1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
“Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone
can’t teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can’t
achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate
the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.”
–Barack Obama, Keynote Address, Democratic National Convention, 2004
Too many California students are underperforming in academics and dropping out of
high school. The high school dropout rate in California has increased from previous
years and has been estimated at 33% by the California Department of Education
(Monreal, 2007). The dropout rate among California’s Latino students—a group already
comprising about 50% of all K-12 students in the entire state—has been estimated as high
as 54% (Ceja, 2007). The negative impact of these phenomena manifests itself in many
ways. Economically, it translates into fewer contributing, tax-paying citizens and higher
demands on our social and economic systems. Recent data suggest that 50% of the
prison population and 50% of all heads of household on welfare in California are
dropouts (Monreal, 2007). The same source cites that 67% of all dropouts will go on
food stamps. When linked to human capital, the implications are significant. Research
finds that one dropout earns $290,000 less than a graduate and pays $100,000 less taxes
in a lifetime (Belfield, 2007). The same study has determined there is a $46 billion loss
to California from one cohort of dropouts. These are costs incurred in the areas of lost
tax revenue, crime, welfare, and healthcare.
2
Research suggests that the major predictive factors of dropping out are associated with
two broad categories: individual characteristics of students; and institutional
characteristics of their families, schools, and communities (CDRP, October 2008). To
some degree, the literature also examines the linkage between academic
underperformance and the relationship of peer influence on the academic success or
failure of Latino students (Gandara, O’Hara, & Gutierrez, 2004). The focus of this study
was to build on the knowledge regarding the relationship between peer perceptions and
grades among Latino high school students in an urban school in the Sacramento,
California area.
A detailed discussion of the research literature will ensue in Chapter 2 of this study.
However, a summary of the research substantiating this study is in order. The literature
and research are plentiful in the general category of California’s Latino students, their
limited academic achievement, and high dropout rates (Gandara, 2004; CDRP, 2008;
Monreal, 2007; Rotermund, 2007; Rumberger, 2008). The cumulative effect of available
literature suggests there is wide concern for the problem, but no one-dimensional or easy
answer. Moreover, the research in this arena also points to the fact that minorities now
comprise the majority of the state of California, most of whom are Latinos (Newhouse,
2007). These data merge to suggest that this growing population, with its high rate of
academic underperformance and dropout rates, presents the need for programs and
interventions focusing on academic improvement.
While abundant in terms of descriptive and predictive themes, the literature and
research appear limited in the discussion of specific, workable, and near-term solutions.
3
In the recent publication of America’s Perfect Storm: Three Forces Changing our
Nation’s Future, the Educational Testing Service describes the wide disparity in
educational levels among school-age students and adults and the intransigence of
achievement gaps between African-American, Latinos, and the white population (Kirsch,
2007). Yet, the evidence targets areas for possible near-term solutions. Current research
shows that approximately 50% of California’s dropouts come from only 100 schools—of
approximately 2,500 total high schools in the state (Rotermund, 2008). While this study
did not focus on one of these schools, it did focus on a similar type of school, i.e., a large,
public, diverse, urban high school.
This study was focused on what is known about the relationship between peer
perceptions and grades among Latino high school students in an urban high school in the
Sacramento, California area. There is limited research on the relationship of student peer
popularity, grades, cultural self-sabotage, and on the dynamic of “acting white.” In the
research report titled, “Acting White,” Roland G. Fryer (2006) discussed how students of
differing ethnicities reacted to peer pressure with respect to their grade point average
(GPA). He found that, unlike white students, Latino and African American students
became less popular among their peers when their GPA went up (See Figure 1 below). In
the most striking scenario, the loss of popularity among Latino students appears to begin
at the 2.3 GPA level (Fryer, 2006). While not inclusive of all ethnicities, the author’s
study concluded there was a trade-off between doing well and rejection from peers within
traditionally low-achieving groups (Fryer, 2006). But we do not know the extent of this
4
problem, or the level of impact on the dropout rate. These considerations served as a
departure point for the present study.
Figure 1: Student Popularity and Grades
Popularity Index
7
6
5
4
3
White Popularity
2
Black Popularity
1
Hispanic Popularity
0
-1
1.0 GPA
2.0 GPA
3.0 GPA
4.0 GPA
-2
-3
Fryer, R.G. (2006)
Grade Point Average
Problem Statement
Many of California’s Latino students are experiencing limited academic success. Too
many are dropping out of high school. Consistent underperformance and dropping out is
a process, not a single event. It starts with issues related to child development and
continues with a myriad of individual, parental, peer, and institutional environment
issues. This is a tremendously complex problem. This study looked at one possible
aspect contributing to this academic underperformance among Latino students: the
relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino high school students.
5
A brief description of our country’s and state’s current education and economic woes
best puts the topic of this study in context. Based on the emerging demographics in
California, a solid argument can be made that the state is headed toward its “perfect
storm,” or perhaps more accurately stated, toward an economic tsunami. The selected
trend and demographic data below may be more effective in forming a picture of what
could be headed our way:

