability and intelligence tests. Urban children of upper and middle class background already have advantages when they enter grade school over children of the lower class. Their knowledge of words, their understanding of a level of abstract thinking, and their behavior is of a different quality; it is more similar to what teachers expect and perhaps to the norms of the overall society. Thus it would appear that the system ought to be reexamined, as at the present time in many countries individuals are not provided with certain occupational or educational opportunities because they were pre-judged in such a way that they never had a chance to develop their capacities. At a very early age tests are given to a child to measure his «intelligence» or his «ability», which at that point reflects much of his home environment in terms of knowledge. The child is put, therefore, according to the results of his grades and of these tests, into certain academic programs. Terms like «over-achievers» and «under-achievers» come into being, the meaning of which are somewhat vague and ambiguous. A child once placed in a certain academic program often has little chance of moving into an academic program of a higher quality. As he has been put into a specific academic program at an early age, so have other children of similar backgrounds, and thus the child receives little academic stimulation from his peers. From the present study it can be seen that this would lead to a similar limitation on the development of attitudes of modernity. This child statistically speaking will have less modern parents and less modern peers, factors which correlate with his level of modernity and academic performance. His teachers often define this child as «dumb» or unable to learn z and therefore here too, the situation has been defined in such a way that he is not taught as much as he could be. Future grades and results of future ability and intelligence tests will be similar to those already received at an earlier age and thus the vicious circle becomes true; the child has learned less and he has been taught less in the educational institution. Not only are individuals cheated out of opportunities to advance themselves in many countries, but these societies in turn are cheated

172

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

out of the best manpower in terms of skill and knowledge, because the pool of individuals from which candidates for certain positions are sought has been severely limited by present educational policies. The same holds true for many so-called developed nations where students have been channeled through the educational institutions as described and where teachers advance on the basis of seniority rather than performance. At the beginning of this report it was noted that the shortage of trained manpower is perhaps the most crucial shortage facing developing nations today. The data collected from the present study certainly lends support to, even if it does not prove, the idea that every child must be given the broadest possible educational opportunities and support if the society of which they are a part is to develop to its fullest potential.

op.

Nores 1. Stehr, op. cit. 2. Rosenthal and Jacobsen,

cit.

APPENDIX INKELES QUESTIONS SHORT FORM Ó 1. Have you ever gotten so highly concerned regarding some public issue, such as housing public, welfare, or others, that you really wanted to do something about it? 1 = frequently 2 = a few times 3 = never 2. If schooling is freely available, how much education do you think children of people like yourself should have? Year, or course and educational level 3. Some say that it is useful to change one's ideas about how to do things, others think that it is not worth it because the known and familiar are the better. Do you believe that to think in new forms of doing things is: 1 = always useful 2 = in general useful 3 = useful only once in a while 4 = rarely useful 4. Ideally what should most qualify a man to hold a high public position? 1 = coming from a distinguished family 2 = high education and special knowledge 3 = devotion to time-honored ways 4 = being most popular among people

174

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

5. Which is the most important for the future of Puerto Rico? 1 = the hard work of people 2 = God's help 3 = good planning on part of the government 4 = good luck 6. Scientists in universities are studying such questions as what determines whether a baby is a boy or a girl, and how a seed turns into a plant. Do you think that these types of research are: 1 = always very beneficial 2 = all somewhat beneficial 3 = all somewhat harmful 4 = all very harmful 7. Some people say that it is necessary for a man and his wife to limit the number of children to be born so that they can better care for those they have. Others say that it is wrong for a man and his wife to limit the number of children they have. With which opinion do you agree? 8. What type of news interests you most? News about? 1 = Puerto Rico 2 = your hometown 3 = world events 4 = sports 5 = religious events 9. If you were to meet a person who lives in another country a long way off, like Japan, could you understand his way of thinking? 1 = yes 2=no 10. Do you think that a man can truly be good without any religion? 1 = yes 2 = conditional/depends on his actions 3=no

