Nota editorial En nuestro interés por preservar la...

Nota editorial En nuestro interés por preservar la integridad histórica de la Revista Educación, todos los artículos de la colección se presentan en su estado original. Por esto la calidad visual varía de un artículo a otro y de acuerdo a su fecha de publicación.

E S T U D I O S

93

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CLASSROOM COPING BEHAVIORIN THE ENGLISH AND SPANISH CLASSES OF RETURN MIGRANT

AND NON-MIGRANT PUERTO RICAN STUDENTS

Isidra Albino Serrano

Introduction

Puerto Rican migrants accompanied by their children and grandchildrenhave been returning to Puerto Rico in substantial numbers during the pasttwo decades (1970’s and 1980’s). This return migration has been part of acontinuous circular flow between Puerto Rico and the United States (Ashton,1980; Prewitt and Díaz, 1982). The influx of return migrants to the island wasestimated at 34,000 per year in the late 1970’s (Junta de Planificación de P.R.,1984).

The impact of return migrants on Puerto Rican society was considered tobe highly controversial (Oyola, 1983; Underhill, 1981). The Department ofEducation seems to be the institution which has received the greatest impactfrom this return migration. Statistical figures from the Department indicatethat in 1984 there were 708,673 students in the public school system. Withinthis population, 78,401 were return migrant students. This amounts to 11percent of the total enrollment. According to Llabrés de Charneco (1984), theywere all in need of special language instruction and the majority hadproblems of academic achievement and school desertion.

Iliana Baldoni, Director of the Bilingual Program of the Department ofEducation (personal communication, January 12, 1990) said that even thoughthe last formal study conducted by the Junta de Planificación de Puerto Ricodates from 1984, her office keeps a record of the return migrant students whoarrive from the United States every year. Between 1987 and 1988,approximately 24,000 return migrant students enrolled in the public schoolsystem of Puerto Rico. Baldoni explained that this figure does not includemany return migrants who registered in the private school system nor does itinclude the many students who attended local public schools for no morethan two or three months at a time. During the winter, many Puerto Ricansreturn to Puerto Rico with their families. The children attend local schoolsduring their stay and after a few months they return to the U.S. mainland.These students find themselves in frequent transition between one schoolenvironment and another, having to face the problems inherent to suchchange.

By experimenting with coping behaviors, return migrant students attemptadaptation. Their successful adjustment to the change in school environment

94

EDUCACIÓN

demands coping skills and behaviors which may or may not appropriatelydevelop during their brief periods of residence in Puerto Rico.

The return migrant students’ behavior in the Puerto Rico school systemhas been the subject of several studies and publications. The findings of manyof these indicate problems in school adjustment. (Álvarez Domínguez, 1984;Carrasquillo & Carrasquillo, 1983; Condon, et al., 1979; Curran, 1985;Friedman, 1980 - 1982; Kaplan, 1983; Ramos Perea, 1972; Rivera Medina,1984).

Ramos Perea (1972, p. 11) asserts that the return migrant students’knowledge of English per se and their lack of knowledge of Spanish may beone of the main causes of their problems of adjustment to the local schoolenvironment.

Other studies deal specifically with the return migrant students’ problemsfrom the perspective of their observed behavior. For example, Kavetsky(1978) reported:

‘‘Teachers and school officials, on the whole, tend to stereotypethe return migrant students as low achievers, trouble makers,aggressive, indisciplined, disrespectful, lacking an identity andnot knowing either English or Spanish.’’ (p.13)

As to the return migrant students’ classroom problems, Lacot (1983), aformer Secretary of Education, indicated:

‘‘Puerto Rican students who migrate to the United States andattend schools there often face language barriers due to lack ofEnglish proficiency, particularly conversational English. They alsoencounter cultural differences, social rejection, poverty, andlimited health services. This situation is not remedied upon theirreturn to Puerto Rico. On the contrary, they meet with similarproblems of social acceptance by their peers, cultural adjustmentdifficulties and serious limitations in their ability to interact. Thelack of language ability in English while in the United States andin Spanish while in Puerto Rico is a basic problem among migrantstudents. This lack of communicative competence affects them incoping with situations in the classroom.’’ (p. 3)

Kaplan (1983) also reported that return migrants faced linguisticdifficulties with English and Spanish as well as various problems with the thepublic school curriculum of Puerto Rico. He added that teachers often feelembarrassed because many return migrant students speak English betterthan they do. He continued:

‘‘Their personal style and command of English tend to arouseresentment and their skills in language are often considered asource of difficulty rather than a strength. As a general rule theircommand of Spanish is not nearly as strong as their non-

95

A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .

migratory peers in the classroom. They crack the homogeneity ofthe typical Puerto Rican classroom.’’ (p. 4)

Recently, the Office of Bilingual Education conducted a survey withteachers from the Papa Juan XXIII School in Bayamón, Puerto Rico. Thepurpose of this survey was to examine the situation of return migrantstudents in the classroom. Rivera (1987), a teacher in this school, observedand reported the following:

‘‘Many teachers view these students with mixed feelings andoften stereotype them. In the United States they have been forcedto play the role of ‘Spicks’, and when they return to Puerto Rico,they are called ‘gringos’, ‘americanos’, or the modern term,‘Niuyoricans’. They have to face prejudice and misunderstandingin both settings.’’ (p.23)

Straits (1987, p. 7) asserts that language is one of the difficulties that returnmigrant students encounter; another is the social environment. Languageproblems, cultural discrimination, and low self-concept were three factorsidentified as possible causes for students’ problems of school adjustment.Limitations in the use of Spanish in Puerto Rico or English in the UnitedStates hinder the students’ general progress, their self-image and their senseof achievement.

Curran (1985, p. 6) states that ‘‘the cyclical pattern of continuing migrationgives credence to the fact that return migrant students will not disappearover the years as the students are assimilated into the Puerto Rican culture’’.

Given that the return migrant students’ situation in the schools has beengenerally described as problematic, available studies in the classroomscenario were analyzed (Furlong, 1976; Glicksman, 1982; Solomon & Kendall,1979). Only a scant few were conducted in the Puerto Rico educationalsystem and none were conducted in the classroom. There is one studyinvolving direct observation, carried out during no more than three classperiods (Curran, 1985).

Other return migrant students studies report that these studentsimprovise ways of behaving in their attempts to adapt to the classroomsituation. Solomon and Kendall (1979) assert that coping and adaptation aretwo reciprocal processes of classroom behavior.

These students’ experiences in American mainland schools has also beennegative. Méndez (1971, p. 9) states that: ‘‘Puerto Rican migrant studentshave been impaired by their inability to adopt expected classroom behavioron the mainland. As a result, many are placed in lower academic groups andolder students are referred to vocational areas.’’

In general, return migration of Puerto Ricans from the United Statesmainland has produced a school population described by researchers asbroadly maladjusted. Even though many studies provide supportive

96

EDUCACIÓN

evidence for the existence of this situation (López Laguerre, 1982; RamosPerea, 1972; Rivera Medina, 1984), few of them have been performed at theclassroom level or have viewed the problem from the perspective of thestudents themselves. In addition, some studies contain mere opinions aboutthese students’ problems (Friedman, 1980, 1982; Underhill, 1981). The authorfound no studies based on the observation of students’ classroom copingbehavior as the main source of data.

Statement of the Problem

This study addresses the problems encountered by return migrantstudents in facing change in their classroom environments from mainlandAmerican schools to those of the public school system of Puerto Rico. Suchchange requires new coping behaviors. The study focuses on language classesbecause language is basic to the educational process and underlies all schoolactivities.

The problem analyzed in this descriptive study was the return migrantstudents’ problems of adjustment in the language classrooms of Puerto Ricanschools as observed through their coping behavior. This behavior may beclassified as aggressive, inappropriate, integrative or uninvolved. The returnmigrant students’ classroom coping behavior was compared to non-migrantstudents in the same language classrooms. Classroom coping behavior wasthe principal construct in this research and the main variable analyzed.1 Thereturn migrant students’ problem of maladjustment in the school may wellstem from their lack of communicative competence in Spanish and theirrelative knowledge of English vis-a-vis other students who share their PuertoRican roots but whose linguistic competencies are opposite in relative fluencyand other significant characteristics. Non - migrant students exhibitsignificantly higher communicative competence in Spanish. These studentsknow some English because they have experience formal schooling therein,but they do not always possess the communicative competence necessary tointeract in English with their returning school companions.2

The Coping Analysis Schedule for Educational Settings (CASES)developed by Spaulding (1983) was was the assessment instrument chosenfor the present study. This system codes students’ behavior includingnegative, attention getting, passive aggression, self - directed activities,cooperative behavior, and others. Behaviors were classified in four maincategories: aggressive, inappropriate, integrative, and uninvolved. Thisfacilitated the assessment of intergroup behavior by means of correlations.The return migrant students’ classroom coping behavior in their English or

1 According to Kelly (1963), constructs are ways of construing the world and thus enable the self-justification andadoption of verbal and non-verbal behaviors. Coping behavior is the students’ way of dealing with situations inthe classroom.