Documented decline of California’s educational system (Kirst, 2004)

Boomers turn 62—will draw Social Security benefits and begin mass exodus,
further impacting education resources (U.S. Census)

Majority of teachers are older, will retire, and begin mass exodus (U.S. Census)

Shortages in skilled and professional workers continue to be impacted by
education underperformance and low graduation rates (U.S. Census)

High birth rates continue to stress the already-stressed education system (U.S.
Census)

People are living longer, will draw from Social Security and Medicare funds,
which impacts resources for public education (U.S. Census)

Mismanagement of Social Security and Medicare funds--at current rate, funds
will run dry, which will negatively impact public education funding (Social
Security Administration)
6

Immigration & migration issues—impact the state’s educational system more than
any other state in the country

50% of children in California have at least one immigrant parent (U.S. Census)

California’s population is 57% minorities; 33% are Latinos (U.S. Census)

California’s dropout rate is at 33% overall and 54% for Latino students ; 50% of
K-12 students in California are Latino (Monreal, 2007 & Ceja, 2007)
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between peer perceptions
and grades among Latino high school students in California. This study attempted to
determine the nature of the relationship (positive or negative), the degree to which it is
positive or negative, and how various factors contribute to the relationship. Considering
the severity of California’s underperformance and dropout rates among Latino students,
an increased understanding about this issue could serve to identify possible solutions.
Nature of the Study
The following research questions guided the study:
Research question #1: What is the nature of the relationship between peer
perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento,
California area (positive or negative)?
Research question #2: How much influence do peer perceptions have on these Latino
students’ grades?
Research question #3: How do various factors contribute to the relationship between
peer perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the
7
Sacramento, California area (i.e., popularity, respect, self-image, extracurricular activities
and peer social capital, oppositional culture, and importance of grades)?
Chapter 3 will describe the research methodology, design, population,
instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis in more detail. In general, the research
design consisted of quantitative methods and data analyses. A survey was developed
using Likert scale questions. Data collection also included school-provided student
GPA. All data was then analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and a
mathematical sorting model to investigate the relationship between peer perceptions and
grades among Latino high school students. The population and sample consisted of
Latino students (9th through 12th grade) from an urban high school in the Sacramento,
California area. Ultimately, these data were analyzed to ascertain the nature and extent of
the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino high school students.
These results informed the three research questions.
The Theoretical Base and Conceptual Framework
Various theories and conceptual frameworks informed this study. The cornerstones
are oppositional culture theory and peer social capital theory. Below is a summary of
these, with additional detail to ensue in Chapter 2.
Oppositional culture theory.
The literature is rich with discussions on oppositional culture theory and other
theoretical frameworks related to cultural background and identity (Ogbu, 1991; Trueba,
1998; Fryer, 2006). Some of this research touches on the possible existence of a cultural,
self-imposed achievement sabotage (Fryer, 2006). According to proponents of this
8
theory, African-American and Latino cultures are dysfunctional and tend to punish their
group members, rather than reward them, for their individual successes. The theory,
however, appears to be more of a judgment than an explanation (Fryer, 2006). It does not
appear to be based on valid research and, therefore, is less persuasive. Much more
research in this area is needed to know if the dynamic of cultural self-sabotage has
anything to do with the relationship between peer influence and grades among
California’s Latino students.
Ogbu (1991) argues that there is a strong fear among African American students to
being perceived as “acting white.” Fryer (2006) suggests this also applies to Latino
students. According to these researchers, Black and Latino students fear this kind of
behavior might get construed as disloyalty toward their race and ethnicity. In the same
study, Ogbu suggests this dynamic is developed from historical relationships of racial and
class subordination and exclusion. This dynamic has also been described as the
“schoolboy” phenomenon (Hurd, 2004). Researchers have suggested that the existence
of these dynamics could point to larger social, cultural, and community identity issues.
Nevertheless, these phenomena have the potential of directly informing this study (e.g.,
the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino students).
Various scholars have described how some Latino youth groups are influenced by
their peers to show solidarity for their group by demonstrating resistance, challenging
authority, and willfully not learning what they are taught by teachers (Kohl, 1994; Vigil,
2004). This refers to Resistance theory and the concept of “willful not-learning.” These
9
also appear to have linkage to oppositional culture theory. More specifics on these will
be discussed in Chapter 2.
Literature countering oppositional culture theory.
The research and literature also contain studies countering the assertions of
oppositional culture. Among these are the theories of “stereotype threat” (Steel, 2004),