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

175

11. Do you belong to any organizations (associations, clubs), such as for example, social clubs, unions, sports clubs, religious organizations, political groups or any other group? Number of memberships and types of memberships were recorded. 12. Would you tell me what are the biggest problems you see facing your country? Number and types of problems mentioned were recorded. 13. Where is Moscow? 14. Where is Lima? 15. How often do you get news and information from newspapers? 1 = every day 2 = a few times a week 3 = occasionally 4 = never All questions have explicit coding instructions from Inkeles. In case of the self-administered questionnaire other answers were written in which a panel of judges examined as to whether they could be judged as modern or non-modern.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Albizu-Miranda, Carlos; Matlin, Norman; and Stanton, Howard R. The Successful Retardate. San Juan: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Department of Education, 1966. Alexander, C. Norman, Jr. and Campbell, Ernest O. "Peer Influences on Adolescent Educational Aspirations and Attainments." American Sociological Review, Vol. 29 (1964), pp. 568-75. Anderson, C. Arnold. "The Impact of the Educational System on Technological Change and Modernization," in Bert F. Hoselitz and Wilbert E. Moore, editors. Industrialization and Society. Paris: Unesco-Mouton, 1963, pp. 259-78. "A Skeptical Note on Education and Mobility." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 66 (1961), pp. 1-16. Atkinson, John W., editor. Motives in Fantasy, Action and Society. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1958. Barton, H. C., Jr. "Puerto Rico's Industrial Development Program: 19421960" a paper presented at a seminar for the Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, October 29, 1958. Bayley, Nancy. "Development of Mental Abilities." Paul H. Mussen, editor, Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology, Volume 1, third edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970, pp. 1168-70. Bereiter, Carl. "The Future of Individual Differences." Harvard Educational Review. Vol. 38 (1969), pp. 310-8. Berger, Bennett M. Working Class Suburbs. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1960. Black, C. E. The Dynamics of Modernization, New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1966. Blalock, Hubert K., Jr. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Boyle, Richard P. "The Effect of High School on Students Aspiration. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 71 (1966), pp. 628-39. 12. S

178

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

Braham, M. "Peer Group Deterrents to Intellectual Development During Adolescence." Educational Theory, Vol. 15 (1965), pp. 248-58. Brazziel, William F. "A Letter From the South." Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 348-56. Brittain, Clay V. "Age and Sex of Siblings and Conformity Toward Parents Versus Peers in Adolescence." Child Development, Vol. 37 (1966), pp. 709-14. Bruckman, Sister M. Annata and Reeves, A. W. "Relationship Between Transciency and Test Achievement." Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 13 (1967), pp. 319-30. Brown, Roger. Social Psychology. New York: The Free Press, 1967. Brockman, Idel. "The Relationships Between Achievement Motivation and Sex, Age, and Social Class, School Stream, and Intelligence." British Journal Social and Child Psychology, Vol. 5 (1966), pp. 211-20. Brussell, Charles B. Disadvantaged Mexican American Children in Early Educational Experience. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Corporation, 1968. Burt, Cyril. "The Inheritance of Mental Ability." American Psychologist, Vol. 13 (1958), pp. 1-15.

Campbell, Donald T. and Fiske, Donald W. "Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod matrix." Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56 (1959), pp. 81-105. Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C. "Experimental and QuasiExperimental Desings for Research on Teaching" in N. L. Gage, ed. Research and Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally and Handbook Company, 1963, pp. 171-246. Cantor, Gordon N. "Responses of Infants and Children to Complex and Novel Stimulations," in Lewis P. Lipsitt and Charles S. Spiker, editors. Advances in Child Development and Behavior. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 1963, pp. 1-30. Cantril, Hadley. The Pattern Human Concerns. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1966. Chambliss, William J. "The Selection of Friends." Social Forces, Vol. 43 (1965), pp. 90-7. Chein, Isadore. "On the Nature of Intelligence." Journal General Psychology, Vol. 32 (1945), pp. 111-26. Chopra, Lal Sukhendra. "Family Size and Sibling Position as Related to Measured Intelligence and Academic Achievement." Journal Social Psychology, Vol. 70 (1966), pp. 133-7. Cicirelli, Victor G. "Form of Relationship Between Creativity, I.Q., and Academic Achievement." Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 56 (1965), pp. 303-8. "Sibling Constellation. Creativity, I.Q., and Academic Achievement." Child Development, Vol. 38 (1967), pp. 481-90.

179

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Coleman, James S., et al. Equality Educational Opportunity. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966. Cowen, E. T., et al., "The Relation of Anxiety and Behavioral Measures? Child Development, Vol. 36 (1965), pp. 685-95. Cronbach, Lee J. "Heredity, Environment, and Educational Policy." Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 338-41. Crow, James F. "Genetic Theories and Influences: Comments on the Value of Diversity." Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 301-9. Cunningham, Ineke. "An Inventory of Research in Puerto Rico Relevant to Social Change and Public Policy." in Millard Hansen, editor. Social Change and Public Policy: A Seminar at the University Puerto Rico, 20-24, February, 1967. Río Piedras: Social Science Research Center, 1968, pp. 44-74. Davis, Kingsley. "The Sociology of Parent-Youth Conflict." American Sociological Review, Vol. 5 (1940), pp. 523-35. Department of Health. Annual Vital Statistics Report, 1968. San Juan: Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, 1968. Deutsch, Martin. "Happenings on the Way Back to the Forum: Social Science, I.Q. and Racial Differences Revisited." Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 523-7. Dobriner, William S. Class in Suburbia. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1963. Drass, Robert E., Jr. "Industrialization and Stratification Change in Puerto Rico." Evanston: Northwestern University, unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1970.