2 Spanish is the principal medium of instruction all disciplines throughout the public school system of Puerto Rico.

97


Spanish classes was coded by way of behavior indicators subsequentlyclassified as aggressive, inappropriate, integrative, or uninvolved.

Purpose of the Study

The aim of this study was to describe classroom coping behavior asdefined in the four categories chosen for analysis and to formally comparethe behaviors observed. The classroom coping behaviors of four returnmigrant students were observed and compared to that of four non-migrantstudents in each of the aforementioned behavioral categories.

The study describes and compares student coping behavior in theclassroom environment. It does not analyze the factors inherent to saidenvironment, such as teacher and curriculum characteristics that may alsobear on the problems of return migrant students. Each category wassubdivided into specific indicators of behavior. The students’ behavior wasdescribed from the viewpoint of persons coping with the immediateenvironments of their language courses.

Research Questions

The following research questions were answered:1. Aggressive behavior

a. Do return migrant students exhibit aggressive behavior in coping withthe language classroom environment?

b. Are there significant differences between return migrant andnon - migrant students with respect to aggressive behavior in the Englishand Spanish classrooms?

2. Inappropriate behaviora. Do return migrant students exhibit inappropriate behavior in coping

with the language classroom environment?b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and

non - migrant students with respect to inappropriate behavior in theEnglish and Spanish classrooms?

3. Integrative behaviora. Do return migrant students exhibit integrative behavior in coping with

the language classrooms environment?b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and

non - migrant students with respect to integrative behavior in the Englishand Spanish classrooms?

98

EDUCACIÓN

4. Uninvolved behaviora. Do return migrant students exhibit uninvolved behavior in coping with

the language classrooms environment?b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and non-

migrant students with respect to uninvolved behavior in their Englishand Spanish classrooms?

Operational Definitions

The following operational definitions were adopted:

Return migrant students: Students who had studied in schools in the UnitedStates mainland and were attending the Trina Padilla High School, the site ofthe study, whose dominant language was English. Their knowledge ofEnglish was one result of their migration experience. They had lived in theUnited States mainland and returned to Puerto Rico during the last twoyears. Their scores in the Language Assessment Battery (LAB) test identifiedthem as return migrant students.

Non - migrant Puerto Rican students: Students who had not studied in theUnited States and whose dominant language was Spanish. They were in thesame English and Spanish classes as the return migrants. Their scores in theLAB test identified them as non - migrant students.

Classroom coping behavior: The manifestation of students’ behavior in theirprocess of adjustment to the English and Spanish classroom environments asmeasured by the Coping Analysis Schedule for Educational Settings (CASES)used in this study. The coping behavior construct was categorized asaggressive, inappropriate, integrative and uninvolved.

The Spanish class: In the Puerto Rico Public School System, this consists of afifty-minute daily class meeting, five days a week, for the teaching of Spanishas a school subject. Spanish is taught as a first language even though Spanishis in fact their second language as a result of early migration.

The English class: In the Puerto Rico Public School System, this consists of afifty-minute class meeting, five days a week, for the teaching of English as asecond language. This is based on the fact that English is a second languagethroughout Puerto Rico.

These definitions apply to the regular public schools in Puerto Rico. Thereare several bilingual schools in Puerto Rico where the programs of study aredifferent. For example, the Padre Rufo School located in Santurce, PuertoRico, offers a program which provides two hours of daily Spanishinstruction. Content classes are taught entirely in English.

99


Importance of the Study

Return migrant students have been generally identified as havingadjustment problems in the school environments of both mainland Americanand Puerto Rican schools. In addition to research in the social andpsychosocial fields carried out by Condon (1979), Kaplan (1983), LópezLaguerre (1982), Lucca, et. al. (1981) and Ramos Perea (1972), documents,surveys and reports from teachers at the Department of Education provideadditional evidence of such problems. In examining and describing thereturn migrant students’ classroom coping behavior, new alternatives mayarise to help along their process of adjustment to the typical Puerto Ricanclassroom.

Review of the Literature

Although Vivó (1982, p. 1) indicates that return migration has beenstudied extensively, there is little formal research to be found about PuertoRican migrant students in the school environment. Here in Puerto Rico, aswell as in the United States, research has been mostly done from the teachers’perspective, based on their opinions about return migrant students. Most ofthe papers found were socio-demographic in nature or else needs assessmentstudies for federal grant programs. Empirical studies concerned with studentbehavior in the classroom or in the schools in general were not available.

The studies examined in this review demonstrate how school adjustmentproblems are transferred or carried over from the schools in the United Statesto the schools In Puerto Rico and vice versa. The mere act of relocationimplies the carryover of such problems. A study of migrant Mexicanelementary students’ language background and academic achievement in theCalifornia school system (Morris, et al, 1967) analyzed the effects of mobility.They concluded that mobility is ‘‘ . . . one of the greatest dislocative factors inthe life of the students’’. (p.5)

Researchers at Rutgers University (Condon, Peters, & Ross, 1979)developed a teacher training project in Bilingual Education and coordinatededucational services for Puerto Rican students in a joint effort with the Stateof New Jersey Department of Education. Eighty five percent of the studentsserved were Puerto Ricans. The researchers performed extensive needsassessments and investigated migrant students’ influx and departures,evaluated the transfer record system, and corroborated academic needs. As aresult of their overall analysis Condon, et al. state the following:

‘‘One important issue in American education is the challenge ofproviding an effective education for thousands of Spanishspeaking students who attend schools in the country. Many ofthem do not possess the language skills needed to function in anEnglish speaking environment . . .’’ (p. 1)

100

EDUCACIÓN

In other words, the language barrier is a principal source of migrantstudents’ problems of adjustment in American schools. With regard tostudent behavior, the researchers concluded:

‘‘An unacceptably large number of Puerto Rican pupils have beencategorized as antisocial, aggressive, withdrawn, anxious, andhelpless. These pupils have been diagnosed as maladjusted orbehaviorally disordered and placed in special classes. The hiddenfactor which causes many of these pupils to temporarily exhibitsuch behaviors as withdrawal, poor academic achievement,aggression, and helplessness is migration/re - migration. Mostschools do not have adequate programs to help the pupils in theadjustment process, and the majority of the parents lack the skillsneeded to help their children.’’ (p. 31)

Condon, et. al., also studied Anglo American teachers’ expectations ofSpanish speaking students and found that these did not coincide withdemonstrated behavior. All alternative behavior to the one expected in agiven situation was thought of as negative or deviant from the norm.

Other research on Puerto Rican return migrant students was conductedby the School of Education of Pennsylvania State University. Nogueras andPrewitt-Díaz (1980) and Seilhamer and Prewitt-Díaz (1982) studied the effectof the return migration process on the students’ school adjustment. The firstproblem they observed was that frequent re-migration created a newgeneration of students with the same cultural roots but with different culturalpatterns (p. 8). Their findings pointed to a problem of school adjustment inboth the American and the Puerto Rican schools. In both cases, the problemwas closely related to the existing language barrier. These researchersdescribed the return migrant students as poorly adjusted in school, lacking inconfidence, fraught with feelings of inferiority and low self esteem. Theywere often described by teachers as low achievers, trouble makers,aggressive, and undisciplined.

Prewitt-Díaz (1979, p. 4) in his description of the typical Puerto Ricanstudent on the mainland lists several sources of conflict between home andclassroom behavior. These are:

1. Instability resulting from the migration process2. Language problems3. Different expectations in the areas of motor skills and manipulation of

educational materials4. Different attitudes in relation to competitiveness and individualism5. Different attitudes toward female authority6. Different attitudes regarding obedience to adults

101A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .

7. Physical modesty that tended to preclude participation in physicaleducation classes

8. Premature family responsibilitiesSeveral descriptive studies have been conducted in Puerto Rico on the

return migrant students’ problems of adjustment. The studies of ÁlvarezMedina (1984), Curran (1985), Hamilton (1987), López Laguerre (1982), Lladó(1978), Ramos Perea (1972) and Schmidt (1984) are mostly sociodemographicin content.