“subtractive schooling” (Valenzuela, 1999), and “school kids” versus “street kids”
(Flores-Gonzales, 2002). Claude Steel maintains that low academic achievement among
students of color is more likely based on institutional racism and the impact of societal
stereotypes and perceptions about certain groups’ academic achievement. Angela
Valenzuela claims that “subtractive schooling” is the institutional (schools) process that
divests students of color from needed social and cultural resources to help them succeed.
Similarly, Flores-Gonzalez (2002) studied Latino student achievement and determined
that school structures and climate were the determinants of student academic
achievement. She maintained that it was the schools who either created “school kids”
(those who connect with the school and will likely succeed) or “street kids” (those who
do not feel they belong and have given up). The countering points to oppositional culture
theory will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.
Theories of peer social capital.
Stanton-Salazar (2004) defines peer social capital as adolescents’ connections to peers
and peer networks that can provide access to tangible forms of support that facilitate the
accomplishment of academic goals. Proponents of these theories posit that the leveraging
of peer social capital can help improve student academic performance and possibly
10
reduce the dropout rate (Oaks, 2004; Stanton-Salazar, 2004; Moll, 1992; Gibson, 2004).
Their rationale stems from the belief that the attainment of peer social capital can help
students navigate and understand the policies, practices, and structures that often limit
their academic opportunities (Oakes, 2004). It is possible that peer social capital theory
can inform this study with regards to which factors may contribute to the relationship
between peer perception and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the
Sacramento, California area.
Other related theories and frameworks.
While not the cornerstone of this study, other related theoretical and conceptual
frameworks added depth to the present study. Due to their limited impact on this study,
these will be discussed briefly in Chapter 2. Included in these are the theory of
immigrant and involuntary minorities (Gibson & Ogbu, 1991; Trueba, 1998); funds of
knowledge theory (Moll, 1992); the concepts of school belonging (Osterman, 2000) and
street culture (Vigil, 1999); and the multiple worlds model (Phelan, Davidson, & Yu,
1998).
Operational Definitions
1. Dropout rate: The definition used by this study was based on the new CDE
methodology for determining the state’s dropout rates. The state uses a unique Statewide
Student Identifier (SSID) number for each student to determine how many students are
dropping out (CDE, 2010). By its own definition, the CDE excludes various categories
of students from being counted as dropouts. The CDE’s determination of dropouts does
not take into account ELL, migrant, or socioeconomically disadvantaged students. It also
11
does not account for students who have moved to another state, transferred to a private
school systems, went on to get their GED, or special education students who received a
certificate of completion. Combined, all these excluded students (who did not graduate)
suggest major inaccuracies and flaws in the state’s method for counting dropouts. This
was particularly applicable to the population group of this study, Latino students. In
essence, it is highly probable that many of these exempted students dropped out and that
the actual dropout rates are much higher than those officially reported. Regardless of
these shortcomings, this study used the official dropout data as determined by the CDE’s
new definition and methodology. This gave the study an element of consistency and
prevented any suggestions of researcher bias.
2. Grade Point Average (GPA): This study collected school-provided GPA data and
student self-reported GPA data via the survey instrument. In general, the letter grade “A”
equals four points. The scale progresses down to zero points for the letter “F.” This
four-point scale is used by the High School Transcript Study to compute each student’s
GPA (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005b).
3. Hispanic: Hispanic is an umbrella term used by the United States federal
government to report on the number of Mexicans, Mexican Americans, Cubans, Puerto
Ricans, Peruvians, and people from other Latin American countries, as one group (Vila,
2000). For the purposes of this study, students of Mexican or Spanish descent were
referred to as Hispanic or Latino (Bejarano, 2005).
4. Latino: A person who is American born of Mexican descent (Bejarano, 2005) and
from Latin America and their descendants (Sanchez, 1993). This includes immigrants or
12
later-generation offspring, and students of mixed race/ethnicity (e.g., Mexican father,
White mother). In California, 80% of all Latino students are of Mexican origin (Gibson,
Gandara, & Koyama, 2004). For this research, Hispanic and Latino will be used
interchangeably, similar to the U. S. Census Bureau data. In cases where national data
are not disaggregated by subgroup, but exist only for “Latinos,” this study will employ
the term Latino to refer to the larger group of Hispanic origin (Gibson, et al, 2004).
5. Peer: For the purposes of this study, each member of the Latino student group
studied was considered a peer. Specifically, the peer group consisted of all Englishspeaking and ELL Latino students in one urban high school in the Sacramento, California
area.
6. Peer influence: This could be positive or negative. It includes the elements of peer
pressure, peer normative influence on attitudes and aspirations, and peer influence in
regulating where a student belongs within the school’s hierarchy (Gibson, et al, 2004).
7. Peer pressure: Influences resulting in the engagement of certain behaviors, such
as the risky behaviors that interfere with academic achievement (Fryer, 2006).