E/4353 "United Nations Economic and Social Council Report" undated. Edwards, M. P. and Tyler, L. E. "Intelligence, Creativity, and Achievement Educational in a Non-Selective Public Junior High School." Journal Psychology, Vol. 56 (1965), pp. 96-9. Eisenstadt, S. N. Modernization: Protest and Change. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1966. "Archetypal Patterns of Youth." Daedalus, Vol. 91 (1962), pp. 28-46. Elder, Glen W., Jr. "Family Structure and Educational Attainment: A CrossNational Analysis." American Sociological Review, Vol. 30 (1965), pp. 81-96. Elkin, David. "Piagetian and Psychometric Conceptions of Intelligence." Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 319-37. Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L. and Jarvik, Lissy F. "Genetics and Intelligence: A Review." in Daniel N. Robinson, editor. Heredity and Achievement. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970, pp. 329-34. Faris, Robert E. L. "Reflections on the Ability Dimension in Human Society? American Sociological Review, Vol. 26 (1961), pp. 835-43. 12. • s

180

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

Feldman, Arnold. "Evolutionary Theory and Social Change" in Herbert R. Barringer, George I. Blanksten, and Raymond W. Mack, eds. Social Change in Developing Areas. Cambridge: Schenkman Publishing Company, 1965, pp. 273-84. Feldman, Arnold S. and Hum, Cristopher. "The Experience of Modernization." Sociometry, Vol. 29 (1966), pp. 378-95. Feldman, Arnold S., et al. "Modernization and Mobility." Evanston: Northwestern University, Department of Sociology, 1967, mimeographed. Feldman, Arnold S. and Kendrick, John M. "The Experience of Change in Puerto Rico." Evanston: Northwestern University, Department of Sociology, undated, mimeographed. Feldstein, John F.; Thurston, John R.; and Benning, James J. "Classroom Behavior, Intelligence, and Achievement." Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 36 (1967), pp. 82-7. Freeman, Linton C. Elementary Applied Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965. Ginzburg, Eli and Smith, Herbert A. Manpower Strategy for Developing Countries: Lessons from Ethiopia. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. Glenn, Norval D. "The Trend in Differences in Attitudes and Behavior by Educational Level." Sociology of Education, Vol. 39 (1968), pp. 255-75. Goslin, David A. The School in Contemporary Society. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1965. The Search for Ability: Standardized Testing in Social Perspective. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1963. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1956. "Intelligence has Three Facets." Science, Vol. 160 (1968), pp. 615-20. Gusfield, Joseph R. "Tradition and Modernity: Misplaced Polarities in the Study of Social Change." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 72 (1967), pp. 351-62. Halpern, Manfred. "The Rate and Costs of Political Development." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 358 (1965), pp. 20-8. Hansen, Millard, ed. Social Change and Public Policy: A Seminar at the University of Puerto Rico 20-24 February, 1967. Río Piedras: Social Science Research Center, 1968. Hernández Alvarez, José. Return Migration to Puerto Rico. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies of the University of California, 1967. Hill, Reuben; Stycos, J. Mayone; and Back, Kurt W. The Family and Population Control: A Puerto Rican Experiment in Social Change. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1959.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