Ramos Perea (1972) compared the process of school adjustment of migrantand non-migrant students by administering a questionnaire to members ofboth groups. Previous migratory experience was expected to have a strongeffect on the students’ school adjustment. Several intervening factors such asstudents’ length of residence in the United States, their social status and theirlanguage ability in Spanish were studied. A standardized reading test,Manuel’s Test of Reading, was administered to measure language proficiency.Perea’s findings, which apply directly to this study, indicate a significantstatistical difference in school adjustment of return migrant and non-migrantstudents. After administering and analyzing his adjustment questionnaire, heconcluded that ability in the use of Spanish was the most influential variablein conditioning the return migrant students’ school adjustment.

A study relating specifically to the return migrant students’ languagesituation was that of Lladó (1978). She investigated students’ preference forspeakers of Spanish over Spanish accented English, near-native English andnative English. Students rated these speakers on various semantic factors.Lladó also explored the attitudes of students concerning teaching methods,materials, importance of learning English, frequency of usage of English, andother related factors by means of a questionnaire. Results revealed that all thestudents wanted to learn English. Among other hypotheses confirmed, shefound that the higher the students’ ability in the use of English, the morewilling they were to use it. Results also showed that Spanish speakers wererated more positively than Spanish accented English speakers. In addition,the near-native English and the native English speakers were not ratedpositively. Lladó interpreted this as a reflection of the marked preference forthe use of Spanish in Puerto Rico, and a lingering resentment toward thosewho interact mostly in English. This is the situation typically faced by thereturn migrant students.

At a latter academic level, Van Trieste’s dissertation research (1985)yielded contradictory results to Lladó’s findings. In his investigation ofuniversity student attitudes toward speakers of American English and theirachievement in English as a Second Language, Van Trieste found that PuertoRican University students have positive attitudes toward American Englishspeakers. They rated English guises (voices) higher than Spanish guises.

102

EDUCACIÓN

López Laguerre (1982) studied the attitudes of Puerto Rican non-migrantstudents and teachers toward the English class and that of the returnmigrants and teachers toward the Spanish class. Her findings indicate thatthe Puerto Rican non-migrant students felt comfortable in the Spanish classbut rather uncomfortable in the English class. Conversely, the return migrantstudents who had been using English as their vehicle of communication feltuncomfortable in the Spanish class and comfortable in the English class. Oneof her conclusions was that return migrant students may tend tooveremphasize their strength in the English class. In this way, they may havesought to ‘balance’ their lack of linguistic ability in the Spanish class. Theresulting inconsistency in emotional states may have led the return migrantstudents to frustration and negative coping behavior not only in the languageclasses but in other subjects as well, thereby contributing to maladjustment.

Rivera Medina (1984) explored the relationship between self-concept andthe level of aggressiveness in return migrant students. His sample consistedof 150 students (75 females and 75 males) from schools in Levittown, PuertoRico. The findings resulting from the application of a specially developedquestionnaire attested to the fact of a significant inverse relationship betweenthe students’ self-concept and their aggressiveness.

Schmidt (1984) investigated two areas of concern with return migrantstudents’ use of English: their professors’ perceptions and the differencesbetween the return migrants (code switching students) and the non-migrants(monolingual students). The students’ perceptions of their teachers, their areaof study, and their self-image were also analyzed. Questionnaires anddictation exercises in Spanish were administered. Schmidt’s findingsindicated that students’ language usage influences teachers’ perceptions, andthat code switching students were less proficient in Spanish. They had lowergrades, and they rated themselves lower than monolinguals in self-evaluations.

Curran’s research (1985) was twofold in purpose: to carry out interactionanalysis using the FOCUS system in three social studies classes and toobserve one class and interview its students. Her study involved high schoolreturn migrant and non-migrant students and her findings indicated fewdifferences with respect to classroom participation. Differences were found inhow each group perceived the general school environment. Each grouptended to emphasize events outside the classroom.

Hamilton’s work (1987) was mostly concerned with analyzing returnmigrants’ opinions about the school environment by documenting a profile ofvarious selected characteristics such as students’ social and educationalbackground, linguistic preference (English or Spanish), linguistic difficulties(likewise), positive and negative statements about their cultural adaptation inPuerto Rico and positive and negative statements about their self-concepts.

103


All of these studies point to the fact that a lack of communicativecompetence in Spanish is a limitation in the return migrant students’ abilityto cope with the school environment in Puerto Rico. Other studies wereanalyzed to examine further these students’ problems and teachers’ ideas onthe coping behavior of their students in the classroom.

Vidal (1975) reported that return migrant students’ limitations in the useof Spanish was the reason why they clustered together in the schools whiletending to communicate mostly in English. He referred to the 60,000 pupilswho attended public schools at the time, who spoke mostly English, veryseldom in Spanish, and exhibited serious difficulties in reading and writingin Spanish.

Kavetsky (1978) also portrayed the difficulties of Puerto Rican returnmigrant students in adapting to school life. He investigated language needsand the resulting stereotypes in language usage. His main conclusion wasthat students’ lack of fluency in Spanish isolates them from their peers, giventheir tendency to keep together and stay apart from non-migrant students.

Carrasquillo and Carrasquillo (1979) claimed Puerto Rican return migrantstudents were aware of their linguistic deficiencies in Spanish, but lookedforward to acquiring fluency and becoming ‘‘real’’ Puerto Ricans. TheirSpanish was deemed strongly accented and prone to Spanglish — a mixtureof English and Spanish used in their communities in the United States. Suchuse tended to be criticized and ridiculed in Puerto Rico. This led the returnmigrant to feel unwelcome. They even felt out of place in their languageclasses, especially in the English classes, where pronunciation drills wereconstantly performed.

A study by Rivera Medina et. al. (1984) revealed that teachers’ thought ofreturn migrant students as providers of a new dimension to the classroomserving to break the environmental homogeneity typical of the Puerto Ricanpublic school classroom. They generally held to the opinion that the existingcurriculum would not work for them, while their personal styles and relativecommand of English tended to arouse resentment. Indeed, their knowledgeof English may have been a source of communicative difficulty rather thanstrength.

Emotional, psychological and social problems are implicit to the returnmigration experience due largely to the change in school setting. Thelanguage barrier is another strong contributing element. Negative copingbehavior may have its principal roots in the misunderstandings spawnedamong teachers and peers as return migrants attempt to express their ideasand feelings on uncommon and unfamiliar linguistic grounds.

Lucca et al. (1981) analyzed the Puerto Rican return migrant adolescentstudents’ problems of communication in the new school culture. They foundthat students’ cognitive views of the new school depended on the relativesuccess or failure of their social interactions. It was readily perceived that

104

EDUCACIÓN

students faced innumerable handicaps due to the language barrier. Theresearchers sought information about the nature of the migration transition,the students’ coping strategies, lifestyles and other related areas. Theyreported that return migrant adolescents experience drastic changes in theirself esteem and self identity, in their family relationships, and in broaderaspects of the new environment including its physical, interpersonal andcultural dimensions.

Pacheco (1983) claimed that return migrant students go through gradualstages of adaptation to their new environment. These range fromdisorientation and lack of adaptation to differentiation of the various aspectsof the new environment and final adaptation. Making sense of the newenvironment requires the involvement of their cognitive capacities as well astheir affective and emotional resources. Their feelings, actions and behaviorsuffer alteration. Akin to Piagets’ conceptualization (1952), Pacheco’sstudents were seen to assimilate and accommodate to their new classroomenvironment by exhibiting and experimenting with new behaviors.

Studies on Classroom Observations

Given that students in the following study were above average inlanguage proficiency, as evidenced by their scores in the LAB test, it may beinferred that their coping skills were not low and consequently, no aggressivebehavior would be expected.

Solomon and Kendall (1979) conducted a comprehensive study of studentbehavior in the classroom. This investigation, though centered on the studentas a person, collected and analyzed data about teachers’ behaviors andvarious classroom activities. Their goal was to observe ‘‘actual happenings inthe classroom.’’ (p. 41)

The present study uses methodological procedures from Solomon andKendall’s research on students’ behavior in the classrooms including the useof cognitive measures, inquiry of student motivation and measures ofstudents’ language proficiency by means of the LAB test.

The return migrant students’ problems of school maladjustment describedby Condon, (1979); Kaplan, (1983); and Rivera Medina, (1984), confirmed tosome extent that the behavioral characteristics developed through previousexperience in the mainland American schools were at odds with the PuertoRican school environment. Solomon and Kendall (1979, p. 15) predicted that ifthe match between person and environment is poor, the consequences will bepoor adjustment, personal strain and a tendency to apply inappropriatecoping behaviors.