8. Peer perceptions: For the purposes of this study, this term refered to the effect of
ways of thinking, feelings, ideas, judgments, interactions, behavior, and understanding
between Latino students within the peer study group (Taylor-Powell, 1998). These
perceptions were defined, evaluated, and determined through research design protocols
and survey instruments.
13
9. Peer social capital: Adolescents’ connections to peers and peer networks that can
provide access to tangible forms of support that facilitate the accomplishment of
academic goals (Stanton-Salazar, 2004).
Assumptions and Limitations
1. This was a quantitative study conducted within a specified and limited number of
participants. The study was limited to Latino students enrolled at one urban high school
in the Sacramento, California area. Other racial/ethnic student groups were not studied.
Therefore, the results may not be generalized to other schools, areas, or student groups.
2. A significant portion of this study was based on self-reported peer perception data
gleaned from a student survey. There are inherent limitations with this kind of design,
i.e., student participants may be citing what they believe the “correct” answer is, or what
they believe the researcher wants to hear, versus what they really think.
3. The validity and reliability of the study may be limited by the comfort level of the
survey participants in expressing their personal feelings about themselves and their peers.
In an effort to help them answer honestly, many survey questions read “My friends
think…” versus “I think…”
4. Due to student privacy concerns, only certain student data were provided by the
school district (e.g., actual GPAs). Various levels of disaggregated GPA data were not
provided, such as actual GPAs disaggregated by gender.
5. The study resulted in findings outside the focus of this study. Therefore, analyses
and deep discussions of these findings were not pursued in the present study. In most
cases, these findings became suggestions for further research.
14
6. This was a quantitative study. As such, it did not provide the level of ethnographic
richness derived from qualitative methods. Future research in this area has the potential
of providing the added value of qualitative research methods.
The Significance of the Study
The findings of this study provided valuable knowledge and recommendations to state
educational leaders, teachers, and stakeholders in their quest to identify solutions to the
academic underperformance among Latino students. These answers will contribute
toward the state’s goal of reducing its dropout rate, make gains in closing its achievement
gap, and help improve its economy. Representing the most populous state in the nation,
California’s educational leaders need to lead by example when it comes to improving this
situation. The state’s unique demographic make-up depends on it. No other state in the
nation is impacted to such a high degree. Armed with these findings, state educational
leaders will be more prepared to support, prioritize, and champion academic
improvement and dropout reduction efforts. Moreover, these leaders will be more likely
to act on current signals that seem to point toward an eventual state educational and
economic crisis. Once known as a pioneer in the education arena, California must now
find solutions to its critical education issues and the vicious cycles that continue to feed
it. This study aspired to make a positive contribution in this direction.
Summary and Overview of the Remainder of the Study
This study was organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 has introduced the overall
study. It discussed the problem statement, nature of the study, the theoretical base and
conceptual frameworks informing the study, operational definitions, assumptions,
15
limitations, and the significance of the study. The remaining four chapters are
summarized below.
Chapter 2 provides a review of the research and literature relevant to the factors and
issues surrounding the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino
students in California. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology, design, procedures
used in completing this quantitative study, and factors impacting the validity, reliability,
and generalisability of the study. Chapter 4 discusses the data analysis of this
quantitative study, the findings, and their relationship to the research questions. Chapter
5 contains expanded interpretation of findings, suggestions for further research,
recommendations for practice, and a summary and conclusion.
16
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
If you want to search for weapons of mass destruction, go to districts with minority
graduation rates at 30% and 40%--you can find them all across the country.”
- Former U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige
Introduction
This chapter provides a review of the literature and research associated with the
academic achievement of California’s Latino students. Previous research has studied the
academic challenges within this group of students, particularly with respect to student
underperformance and high dropout rates. This study addressed the factors and possible
issues surrounding the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino
students in an urban high school in the Sacramento, California area. Ultimately, the
study determined if this phenomenon is myth or reality. In areas where the study
determined the phenomenon was reality, findings shed light on one of the many
contributors to academic underperformance and high school dropout rates and, thereby,
informed the development of possible solutions. The remainder of this review will be
organized into three sections.
The first section provides a funneled overview of Latino student academic
underperformance and high dropout rates. It starts with the “big picture” and works its
way down to the finite aspects of this study. The review describes what is currently