181

Hilton, Thomas L. and Meyers, Albert E. "Personal Background, Experience and High School Achievement: An Investigation of the Contribution of Questionnaire Data to Academic Prediction." Journal of Educational Measurements, Vol. 4 (1967), pp. 69-80. Hirschi, Travis and Selvin, Hanan C. Delinquency Research: An Appraisal of Analytic Methods. New York: The Free Press, 1967. Horowitz, Irving Louis. Three Worlds of Development: The Theory and Practice of International Stratification. New York. Oxford University Press, 1966. Hoselitz, Bert F. "Tradition and Economic Growth." in Ralph Braibanti and Joseph Spengler, eds. Tradition, Values, and Socio-Economic Development. Durham: Duke University Press, 1961, pp. 83-113. Humphreys, Lloyd G. "The Organization of Human Abilities." American Psychologist, Vol. 17 (1962), pp. 475-83. Hunt, J. McV. "Has Compensatory Education Failed? Has It Been Attempted?" Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 278-300. Intelligence and Experience. New York: Ronald Press, 1961. Hunter, Robert J. "Historical Survey of the Puerto Rico Status Question, 1898-1965." in Status of Puerto Rico. Selected background studies prepared for the United States-Puerto Rico Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico, 1966, pp. 50-146. Huntley, R. M. C. "Heritability of Intelligence." in J. W. Meade and A. S. Parks, eds. Genetic and Environmental Factors in Human Ability. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966, pp. 201-18. Hyman, Herbert H. "The Value System of different Classes: A Social Psychological Contribution to the Analysis of Stratification." in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset, eds. Class, Status and Power. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953, pp. 426-42. Inkeles, Alex. "Comments on John Stephenson's Is Everyone Going Modern?." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 75 (1969), pp. 146-51. "Industrial Man." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 66 (1960), pp. 1-31. "The Modernization of Man." in Myron Weiner, ed., Modernization: The Dynamics of Growth. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966, pp. 138-50. "The Modernization of Man: A General Description of the Harvard Project on Sociocultural Aspects of Development." Cambridge: Center for International Affairs of Harvard University, no date, mimeographed. "Participant Citizenship in Six Developing Countries." American Political Science Review, Vol. 63 (1969), pp. 1120-41. "Personality and Social Structure." in Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, eds., Sociology Today: Problems and Prospects. New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1959, pp. 249-76. Inkeles, Alex and Levinson, Daniel. "The Personality System and the Socio-

182

IAIEKE CUNNINGHAM

cultural System in Large Scale Organizations." Sociometry, Vol. 26 (1963), pp. 217-9. Izard, Walter S.; Schooler, Eugene W.; and Vietorisz, Thomas. Industrial Complex Analysis and Regional Development: A Case Study of RefineryPetrochemical-Synthetic-Fiber and Puerto Rico. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959. Jacobs, Robert. "The School and Social Development — A Response." in Hobert W. Burns, ed. Education and Development of Nations. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1963. Jensen, Arthur R. "How Much Can We Boost I.Q. and Scholastic Achievement." Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 1-123. Kagan, Jerome S. "Inadequate Evidence and Illogical Conclusions." Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 274-7. Kagan, Jerome S., et al. "Personality and I.Q. Change." Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, Vol. 56 (1958), pp. 261-8. Kahl, Joseph A. "Educational and Operational Aspirations of Common Man Boys." Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 23 (1953), pp. 186-203. The Measurement of Modernism: A Study of Values in Brazil and Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1966. "Some Measurements of Achievement Orientation." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 70 (1965), pp. 669-81. Kahl, Joseph A. and Davis, James A. "A Comparison of Indexes of SocioEconomic Status." American Sociological Review, Vol. 20 (1955), pp. 317-25. Katkovsky, Walter; Crandell, Virginia C.; and Good, Susanne. "Parental Antecedents of Children's Beliefs in Internal/External Control of Reinforcement in Intellectual Achievement Situations." Child Development, Vol. 38 (1967), pp. 765-76. Kendrick, Barbara J. "Education, Industrialization, and Occupation Career Consequences: Chameleon, Not Social Effects." Evanston: Northwestern University, unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1970. Kendrick, John M. "Inter-Generational Educational Mobility During the Industrialization of Puerto Rico." Evanston: Northwestern University, unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1970. Kenkel, William F. "The Relationship Between Status Consistency and Politicoeconomic Attitudes." American Sociological Review, Vol. 21 (1956), pp. 365-8. Kessen, William; Haith, Marshall M.; and Salatapek, Philip H. "Human Infancy: A Bibliography and Guide." in Paul H. Mussen, ed. Carmichaet's Manual of Child Psychology, vol. 1, third edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970, pp. 287-446. Kessler, Jane W. "Environmental Components of Measured Intelligence." School Review, Vol. 73 (1965), pp. 206-25.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