Coping may be seen as either facilitative or defensive. It may also beviewed as adaptive behavior, that is, as an attempt to establish and maintaina relatively stable reciprocal relationship with the environment. Copingbehavior used successfully in mainland American schools may prove

105


maladaptive in its Puerto Rican counterpart, where it may be deemedaggressive or otherwise inappropriate in spite of benign intent. For example,the use of English to communicate formally or informally with others may becaused by a lack of fluency in Spanish, yet it could be otherwise perceived asunwillingness to conform with school regulations or common practice, or elseto be motivated by a desire to appear superior.

One study that was most revealing for the present effort was that ofSpaulding (1983), who examined students’ classroom coping behavior bothverbally and non-verbally by means of an observational instrumentdeveloped in 1966: the Coping Analysis Schedule for Educational Settings(CASES). The study centered on classroom observations based on behavioralindicators grouped into coping styles. Several case studies of students’behavior during classroom tasks were analyzed and grouped. In one casegroup, students demonstrated behaviors classified as dominating, aggressive,bothering and manipulative. Other case groups showed that studentsdeveloped sufficient self control, self management skills and motivation tosuccessfully perform their school work inside and outside the classroom.

Spaulding’s findings revealed typical circumstances in which givencoping styles may serve to strengthen and increase self motivation andachievement. Overall, the study demonstrated that students in all kinds ofclassroom settings can develop and sustain high levels of self-directed,responsible behavior.

Furlong (1976), analyzed what to observe in the students’ classroombehavior and what to expect, in a secondary school of a large British city. Heinvestigated the ways in which students influence each other, both in theirunderstanding of the school situation and experience, and in the types ofbehavior they generally consider appropriate. At times, they interactedindividually but when seeking support, they tended to interact in groups,each one aware of the others’ behavior. Interestingly, they often used ‘‘we’’when asked about what they were doing or saying. At times they acted alonewithout obvious communication between them, at other times the wholeclass shared the same ideas. In one instance, the student whose behavior hewas describing — Carol — ran out of the classroom shouting an answer, butthere was evidence of group support when she realized they were alllaughing, that is, they were paying attention to Carol’s actions. They allshared a common perception of the classroom situation and seemed to agreewith Carol’s behavior at that specific moment.

Furlong concluded that there was a great deal of variety in observableclassroom behavior, much of which could appear contradictory and erratic atfirst blush. He also observed that students often center their behavior aroundthe teacher, around the subject matter or else around the methodologyapplied in the classroom.

106

EDUCACIÓN

Gannaway (1976) investigated students’ definition of the classroom bylooking at the ways in which students make sense of school based onprevious experience. He divided his analysis into three areas: (a) howstudents relate to the teachers in terms of order and discipline; (b) how thestudents relate to the class based on their expectations and, (c) how thestudents rate work and boredom in school. They perceived the method usedas good if it was conducive to work; bad if it was conducive to boredom. Ifthe teacher ‘‘made sense’’ in class, because they could see a point to thelesson, he/she was to be taken seriously. Otherwise, they laughed and saidthe teacher was wasting time (pp. 51-67). One limitation of this study wasthat only verbal reactions were analyzed. Gannaway did not study thestudents’ use of silence nor their non-verbal communication.

Glickman (1982) investigated the hypothesis that the reason integrativemotivation promotes second language acquisition is that students so inclinedwill use the language classrooms as an opportunity to practice and perfecttheir second language skills. Glicksman observed his subjects (9th, 10th and11th graders) after being classified as integrative or non-integrative based ontheir responses to an attitude and motivation measure. The principalconclusion reached was that high achievement in second languageacquisition depended on the amount and nature of the students’ participationin the formal classroom setting.

Overall, review of literature suggested that the Puerto Rican returnmigrant students are viewed as maladjusted in both the American and PuertoRican schools. It also suggests that their behavior is generally viewed in anegative light by their teachers and non-migrant peers and their languageusage becomes a barrier not only because their Spanish is not fluent, but alsobecause their knowledge of English may be perceived as a handicap. Thisimplies a need for research concerned with the return migrant students’coping or adaptive behavior in the classrooms.

The present study is an example in kind. Classroom behavior wasobserved and classified into four categories: (a) aggressive, (b) inappropriate,(c) integrative and (d) uninvolved. The literature examined was instrumentalin making a choice of which classes to observe. As low proficiency in Spanishmay be a significant factor in explaining the behavior exhibited in theclassrooms (as well as the students’ use of English), these two languageclasses were selected for the study. Moreover, the role of language as acommon factor in the educational process would be examined anew as asource of facilitation or impediment resulting from the motives, attitudes andassumptions of students and teachers.

Classroom interaction implies communication. If the student exhibitscommunicative competence with teachers and peers, coping behavior in theclassroom environment can be successful as elements of common perceptionbearing on goals and feelings emerge. This relates to the humanistic

107


educational approach as a two way street: feelings must be recognized in thelearning process as an essential means of support to the effective flow ofinformation. According to Moskowitz (1978, p. 14), ‘‘Affective education iseffective education. It is a special type of interaction consisting of sharing,caring and acceptance of sensitivity.’’

In addition, Bernard and Huckins’ work (1974) on the humanisticapproach, focus on the student as a ‘‘person in the school environment’’.(pp. 3-130) ‘‘Concerns about methods, techniques, materials, and organizationmust give way to concerns about the learning atmosphere and theinterpersonal relationships which prevail in the classroom.’’ (p.23)

Newberg and Love (1982) reported that an affective education program inPhiladelphia had produced evidence of student gains in reading and writingskills. Combs (1982, p. 494) has warned that any educational system thatignores or rejects affective aspects of behavior runs the risk of making itselfineffective. He also pointed out that feelings and emotions are indicators ofthe degree to which things and events are personally relevant.

Methodology

This section describes and identifies: (a) study participants and themethods applied to their selection, (b) raters who assisted in data collection,(c) test instruments applied, (d) general data collection procedures and (e) thestatistical procedures employed in analyzing and supporting theinterpretation of data.

All study subjects were students in the Public Secondary School System ofPuerto Rico. This choice was based on two principal reasons: (a) previousresearch on the effects of return migration on students’ cognitive andaffective skills reveals that adolescents are the most seriously affected (Luccaet al., 1981), (b) The rate of flow and re-flow of students from the UnitedStates is highest among these grades according to information obtained fromthe Department of Education. (Census of the Bilingual education office andthe «Oficina de Migrantes», 1987-88). It was expected that the eight studentschosen would find successful ways of coping with their classroom situation.

The present study involved eight students (four return migrants and fournon-migrants). The rationale for using a sample of only eight subjects was,first, that the unit of analysis was not the student but the instances ofbehavior related to classroom adjustment observed per subject. It should benoted that studies of this type have been carried out successfully on a singlesubject. Simon and Boyer (1974) described 23 observation systems using onlyone subject; another ten systems involved two subjects. Spaulding’s sample(infra,1983) consisted of four students.

A second reason for using eight subjects was that study guidelinesrequired that all subjects be observed in the same classrooms. Any higher

108

EDUCACIÓN

number of subjects would have been difficult to obtain, especially amongreturn migrants of no more than two years since their return to Puerto Rico.

Subject selection was based on administration of the LanguageAssessment Battery Test (LAB-level III, grades 7-12), in both the English andSpanish to the entire class. Students scores (equivalent percentile ranks andstanines) were the specific criterion for selection. Two groups were thenpolarized, consisting of English Dominant return migrants (EDR) andSpanish Dominant non-migrants (SDN) in matched pairs for comparativeanalysis of return migrant vs non-migrant classroom coping behavior.

The test employed is the instrument of choice at the Department ofEducation of Puerto Rico, Office of Bilingual Education, for determininglanguage proficiency in English and in Spanish. This is administered to allreturn migrants as a criterion for placement in available bilingual programs.The Office of Bilingual Education was helpful in orienting the author on theuse of the test and supplied the necessary printed materials.

The participating institution was the Trina Padilla de Sanz High School ofthe Rio Piedras II School District. This was selected because the Director, Mr.Víctor Morales, had expressed concern with the problems of adjustmentexhibited by return migrants as well as their high rate of turnover. Teachersat this school confirmed a widespread lack of interest in school and highabsenteeism among return migrant students and expressed their willingnessto collaborate in this investigation.

Selection of the sample and subsequent data collection proceduresrequired more than thirty (30) visits to the school among meetings with thedirector, teachers, test administration and the videotaping of fourteen classsessions, (two for the training of raters and twelve for the study itself).

The Mathews student system (Simon and Boyer, 1974, p. 37) recommendsmore than one observer in classrooms where the behavior of more than sixstudents is to be recorded. The present study included four observers toassess consistency and improve the reliability of the observations coded.

Selection and Training of Raters

The author and three other professionals with teaching and researchexperience in the field of education carried out the full schedule ofobservations. Two raters came from the Research Center of the Faculty ofEducation, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus: Mrs. JennieRivera and Mrs. Isabel Vázquez; one rater came from the Bilingual EducationMultifunctional Service Center of Metropolitan University: Mrs. María Vega.The raters were trained over the course of eight meetings in which the aimsand scope of the study were explored, the experimental design was presentedand the application of the research instruments was discussed. Two50-minute videos of language classes were used for training in observationand analysis using the CASES system.

109


Research Instruments

Four instruments were used in this research study: (a) The LanguageAssessment Battery Test (Forms A and B), (b) The Coping Analysis Schedulefor Educational Settings (brief form), (c) The Coping Analysis Schedule forEducational Settings, a coding unit form, and (d) a Synthesis of Raters’Coding unit form.

The Language Assessment Battery Test (LAB) was the primary selectioncriterion for the sample. This test was developed and standardized by theNew York City Board of Education and is used by the Department ofEducation of Puerto Rico to assess language proficiency in English and inSpanish for the placement of migrant students in special groups. Results arereported as raw scores, percentiles, and stanines. The test uses an integrativerather than a discrete point approach for the measurement of languageproficiency. It consists of four parts: (a) listening, (b) speaking, (c) reading,and (d) writing.

Reliability of the individual subtests in the English version ranged from.80 to .95, with 80% above .87. Subtest reliability in the Spanish version iscomparable. Total test reliability (both languages) ranged from .92 to .97.

Spaulding’s CASES system was the instrument of choice for datacollection for two reasons. First, it provides for the observation of the fourcategories of classroom coping behavior included in this study. Second,Spaulding extended the use of his system by way of classroom treatments forchanging negative or indifferent coping behavior (1983). He also applied thisextension to the treatment of discipline problems in the classroom.

Emmer and Peck (1971) were early users of the CASES system in theirstudy comparing observational systems for classroom behavior. The systemwas evaluated by the Research and Development Center for TeacherEducation at the University of Texas in Austin together with three otherobservation systems with two purposes in mind: first, to determine therelationship among categories on each observation instrument, and second,to determine the relationship among dimensions of classroom behavioracross systems. Twenty eight classrooms were observed in one hundred andforty sessions. Data from twenty of the twenty eight classrooms where theCASES system was applied resulted in agreement among the observers. Thereliability coefficients reported ranged from .98 for appropriate behavior, .81for inappropriate behavior, to .35 for uninvolved.

In this study, reliability among the four raters in the use of the CASESsystem was measured by utilizing two statistical tests of concordance andcorrelation (Kendall’s W and Ave r coefficients), both of which producedconsistently high results. Validity was ensured by the diversity of behaviorobserved (Emmer and Peck (1971). Over 75 indicators of behavior wereincluded in the four behavioral categories observed: (a) aggressive, (b)inappropriate, (c) integrative, and (d) uninvolved. Other precautions taken to

110

EDUCACIÓN

ensure validity included the careful training of observers, the development ofoperational definitions of each behavior to be observed, and periodic checksof observer recording and control of observers’ biases according to Croll(1986).

The third instrument employed was the Coping Analysis Schedule forEducational Settings: a coding unit form. This consisted of a table preparedby the author for the compilation of students’ coping behavior based onSpaulding’s CASES system. Aggressive behavior was measured by nineindicators, inappropriate behavior by 22, integrative behavior by 29 anduninvolved by 17, for a total of 77 indicators among the four categories. Thetraining of raters in coding these on the two aforementioned videotapes wastaken as a pilot study. Ratings were carried out on a nominal basis:0 = absence of, and 1 = presence of each behavior.

The fourth instrument applied was the Synthesis of Raters’ Coding Unitform with the purpose of organizing and summarizing rater observations.

Data Collection Procedures

Data was collected by means of videotapes of twelve classroom sessions,six each of the English class and the Spanish class. The probabilities ofobservation were as follows: 8 students × 40 minutes of observation × 12classes. There were 3,840 probabilities of observed behavior for each rater (8 ×40 × 12 = 3,840), assuming a maximum of one recorded observation perminute. Even though each class session lasted for 50 minutes, ten minuteswere allowed for entrance/settlement and departure from the classroom.

The technique applied for observation was that of time sampling, that is,static sampling providing a snapshot of behavior. (Croll, 1986, p. 24). The timeslot was divided among the four raters so that each would observe everystudent for five minutes for a total of twenty minutes per group of four.Behavior was coded on the basis of what the student was doing at the specificmoment of observation, using the indicators of behavior provided in thecoding form.

Potential time of observation was computed as follows: 20 minutes × 12classes × 4 raters × 8 students = 7,680 minutes, that is, a maximum total of 128hours. The actual number of observations was affected by students absences;it was also affected by the fact that in a number of instances, classes wereoften reduced to approximately 30 minutes in duration. Special activitiessponsored by the Director ’s Office and different situations involving teachersor students made this a rather changeable situation.

The videotape technique of observation was chosen because ‘‘ . . . it canpresent a communicative transaction in its totality’’ (Finocchiaro, 1986,p. 114). As a study of persons in classroom situations, the videotape permitsthe rater to observe students behavior while involved in verbal and non-verbal communication with a minimum of interference. The appropriateness

111


of language used, the intent of the speaker, cultural aspects, linguisticregisters — all may be observed and classified.

The technician in charge of videotaping was instructed to record eachclass broadly. He was never instructed to focus on any student in particular,nor was he told who the real subjects were in any class. This helped to ensurethe capture of a natural classroom interaction. Similarly, the students selectedfor the sample remained unaware. Students were led to believe that thewhole class was being observed.

Aggressive coping behavior was observed and classified by means of thefollowing indicators:

1. Direct attack2. grabbing3. pushing4. hitting5. pulling6. kicking7. name calling8. destroying property9. smashing, tearing and breaking

Inappropriate behavior was recorded by means of the followingindicators:1. Negative (Inappropriate) Attention-Getting Behavior: Annoying, bothering,

whining, loud talking (when deemed unnecessary by the observer),insistent claim for attention, aversive noise making, belittling, criticizing.

2. Manipulating. Controlling and Directing Others: Pushing around, bossing,commanding, directing, enforcing rules, conniving, wheedling,controlling.

3. Resisting: Opposing, delaying; passive aggressive behavior pretending toconform, conforming to the letter but not the spirit; defensive checking.

The students’ integrative coping behavior was observed through thefollowing 29 indicators.1. Self Directed Activity: Instances of productive work; reading, writing,

constructing with interest; self-directed dramatic play (with highinvolvement).

2. Paying Close Attention; Thinking, Pondering: Listening attentively, watchingcarefully; concentrating on a story being told, a film being watched or arecord played; thinking, pondering, reflecting.

112

EDUCACIÓN

3. Integrative Sharing and Helping: Contributing ideas, interests, materials;helping, responding by showing feelings (laughing, smiling, etc.) inaudience situations; initiating conversation.

4. Integrative Social Interaction: Mutual give and take, cooperative behavior,integrative social behavior; studying or working together whereparticipants are on a par.

5. Integrative Seeking and Receiving Support, Assistance and Information:Bidding or asking teachers or significant peers for help, support,sympathy, affection, etc., being helped; receiving assistance.

Uninvolved behavior was based on the following indicators:1. Following Directions Passively and Submissively: Doing assigned work

without enthusiasm or great interest; submitting meekly to requests;answering direct questions; waiting for instructions as directed.

2. Observing Passively: Visual wandering with short fixations; watching otherswork; checking on noises or movements; checking on activities of adults orpeers.

3. Responding to Internal Stimuli: Daydreaming; sleeping; rocking or fidgeting(not in transaction with external stimuli).

4. Physical Withdrawal or Passive Avoidance: Moving away, hiding, avoidingtransactions by moving away or around; physical wandering, avoidinginvolvement in activities.

Statistical Procedures

After gathering the data and summarizing it for each rater in eachcategory of behavior, the category of aggressive behavior was eliminated fromfurther analysis because none of the four raters reported its presence. Thus,our analysis continued among the inappropriate, integrative and uninvolvedbehavior categories.

Non-parametric statistical measures were used for the analysis of the datafor the following reasons: (a) the sample was small (N = 8), (b) the classroombehavior variable was classified by categories and (c) the experimental data,that is, the scores, were ranked (transformed into ordinal measures),following Siegel. (1988, p. 33)

Statistical analysis included three steps: (a) a test of concordance amongthe raters in each behavior category, (b) two-way analysis of variance(ANOVA) by ranks to detect differences and similarities among the returnmigrant and non-migrant students in the English and Spanish classes and (c)Main Effect Pairs tests in each category. Each step was carried out for the sixsituations, that is, for each behavior category in the English class and in theSpanish class. Interrelations were disregarded as they were found to bestatistically non-significant.