183

Keyfitz, Nathan and Flieger, Wilhelm. World Population: An Analysis of Vital Data. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. King, Edmund J. Education and Social Change. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Ltd., 1966. Klineberg, Otto. "Negro-White Differences in Intelligence Test Performance: A New Look at an Old Problem." American Psychologist, Vol. 18 (1963), pp. 189-203. Kluckhohn, Clyde. "Values and Value-Orientations in the Theory of Action: An Exploration in Definition and Classification." in Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, eds., Toward A General Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951, pp. 388-432. Krauss, Irving. "Source of Educational Aspirations Among Working Class Youth." American Sociological Review, Vol. 29 (1964), pp. 867-79. Landy, David. Tropical Childhood: Cultural Transmissions and Learning in a Rural Puerto Rican Village. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1959. Laswell, Harold and Kaplan, Abraham. Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950. Lavin, David E. The Predicition of Academic Performance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965. Le Compte, William and Le Compte, Güney. "Effects of Education and Intercultural Contact on Traditional Attitudes in Turkey." Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 80 (1969), pp. 11-21. Lenski, Gerhard. "Comment on Kenkel's Communication." American Sociological Review, Vol. 21 (1956), pp. 368-9. . "Social Participation and Status Crystallization." American Sociological Review, Vol. 21 (1956), pp. 458-64. "Status Crystallization: A Non-Vertical Dimension of Social Status." American Sociological Review, Vol. 19 (1954), pp. 405-13. Lerner, Daniel. "Modernization: Social Aspects." in David L. Sills, ed. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 10. New York: The Macmillan Company and the Free Press, 1968, pp. 386.94. The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle East. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1958. Levy, Marion J., Jr. Modernization and the Structure of Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966. "Social Patterns (Structures) and Problems of Modernization." in Wilbert E. Moore and Robert M. Cook, eds. RPzidings in Social Change. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1967, pp. 189-208. Lewis, Gordon K. Puerto Rico: Freedom and Power in the Caribbean. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1963. Lewis, Oscar. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty. New York: Random House, 1966.

184

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

Liska, Allen E. "Uses and Misuses of Tautologies in Social Psychology." Sociometry, Vol. 32 (1969), pp. 44457. McClelland, David C. The Achieving Society. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1961. "Measuring Motivation in Phantasy: The Achievement Motive" in Harold Guetzkow, editor. Groups Leadership, and Men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press, 1951. McClelland, David C., et al. "The Effect of Need for Achievement on Thematic Apperception." Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 37 (1949), pp. 242-55. McDill, E. L. and Coleman, J. "Family and Peer Influence in College Plans of High School Students." Sociology of Education, Vol. 38 (1965), pp. 112-6. Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957. Mills, C. Wright. "The Problem of Industrial Development." in Irving L. Horowitz, editor. Power, Politics, and People: The Collected Works of C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press, 1963. Moore, Wilbert E. Social Change. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1963. Morris, John L.; Pestaner, Mariana; and Nelson, Albert. "Mobility and Achievement." Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 35 (1967), pp. 7480. Morrow, William R. and Wilson, Robert C. "Family Relations of Fright High-Achieving and Under-Achieving High School Boys." Child Development, Vol. 32 (1961), pp. 501-10. Moscoso, Theodore. "Industrial Development in Puerto Rico." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 285 (1953), pp. 60-70. Nettl, J. P. and Robertson, Roland. International Systems and the Modernization of Societies. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968. Nieves Falcón, Luis. Recruitment to Higher Education in Puerto Rico, 19401960. Río Piedras: Editorial Universitaria, 1965. Nisbet, John. "Family Environment and Intelligence." Eugenics Review, Vol. 45 (1953), pp. 31-42. Nisbet, John D. and Entwistle, N. J. "Intelligence and Family Size." British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 37 (1967), pp. 188-93. Pearlin, L. I. and Kohn, M. L. "Social Class, Occupation and Parental Value: A Cross-National Study." American Sociological Review, Vol. 31 (1966), pp. 466-79. Perloff, Harvey S. Puerto Rico's Economic Future: A Study in Planned Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. Piaget, Jean. "Retributive and Distributive Justice." in Edgar F. Borgatta