113


The first analysis applied two tests of concordance: the Kendall W (Siegel1988, pp. 262- 271) and the Spearman average ‘‘L’’ (Siegel 1988, pp. 235-244)for determining the coefficient of correlation and concordance among theraters. Both statistical measures showed agreement in the three behavioralcategories of each language class. These results support the facts insofar asthe four raters observed the same two groups of students (return migrantsand non-migrants) in the same classes (English and Spanish) using identicalinstruments and comparable procedures.

Once the reliability between the raters was established, the next step wasto determine differences and/or similarities between the return migrant andnon-migrant students in the English and Spanish classes. The behaviorobserved was duly recorded for each return migrant and non-migrantstudent. Scores were computed for individual students and analyzed forintergroup relationships. The Friedman two-way ANOVA by ranks wasapplied for each category of behavior in each class. (Siegel 1988, pp. 174-180)

As this analysis showed significant differences between migrant and non-migrant students, a third step was incorporated to determine whether thesewere due to differences between subject groups (return migrant vs non-migrant students) or to differences between the English and Spanish classes.The Wilcoxon Pairs Test for main effect (Siegel, 1988) confirmed that thesignificant differences were found between the return migrant and non-migrant students.

Findings

This study sought to describe the problems of classroom maladjustmentamong return migrant students as well as compare their coping behavior tothat of non-migrant students. Behavior observed and coded was that ofstudents whose scores, percentiles and stanines in the LAB test placedshowed them to be above average or at least average with respect to theirclassmates in English and Spanish classrooms under the same teachers. Alleight subjects had returned from the United States during the previous twoyears.

Classroom coping behavior was observed and coded in four categories:(a) aggressive, (b) inappropriate, (c) integrative and (d) uninvolved.Instances of the first category were not reported. The remaining threecategories were analyzed according to their respective research questions.

Inappropriate Behavior

a. Do return migrant students exhibit inappropriate behavior in theirattempts to cope with the language classroom environment?

b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and non-migrantstudents with respect to inappropriate behavior as exhibited by each groupin their respective English and Spanish classrooms?

114

EDUCACIÓN

In general, return migrant students pretended to conform with teachersexpectations, but most of the time they engaged in behavior unrelated to classactivities or in belittling whatever the teacher was saying. They often tried tomanipulate the class environment by trying to impose their own terms ofparticipation and seeking to control the rest of the class. Fidgetting andconniving were common occurrences.

Inappropriate behavior on the part of non-migrant students’ tendedtoward delay and passive resistance but never aimed at taking charge orenforcing rules.

The Friedman ANOVA statistical test yielded significant differencesbetween the two groups: return migrant and non-migrant students in boththe English and Spanish classrooms. The Wilcoxon Main Effects testconfirmed these results. Overall, the behavior or return migrant studentswas consistently less appropriate than that of non-migrants.

Knowledge of English may be related to the higher level of inappropriatebehavior on the part of return migrant students. As noted in the literature,return migrant students may have a tendency to flaunt their knowledge ofEnglish (Laguerre, 1982) by speaking out of turn or laughing at others for notanswering correctly or for misspelling English words.

In the Spanish classroom, return migrant students exhibited fewerinstances of inappropriate behavior. Yet, in comparison with non-migrants,their inappropriate behavior was more frequent. This may be due to arelative lack of Spanish language skills, even when doing their best to learn.

The Spanish classes seemed to arouse more interest among returnmigrants though not enough to motivate consistent attention or steady work.The return migrant students’ language barrier in Spanish probably imposedlimitations on their ability to develop and apply coping behaviors. Thispossibility is supported by other research interpretations as well as by teacheropinion. (Laguerre, 1982; Ramos Perea, 1972; Rivera Medina, 1984; andothers). In spite of recurrent inappropriate behavior, there were a fairnumber of instances where return migrants were able to participate in classand relate positively with their grade peers.

Integrative Behavior

As the students selected for this study were above average or at leastaverage according to their scores, percentiles, and stanines in the LAB test, itwas expected that integrative behavior would be substantially in evidenceamong them. This expectation was confirmed. Both student groups exhibitedbehaviors that were more often integrative than either inappropriate oruninvolved.

Furthermore, return migrant and non-migrant students exhibited moreintegrative behaviors in their English than in their Spanish classrooms. Bothgroups engaged readily in self-directed activities such as answering exercises

115


in their notebooks. They tended to share information and often helped eachin completing written work. There was considerable integrative socialinteraction, that is, mutual give and take among return migrants and non-migrant students in both the English and the Spanish classes. Within theirown group, students obtained significant peer help, support and empathy,especially so in the case of the return migrant group.

Computation of the Friedman ANOVA test produced significantdifferences between classes, though not between groups. Results of theWilcoxon main effect pairs test confirmed significant differences between theSpanish and English classes.

Return migrant and non-migrant students behaved similarly in terms ofintegrative behavior.

Uninvolved Behavior

In general, return migrant students were more uninvolved thaninappropriate in their behavior. Though both the return migrant and non-migrant students seemed to follow directions passively and submissivelywhile doing their work with little enthusiasm, the non-migrants submittedmore frequently to requests and to answering questions. Daydreaming wasfrequently observed among return migrant students along with non-involvement in class activities. There was considerable physical wandering inthe classroom as well as fidgeting and conniving among the return migrants.

Physical withdrawal and passive avoidance were also in evidence.Passiveness was more often observed among non-migrants. Return migrantswere more active in their coping behavior while integrating as well as whenacting inappropriately.

With respect to overall uninvolvement, the Friedman ANOVA statisticalmeasure showed significant differences between the English and Spanishclasses. Likewise, the Wilcoxon Main Effect Pairs Test produced in significantdifferences between the English and Spanish classes only.

The differences observed pertaining to uninvolved behavior, as well asthose associated with integrative behavior, were due to the classes and not tothe condition of being a return migrant or non-migrant.

Interpretation

One possible interpretation for these study findings is that classes seemedto be teacher centered and focused on the content. They were not studentcentered, that is, person oriented as postulated by the humanistic educationalapproach. There was little individualization; the two groups of students,return migrants and non-migrants, were engaged in the same activities withthe same duration, using the same resources. There were no special projectsnor anything planned according to a person-oriented curriculum. This may

116

EDUCACIÓN

explain why students behaved negatively and remained uninvolved onoccasion.

In general, significant differences were found between return migrant andnon-migrant students in measures of inappropriate behavior. Schoolmaladjustment among return migrants, reported by numerous researchers,was found to exist in the language classroom.

Return migrant and non-migrant students of relatively high linguisticproficiency were more integrative in their behavior during English andSpanish class periods than their immediate peers. Relative proficiency washigher in English for return migrants. Non-migrants exhibited higherlanguage skills in Spanish. Overall, above average or at least averageproficiency in one or the other language may explain the fact that the leastexhibited behavior among study subjects was that classified as inappropriatein this study. As observed, inappropriate behavior was more frequent amongreturn migrants but comparable to that of non-migrants with respect tointegrative and uninvolved behaviors.

The literature examined and analyzed for this study indicates that PuertoRican return migrant students exhibit problems of adjustment in mainlandAmerican and local Puerto Rican schools (Carrasquillo and Carrasquillo,1979; Nogueras and Prewitt Díaz, 1980; Ramos Perea, 1972; Rivera Medina,1984; Vidal, 1975, and others). These studies are mostly socio-demographic innature. Other studies of a psychosocial nature also reveal maladjustmentamong return migrant students in the course of transition from an Americanschool environment to the Puerto Rican school environment (Lucca et al.,1981; Pacheco et al., 1983; Pacheco, 1984). Some studies carried out in theclassroom environment reported the teachers’ point of view while in othersthe data was collected from students’ answers to questionnaires (Laguerre,1982; Lladó, 1978; Schmidt, 1984).

The present study cannot support definite statements about the entirepopulation of return migrant students. It is rather an attempt to describe theobserved behavior of above average and average return migrant studentsand to compare their behavior with that of non-migrant students in typicalEnglish and Spanish course subject classes of the public school system ofPuerto Rico.

Conclusions

1. Aggressive behaviorNeither the return migrant students nor the non-migrant students

exhibited aggressive behavior in the English and Spanish classrooms. Thefour raters who observed and coded behavior did not report a singleinstance of such behavior.

It was concluded that return migrant students of average and higherlanguage skills in one or the other language were not aggressive in their

117


coping attempts within the respective classroom environments of eitherlanguage as the course subject. While several studies report that teachers inboth mainland American and Puerto Rican schools perceive return migrantstudents as aggressive (Condon et al., 1979; Kavetsky, 1978; Prewitt-Díaz,1980; Rivera Medina, 1984), the results of this study strongly suggest thatbe that as it may in other, perhaps less structured school situations, thelanguage class behavior of average and above average students in PuertoRican public schools is not overtly aggressive.

2. Inappropriate behaviora. Do the return migrant students exhibit inappropriate behavior in seeking

to cope with the language classroom environment?b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and non-

migrant students with respect to inappropriate behavior as exhibited byboth groups in the English and Spanish classrooms?Return migrant students exhibited more attention getting behavior of a

negative sort by attempting to manipulate, control and direct others. Attimes, they resisted authority or merely pretended to conform. In turn, thenegative behavior of non-migrant students was essentially passive innature. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant differencebetween these two groups. Furthermore, return migrants behavedinappropriately more frequently than non-migrants, particularly so in theEnglish language classroom.

The language classes did not seem to present a variety of activitiesconducive to diminishing inappropriate behavior. In this regard, Bernardand Huckins (1974) state:

‘‘Educators underestimate the potential that variety has forholding interest and combating boredom.’’ (p. 249)

Innovative opportunities for participation and involvement areworthwhile means of facilitating learning and should be encouraged inthroughout the school system.

Other research consulted points to language usage as one of the reasonsfor the return migrant students’ school maladjustment (Carrasquillo andCarrasquillo, 1979; Laguerre, 1982; Ramos Perea, 1972; Vidal, 1975). Thepresent study supports the idea that the language used affects theclassroom experience. The return migrant students’ knowledge of Englishbecame a handicap, rather than a competitive strength, whenever theytended to flaunt their knowledge of English and thus rendered theirbehavior inappropriate. This adds weight to Laguerre’s claim (1982) thatreturn migrant students tend to overemphasize their knowledge ofEnglish, thus affecting their relationships with teachers and peers.

118

EDUCACIÓN

3. Integrative behaviora. Do return migrant students exhibit integrative behavior in their attempts

at coping with the language classroom environment?b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and non-

migrant students with respect to integrative behavior as observed in theEnglish and Spanish classrooms?• Both student groups behaved similarly in terms of integrative

behavior such as self-initiated activities, paying attention, integratedand shared, and sought and received support.

• Both groups behaved in a manner altogether consistent with theirmental capacity as implied by their LAB test scores.

• Return migrant students tended to interact individually, but whenseeking support, they resorted to interaction in groups. Generally, theirbehavior toward teachers was respectful.

• Statistical assessment by two principal methods (Friedman ANOVA,Wilcoxon Main Effect Pairs Test) confirmed a significant differencebetween the two classes, that is, The English and Spanish courseinstructional environments, respectively. The class per se made adifference as far as integrative behavior was concerned and not thecondition of being a return migrant or non-migrant student.

• Return migrant students exhibited different behaviors in each class. Inthe English class, their behavior was more integrative than in theSpanish class. This may involve their relatively higher languageproficiency in English.

In a study based on classroom observations, Furlong (1976) found thatstudents’ behavior was significantly motivated by external factorsunrelated to self-motivation. These other factors, which certainly deservestudy, include the teachers themselves, their teaching styles and the waysin which the subject matter is presented.

4. Uninvolved behaviora. Do return migrant students exhibit uninvolved behavior in their

attempts at coping with their language classroom environment?b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and non-

migrant students with respect to uninvolved behaviors exhibited in theEnglish and Spanish classrooms?Both groups of students tended to follow directions passively or

submissively while exhibiting various forms of passive avoidance andphysical withdrawal. Return migrant students were uninvolved mostly inthe English class, although the difference in total instances was only ten.Non-migrants exhibited non-involvement less frequently in the Englishclass.

119


As found in the case of integrative behavior, there was a significantdifference between classes (English vs Spanish) with respect to both groupsof students, but not between student groups per se.

Uninvolvement may be sponsored by aspects of linguistic fluency, towit, the return migrant students’ lack of fluency in Spanish may havesponsored a tendency to avoid interaction with teachers and peers. Thiswould be consistent with the findings of other studies (Lladó, 1978; RamosPerea, 1972; Rivera Medina, 1984; Vidal, 1975). For example, Vidal assertsthat return migrant students, because of their lack of Spanish fluencyclustered and did not participate in class. In extreme cases, a tendencytoward uninvolvement may underlie or partially underlie the relativelyhigh relative level of absenteeism noted among return migrants.

In general the negative reactions of students to the classroomenvironment was more often uninvolved than inappropriate.

The language classes observed offered identical learning activities to allstudents. There was no individualization responding to the needs of studentswith different language backgrounds. This is not consistent with thephilosophy and mission of the English Program Curriculum of theDepartment of Education with respect to the needs of the return migrantstudents (1988 Revision, p. 4). This document postulates: ‘‘the design of thecurriculum ought to be such that these differing needs can be addresseddirectly . . . ’’ In other words, it recognizes that the needs of return migrantstudents are different from those of regular (non-migrant) students.

Other, more general observations and conclusions were:1. Both groups, the return migrant and the non-migrant students, were not

always consistent in their classroom behavior. At times they exhibitedintegrative behavior, while at other times they exhibited inappropriate oruninvolved behavior. In classes of 50 minutes duration they were usuallyintegrative at the beginning, but later became bored and behavedinappropriately or else adopted submissive attitudes. This sequence wasalso observed in Gannaway’s study (1976) in the English and Mathematicsclass meetings.

2. The participating return migrant students seemed to be more interested inboth classes than their opposite non-migrant peers. The first group paidbetter attention and responded more eagerly. They sought to stand out,specially in the English class. Aware of being perceived as ‘‘different’’ byother students, they probably wanted to show that ‘‘different’’ was betterin terms of school work.

120

EDUCACIÓN

Recommendations

The following recommendations arise from our observations andconclusions about coping behavior among return migrant students in thepublic schools of Puerto Rico:1. Other approaches should be applied to the observation and analysis of the

frequency and quality of formal and informal classroom activities or tasks.Systems for classroom observation such as those used by Emmer and Peck(1971), (CCS-Cognitive Component Systems; FAIR-Fuller AffectiveInteraction Records) could be used.

2. It is also important to investigate in detail the effects of different teachingstrategies on the students’ classroom behavior. Teaching strategies couldusefully be modified toward a cognitive or humanistic approach.(Finocchiaro, 1989, pp 1-18). This reorientation could result in a clearerfocus toward the development of the person in the return migrant as astudent (Moskowitz, 1978). The development of thinking skills and moralvalues could then be emphasized on more fertile ground.

3. A supportive environment should be created in which a concerned andcaring attitude for the return migrant students is expressed. This mayencourage more integrative behavior among the students (Moskowitz,1978).

4. It would also seem appropriate to complement this type of research withcomplementary students information pertaining to socio-demographicvariables, and personal expectations and aspirations.

5. The services offered by the Department of Education of Puerto Rico toreturn migrant students should be reinforced by way of tutoring. This mayhelp to reduce uninvolvement and inappropriate behavior among them. Inaddition, teachers could share responsibilities with teacher aides, socialworkers, tutors and other paraprofessionals. Bernard and Huckins (1974,p. 241) claim that as time goes on, classrooms are less and less consideredthe domain and sole responsibility of any one teacher. This sharing ofresponsibilities could be instrumental in reducing student desertion.

6. The descriptive document on the Philosophy and Mission of the EnglishProgram Curriculum of the Department of Education as recently revised(1988), should be disseminated among the teachers of English in the publicschools. This revision brings together central aspects of the cognitive andhumanistic learning theories. Under the revised curriculum, return migrantstudents would be strongly oriented toward developing their thinkingabilities, moral values and feelings of solidarity with others. Thecurriculum clearly identifies the return migrant students as a special kindof student warranting special treatment.

7. Data collection for this study was carried out during the months of Apriland May. There are many interruptions in the schools at this time due to

121


holidays and extra-curricular activities. It is therefore recommended thatsimilar future studies should be performed at the beginning of thesemester.

This study encompassed a description and evaluation of coping behavioramong eight return migrant subjects and eight non-migrant control subjectsin each of two language classrooms, English and Spanish. Significantdifferences were found between return migrant and non-migrant subjectgroups in terms of integrative and uninvolved behaviors. Aggressivebehavior was not observed during any of the fourteen video-taped classobservation sessions evaluated. Statistically significant differences werefound between classrooms (English and Spanish) but not between students,be they return migrants or non-migrants. Differences in each classroomenvironment accounted for differences in student coping behaviors and theconsequent perceptions of teachers and peers about return migrants. Factorsinherent to the respective classroom environments were found to be thedominant sources of variance among study variables.