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

185

and Henry J. Meyer, eds. Sociological Theory: Present Day Sociology from the Past. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961, pp. 90-7. Pihlblad, C. T. and Gregory, C. L. "Occupational Selection and Intelligence in Rural Communities and Small Towns in Missouri." American Sociological Review, Vol. 21 (1956), pp. 63-71. Pye, Lucian. Politics, Personality, and Nation Building: Burma's Search for Identity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962. Reynolds, Lloyd G. and Gregory, Peter. Wages, Productivity and Industrialization in Puerto Rico. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1965. Riesman, David. The Lonely Crowd: A Study of Changing American Character. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950. Robinson, Burton W. "A Study of Anxiety and Academic Achievement." Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 30 (1966), pp. 165-7. Robinson, W. P. "The Achievement Motive, Academic success, and Intelligence Test Scores." British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 4 (1965), pp. 93-105. Rodríguez Bou, Ismael. "Significant Factors in the Development of Education in Puerto Rico." in Status of Puerto Rico. Selected background studies prepared for the United States-Puerto Rico Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico, 1966, pp. 127-314. Rogler, Lloyd H. and Hollingshead, August B. Trapped: Families and Schizophrenia. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956. Rokeach, Milton. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968. Rosen, Bernard C. "The Achievement Syndrome and Economic Growth in Brazil." Social Forces, Vol. 42 (1964), pp. 341-54. "The Achievement Syndrome: A Psycho-cultural Dimension of Social Stratification." American Sociological Review, Vol. 21 (1956), pp. 203-211. "Conflicting Group Membership: A Study of Parent-Peer Group Cross-Pressures." American Sociological Review, Vol. 20 (1955), pp. 155-61. "Socialization and Achievement Motivation in Brazil." American Sociological Review, Vol. 27 (1962), pp. 612-24. Rosen, Bernard C. and D'Andrade, Roy. "The Psych000cial Origins of Achievement Motivation." Sociometry, Vol. 22 (1959), pp. 185-218. Rosenthal, Robert and Jacobsen, Lenore. "Teachers' Expectancies: Determinants of Pupils I.Q. Gains." Psychological Reports, Vol. 19 (1966), pp. 115-8. Rudolph, Lloyd I. and Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber. The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. Scanzoni, John. "Inconclusiveness in Family Sources of Achievement." Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 9 (1966), pp. 108-14.

186

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

. "Socialization, N. Achievement and Achievement Values." American Sociological Review, Vol. 32 (1967), pp. 449-56. Schnaiberg, Allan. "Measuring Modernism: Theoretical and Empirical Explorations." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 76 (1970), pp. 399-425. • "The Modernizing Impact of Urbanization: A Causal Analysis." Evanston: Northwestern University, Department of Sociology, 1970. Schuman, Howard; Inkeles, Alex; and Smith, David H. "Some Social Psychological Effects and Noneffects of Literacy in a New Nation." Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 16 (1967), pp. 1-13. Shuey, Audrey M. "Testing Negro Intelligence, Controlling Environmental Factors." in Edgard F. Borgatta, editor, Social Psychology: Readings and Perspective. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1969, pp. 157-65. Singh, Amar Kumar and Inkeles, Alex. "A Cross-Cultural Measure of Modernity and Some Popular Indian Images." Journal of General and Applied Psychology, Vol. 1 (1968). Ranchi/Patna, India: Bihar Psychological Association. Smelser, Neil J. "Toward a Theory of Modernization." in Amitai Etzioni and Eva Etzioni, eds. Social Change Sources, Patterns, and Consequences. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1964. Smith, David Horton and Inkeles, Alex. "The OM Scale: A Comparative Socio Psychological Measure of Individual Modernity." Sociometry, Vol. 29 (1966), pp. 353-77. Snyder, Eldon E. "A Longitudinal Analysis of the Relationship Between High School Student Values, Social Participation, and EducationalOccupational Achievement." Sociology of Education, Vol. 42 (1969), pp. 261. Spady, William G. "Lament for the Letterman: Effects of Peer Status and Extracurricular Activities on Goals and Achievement." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 75 (1970), pp. 680-702. Stephenson, John B. "Is Everyone Going Modern? A Critique and a Suggestion for Measuring Modernism." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 74 (1968), pp. 265-75. Steward, Julian H., et al. The People of Puerto Rico: A Study in Social Anthropology. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1956. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. "Environment: The Accumulation of Effects is Yet to be Understood." Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 39 (1969), pp. 511-22. Stycos, J. Mayone. Families and Fertility in Puerto Rico: A Study of the Lower Income Group. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. Sussman, Leila. "Democratization and Class Segregation in Puerto Rican Schooling: The U. S. Model Transplanted." Sociology of Education, Vol. 41 (1968), pp. 321-41. Thomas, Edwin J. and Biddle, Bruce J. "Basic Concepts for Classifying the Phenomena of Role." in Bruce J. Biddle and Edward J. Thomas, eds.