Bibliography

Álvarez Domínguez, L. (1984). Adolescentes nacidos en Estados Unidos de padrespuertorriqueños que regresan: relación entre su autoconcepto y nivel de agresividad.Unpublished master’s thesis, Universidad de Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, P.R.

Ashton, G.T. (1980, Spring). The return and rereturn of long term Puerto Rican migrants:A selective rural-urban sample. Revista/Review Interamericana (x), No. 1, pp. 27-45.

Baldoni, I. (1990, January 12). Interview with Ileana Baldoni, Bilingual EducationProgram Director, Department of Education, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.

Bernard, H. W. and Huckins, W. C. (1974). Humanism in the classroom: An eclecticapproach to teaching and learning. Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Carrasquillo, A. and Carrasquillo, C. (1979). The neorican: Unwelcome in two worlds.New York: Ediciones Puerto Rico de autores nuevos.

Combs, Arthur W. (1982, April). Affective education or none at all. Educationalleadership. Journal of the Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

Condon, E. C., Peters, J. Y. and Sueiro-Ross, C. (1979). Special education and thehispanic child. Teacher Corps Midatlantic Network. Philadelphia, PA, TempleUniversity.

Croll, P. (1986). Systematic classroom observation. Philadelphia, The Folmes Press.Curran, M.E. (1985). Toward understanding interactions in high school classes containing

return migrants in Puerto Rico. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teacher College,Columbia University, New York.

122EDUCACIÓN

Department of Education. (1978). Estudio sobre estudiantes procedentes de Estados Unidos(Migrant student profile) Centro de Información y Desarrollo Educativo. HatoRey, Puerto Rico.

Department of Education. (1984). (Information provided by a spokesperson of theDivision of Statistics) Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.

Department of Education. (1988). New curriculum guide for the teaching of English in thepublic schools of Puerto Rico (Grades one to twelve) Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.

Emmer, E.T.; Peck, R. (1971, February). Dimensions of classroom behavior. Paperpresented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation in New York.

Finnochiaro, M. (1989). English as a second language: From theory to practice. (4th ed.)Regents Publishing Inc.: New York.

Friedman, R. (1980, August 24). Students back from the states find a cold shoulder.The San Juan Star, pp. 1, 16.

Friedman, R. (1982, April 26). Neoricans in program to adjust to island life. The SanJuan Star, p. 11.

Furlong, V. (1976). Interaction sets in the classroom: Toward a study of pupils’knowledge. In S. Delamont and M. Stubbs (Eds.) Explorations in classroomobservation, (pp. 23-44); New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Gannaway, H. (1976). Making sense of school. In S. Delamont and M. Stubbs (Eds.)Explorations in classroom observation, (pp. 45-82); New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Glicksman, L., et. al. (1982). The role of the integrative motive on students’participation in the french classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, (Toronto);38, 4.

Hamilton, J. (1987). Return migrant students selected characteristics in first year of collegein Puerto Rico: A Profile. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Fordham University,New York.

Junta de Planificación de Puerto Rico, Negociado de Análisis Social. (1984). Lapoblación inmigrante en Puerto Rico. San Juan, P.R.

Kaplan, G. (1983, Oct.-Nov.). Spanish and the return migrant. Revista Caribeña deEducación Bilingue/Caribbean Review of Bilingual Education; No. 1, pp. 2-10.

Kavetsky, J. (1978). The return migrant student: Questions and answers. Revista El Sol;22. (2), 11-17.

Kelly. G.A. (1963). A Theory of personality/The psychology of personal constructs. Nortonand Company Inc., New York.

Lacot, M.S. (1983, November 29). The educational implications of migration. (Paperpresented at First Forum on the Human Rights of the Puerto Rican Familysponsored by the Puerto Rican Family Institute, Inc., San Juan, Puerto Rico).

Llabrés de Charneco, A. (1984, January). Public hearings on bilingual education.Revista Caribeña de Educación Bilingüe/Caribbean Review of Bilingual Education; No. 2,pp. 8-10.

Lladó, N. (1982). English as a second language in Puerto Rico: Language attitude study andits pedagogical implications. Ann Arbor, Michigan University. (UniversityMicrofilms No. 82-218) (Abstract-Vita)

123A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .

López Laguerre, M. (1982). Las actitudes sociolingüísticas del maestro puertorripueño haciael bilingüismo en Puerto Rico. Disertación Doctoral. Departamento de Filosofía yLetras, Universidad de Puerto Rico.

Lucca, N., Wapner, S.& Pacheco, A.M. (1981). Self identity and bilingualism amongadolescent return migrants to Puerto Rico. Agenda: a Journal of Hispanic Issues; 11.(33), 15-17.

Méndez Santos, C. (1971). Los inmigrantes puertorriqueños en los Estados Unidos (2nded.) Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico, Ponce, P.R.

Morris, J.L., Pestover, M. and Nelson, A. (1967). Mobility and achievement. Journal ofExperimental Education; 35 (3), 74-79.

Moskowitz, G. (1978). Caring and sharing in the foreign language class. Newbury HousePublishers, Inc. Rowley, Mass.

Newberg, N.A. and Love, W.E. (1982, April). Affective education addresses thebasics. Education Leadership. Journal of the Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development. No. 7, 39, pp 498-502.

New York Board of Education. (1976). The language assessment battery test (LAB)(Forms A/B) Office of Bilingual Education. New York City, N. Y.

Nogueras, J.A. and Prewitt-Díaz, J.O. (1980). The emigration of the Puerto Rican studentas a factor in school adjustment. Report No. 022-534. Philadelphia: ThePennsylvania State University. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED221639)

Oyola, M. (1983, November 28). Contrawise migration from U.S. to P.R., a sociologicalphenomenon. Reasons and implications on an island 100 × 35. Rio Piedras, PuertoRican Family Institute. Unpublished manuscript, 12 p.

Pacheco, A., et al. (1983). La migración: un estudio para la psicologia ambiental ysocial. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología; 16 (2), 263-276.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International University Press,New York.

Prewitt Díaz, J.O. (1979). The conflicts in in-school cultural behaviors of Puerto Ricanmigrant children on the mainland. 26 pp. (Eric Document Reproduction Services no.197 035) (UDO21 173)

Prewitt Díaz, J.O. (1982). The Puerto Rican migrant student and the home-schoolconflict. El Sol (xxvi year) No. 1, pp. 6-11.

Ramos Perea, I. (1972). The school adjustment of return migrant students in Puerto Ricanjunior high schools. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri at Columbia).Dissertation Abstracts International, 34/04, 2045A.

Rivera, L. W. (1987). Special document for the bilingual program (unpublished), PuertoRico Department of Education.

Rivera Medina, E. (1984). Of Teachers, language and training: Needs of teachers of englishand of teachers of spanish to return migrants in Puerto Rico. (Report for NationalInstitute of Education) (NIE). Unpublished manuscript.

Schmidt, S.E. (1984). Attitudes of Puerto Rican professors towards code-switching studentsand the students’ perceptions of these attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

124EDUCACIÓN

Seilhamer, E.S. and Prewitt-Díaz, J.O. (1982). The return and circulatory migrantstudent: A perception of teachers, school and self. Migration Today, 10 (22), 20-25.

Siegel, S. (1988). Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw Hill, NewYork.

Simon, A., E. Boyer, and G. Gil, (Eds.) (1974). Mirrors for behavior III: An anthology ofobservation instruments. Communications Material Center. Wyncotte,Pennsylvania. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED1070320)

Solomon, D. and Kendall, A. (1979). Children in the classroom: An investigation ofperson-environment interactions. New York, Proeger Publishers.

Spaulding, R.L. (1983, October). A systematic approach to classroom discipline. PhiDelta Kappa.

Straits, B.C. (1987, January). Residence, migration and school progress. Sociology ofEducation. pp. 34-43.

Underhill, C. (1981, Sept. 20). Impact of the return migrant. The San Juan Star, pp. 2-3.Van Trieste, R. (1985). The Correlation Between Puerto Rican University Students’

Attitudes Toward Speakers of American English and the Students’ Achievement inEnglish as a Second Language. Doctoral dissertation. University MicrofilmsInternational, New York. New York University.

Vidal, D. (1975, October 5). The loneliness of the returning Newyorican. The San JuanStar, p. 5.

Vivó, P. (1982). Puerto Rican migration: The return flow. (NIE-P-80-0112). NationalInstitute of Education, Washington, D.C. (Eric DRS No. ED 221635)

Nota editorial En nuestro interés por preservar la...

Documents

Transcript of Nota editorial En nuestro interés por preservar la...