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

187

Role Theory: Concepts and Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966, pp. 51-64. Toby, Jackson. "Orientation to Education as a Factor in the School Maladjustment of Lower-Class Children." Social Forces, Vol. 35 (1957), pp. 259-66. Turin, Melvin M. with Feldman, Arnold S. Social Class and Social Change in Puerto Rico. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. Tumin, Melvin M. and Feldman, Arnold S. "Status, Perspective, and Achievement: Education and Class Structure in Puerto Rico." American Sociological Review, Vol. 21 (1956), pp. 464-72. "Theory and Measurement of Occupational Mobility." American Sociological Review, Vol. 22 (1957), pp. 281-8. Walker, Helen M. and Lev, Joseph. Elementary Statistical Methods, third edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. Weinberg, Ian. "The Problem of the Convergence of Industrial Societies: A Critical Look at the State of Theory." A paper presented at the American Sociological Association meeting, San Francisco, 1967. Wells, Henry. The Modernization of Puerto Rico: A Political Study of Changing Values and Institutions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969. White, Robert W. "Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Confidence." Psychological Review, Vol. 66 (1959), pp. 297-333. Williams, Raymond G. and Cole, Charles. "Factors in Scholastic Performance: The Behavior Differential." Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 44 (1966), pp. 962-65. Winch, Robert F. and Blumberg, Rae Lesser. "Societal Complexity and Familial Organization." in Robert F. Winch and Louis Wolf Goodman, eds. Selected Studies in Marriage and the Family, third edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968, pp. 70-92. Wolf, Kathleen L. "Growing Up and Its Price in Three Puerto Rican Subcultures". Psychiatry, Vol. 15 (1952), pp. 401-33. Wolfle, Dael. "Educational Opportunity, Measured Intelligence and Social Background." in A. H. Halsey, Jean Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson, eds. Education, Economy and Society. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961, pp. 216-40.

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 Total Puerto Rican Population and Population Urban .

Page 64

Percentage of School-Age Population in School in Puerto Rico 1940-60

5.1

Student Sample: Reasons for Exclusions .

5.2

Stratified Student Sample by Grade .

5.3

Parents and Guardians Who Were Interviewed .

6.1

Skill Aspirations of Students by Sex .

6.2

Ordinal Association Between Student Age and Modernity Score

6.3

Student Sex and Modernity

6.4

Ordinal Association Between Number of Years Student Lived in the United States and Modernity . . .

Whether or Not Students Have Migrated to San Juan and Modernity Score

Ordinal Associations Between Personality Characteristics of Students as Evaluated by Their Teachers and Modernity Scores .

101

Ordinal Associations Between Personality Characteristics of Students as Evaluated by Their Teachers and Academic Performance as Measured by Sample Position . . . .

101

Associations Between Student Personality Characteristics and Student Modernity Scores With Student Academic Performance Measured By Sample Position Controlled . . .

103

4.2

6.5 6.6 6.7

6.8

190

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

6.9

Associations Between Student Personality Characteristics and Student Academic Performance with Student Modernity Scores Controlled

6.10 Profiles of High School Gradepoint Averages .

103 106

6.11 Profiles of Gradepoint Averages of Early Grades For the Students in the Sample

106

6.12 Ordinal Association Between Fourth Grade Gradepoint Average And Sample Position

107

6.13 Ordinal Association Between Ninth Grade Gradepoint Average and Sample Position

107

6.14 Ordinal Association Between Score of Habilidad General-4 Ability Test and Tenth Grade Gradepoint Average .

108

6.15 Ordinal Association Between Score of Habilidad General-4 Ability Test and Eleventh Grade Gradepoint Average .

109

6.16 Ordinal Association Between Score of Habilidad General-4 Ability Test and Twelfth Grade Gradepoint Average .

109

6.17 Pearsonian Correlations of Student Modernity Scores with Gradepoint Averages

111

6.18 Ordinal Association of Student Modernity Scores with Student Academic Performance as Measured by Sample Position . .

111

6.19 Pearsonian Correlations of Student Modernity Scores with Ability Test Scores

112

6.20 Modernity Score Profiles for Students and Peers

113

6.21 Peer Gradepoint Averages

114

6.22 Correlations Between Student and Peer Modernity Scores and Gradepoint Averages

115

6.23 Ordinal Associations Between Peer Academic Performance and Student Academic Performance Measured as Gradepoint Averages

116

6.24 Ordinal Associations Between Peer Modernity Scores and Student Modernity Scores with Peer Gradepoint Average and Student Academic Performance Measured by Sample Position Controlled

118

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

191

6.25 Ordinal Associations Between Peer Academic Performance Measured by Gradepoint Average and Student Academic Performance Measured By Sample Position with Peer Modernity Scores and Student Modernity Scores Controlled . . .

119

Differences Between Mothers in the Top Quartile and Those in the Bottom Quartile (Based on Student Academic Performance) Concerning Modernity Scores, Years of Education, and Performance on the Word and Arithmetic Tests . .

122

Differences Between Fathers in the Top Quartile and Those in the Bottom Quartile (Based on Student Academic Performance) Concerning Modernity Scores, Years of Education, and Performance on the Word and Arithmetic Tests . . .

123

Pearsonian Correlations Between Student, Parent, and Peer Modernity Scores, Top Quartile

126

Pearsonian Correlations Between Student, Parent, and Peer Modernity Scores, Bottom Quartile . . . .

126

Ordinal Associations Between Parental and Student Modernity Scores by Sex, Top Quartile . . . . .

127

Ordinal Associations Between Parental and Student Modernity . . . Scores by Sex, Bottom Quartile . . .

127

Ordinal Associations Between Modernity Score and Age, Marital Status, Number of Children, Rural-Urban Migration Determined by Length of Time Lived Outside San Juan, and United States Puerto Rican Migration Determined by Length of Time Lived in the United States, Among Mothers . .

129

Ordinal Associations Between Modernity Score and Age, Marital Status, Number of Children, Rural-Urban Migration Determined by the Length of Time Lived Outside San Juan, and United States-Puerto Rican Migration Determined by Length of Time Lived in the United States Among Fathers . .

130

Differences by Median Test Between Parents in the Top Quartile and Those in the Bottom Quartile (Based in Student Academic Performance) Concerning the Socioeconomic Variables of Years of Education, Occupational Skill, Total Family Income and Per Capita Income

137

7.1

7.2

7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7

7.8

7.9

7.10 Ordinal Associations Between Student Modernity Score and the Parental Socioeconomic Variables of Years of Education, Oc-

192

INEKE CUNNINGHAM

cupational Skill, Total Family Income, and Per Capita Income for the Top Quartile . . . . . . . . . . . .

139

7.11 Ordinal Associations Between Student Modernity Score and the Parental Socioeconomic Variables of Years of Education, Occupational Skill, Total Family Income, and Per Capita Income for the Bottom Quartile

140

7.12 Ordinal Associations Between Parental Modernity Scores and Socioeconomic Variables of Years of Education, Occupational Skill, Total Family Income, and Per Capita Income for the Top Quartile

141

7.13 Ordinal Associations Between Parental Modernity Scores and Socioeconomic Variables of Years of Education, Occupational Skill, Total Family Income, and Per Capita Income for the Bottom Quartile

142

8.1

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

Differences in Percentages of Modern Answers on the OM Questionnaire Between Students in the Top and Bottom Quartiles by Gradepoint Average

147

Differences in Percentages of Modern Answers on the OM Questionnaire Between Students in the Top Quartile of Gradepoint Average and Their Fathers

149

Differences in Percentages of Modern Answers on the OM Questionnaire Between Students in the Bottom Quartile of Gradepoint Average and Their Fathers

151

Differences in Percentages of Modern Answers on the OM Questionnaire Between Students in the Top Quartile of Gradepoint Average and Their Mothers

153

Differences in Percentages of Modern Answers on the OM Questionnaire Between Students in the Bottom Quartile of Gradepoint Average and Their Mothers

155

Differences in Percentages of Modern Answers on the OM Questionnaire Between Fathers and Mothers of Students in the Top Quartile of Gradepoint Average

156

Differences in Percentages of Modern Answers on the OM Questionnaire Between Fathers and Mothers of Students in the Bottom Quartile of Gradepoint Average

157

MODERNITY AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

193

LIST OF CHARTS Chart I. Themes of Modernity

Page 82

II. Criteria For Choosing Questionnaire Items

III. Steps in Choosing the Fifteen-Item Modernity Questionnaire

Este libro se terminó de imprimir el día 20 de abril de 1972 en los Talleres de Artes Gráficas de Manuel Pareja Montaña, 16 - Barcelona (España)

THE SOBER GENERATION: CHILDREN OF OPERATION BOOTSTRAP —A Topology of Competent Coping by Adolescents in Modern Puerto Rico, R. Fernández Marina, M.D., U. von Eckardt, Ph.D., and E. Maldonado Sierra, M.D. (University of Puerto Rico Press, 1969). Published also under the auspices of the Social Science Research Center of the University of Puerto Rico and researched at the Puerto Rico Institute of Psychiatry with a NIMH grant, The Sober Generation is the story of ten boys and ten girls of modern Puerto Rico. The book lets them describe, in excerpts from three years of tape-recorded interviews, their joys and their problems, their ideas and their values, their ambitions and hopes. This book traces the psychological devices by which these adolescents cope succesfully with rapid social change, with conflicting values and norms, and with the need to find a positive identity for themselves and their country. It discovers uniquely Puerto Rican patterns of chaperonage, dating, and family structure. Richly illustrated the volume contains sixty-four pages of sociograms and graphs specially drawn for the book by J. A. Torres Martinó. XLVIII/800 text pages, and 78 bar and circle graphs Paperback $6.00 Hardcover $8.00

UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO PRESS SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO 00931

Y Z ? Ú