known about this complex problem and develops the assertion that chronic academic
underperformance and dropping out is a process, not an event.
17
The second section reviews available research and literature surrounding the heart of
this study. This is the centerpiece of this literature review. This section is subdivided
into three themes—each with various sub-topics. Theme one delves into various
theoretical frameworks and concepts that have possible bearing on this study. Among the
sub-topics within this theme are oppositional culture theory, peer social capital theory,
and other related theories and conceptual frameworks that added depth to this study.
Theme two reviews available literature on Latino students, peer influence, and academic
achievement. The sub-topics within this theme focus on California’s underperformance
and dropout rates among Latino students, the factors impacting Latino students’ academic
achievement, and the relationship between peer influence and academic achievement
among Latino high school students. Theme three discusses available research and
literature regarding interventions with respect to peer perceptions and the academic
achievement of Latino high school students. A review of literature within this theme
informed the present study with respect to its ultimate recommendations for further
research and for practice by educational leaders. The sub-topics within this theme
include student resiliency; interventions taken by schools, parents, and communities; and
role modeling and mentoring strategies and programs used as mechanisms to counter the
negative effects of peer influence on the academic achievement of Latino students.
The final section of this literature review summarizes the research, discusses the state
of knowledge on this topic, and provides a narrative of significant implications for this
state as it maneuvers its way through this difficult dilemma.
Overview of the Problem
18
As of this writing, our country and state are experiencing one of the worst economic
dilemmas in their histories. Our welfare capitalism system is stretched to the point of
near dysfunction. Among the significant problems is the inverse dynamic of incoming
and outgoing revenues. Incoming funding from sources such as taxes is not sufficient to
resource expenditures in areas such as crime, medical services, welfare, and other social
programs. The problem is magnified in the state of California. In this state, the costs of
lost tax revenue, crime, welfare, healthcare, and the negative economic effects of K-12
underperformance and high school dropout rate are singularly paralyzing.
Given the continuance of present trends, the future outlook is not promising.
California students are experiencing academic underperformance and dropping out of
high school in large numbers. The negative impact of these phenomena manifests itself
in many ways. Economically, it translates into fewer contributing, tax-paying citizens
and higher demands on our social and economic systems. As was cited earlier, the data
demonstrating the staggering negative impact on our state’s economy are conclusive.
Finally, a general examination of literature surrounding the problem of academic
underperformance and dropping out reveals two broad categories: predictive factors
associated with individual characteristics of students; and predictive factors associated
with institutional characteristics of students’ families, schools, and communities (CDRP,
October 2008). There appears to be a dearth, however, of literature examining the
influence of peer perceptions on the academic success or failure of Latino students
(Gandara, O’Hara, & Gutierrez, 2004). The focus of this study is to address possible
19
gaps in the literature with respect to the relationship of peer perceptions and grades
among Latino high school students.
Review of Research and Literature
This section will review research and literature informing the topic of this study and
its peripherals (e.g., the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino
high school students). To this end, this section will reiterate the study’s three research
questions and be organized under the three themes mentioned earlier. Each theme has
various sub-topics. In short, the review sought to inform the problem statement and the
research questions of the present study (listed below).
Research question #1: What is the nature of the relationship between peer
perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento,
California area (positive or negative)?
Research question #2: How much influence do peer perceptions have on these Latino
students’ grades?
Research question #3: How do various factors contribute to the relationship between
peer perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the
Sacramento, California area (i.e., popularity, respect, self-image, extracurricular activities
and peer social capital, oppositional culture, and importance of grades)?
Theme one: Theoretical frameworks and concepts.
This theme delves into the research and literature relevant to the theoretical
frameworks and concepts that inform and have possible bearing on this study. Among
the sub-topics within this theme are oppositional culture theory, peer social capital
20
theory, and other tangential theories and conceptual frameworks with relevance to this
study. Literature surrounding each theoretical framework and concept will be discussed
in the order of its impact on this study.
Oppositional culture theory and related frameworks.
The literature is expansive with regards to theoretical frameworks related to
oppositional culture theory and the possible existence of cultural self-imposed
achievement sabotage (Ogbu, 1993; Trueba, 1998; Fryer, 2006; Nieto, 2005). According
to proponents of these theoretical frameworks, African-American and Latino cultures are
dysfunctional and tend to punish their group members, rather than reward them, for their
individual successes. They contend this is a form of opposition to the dominant culture
(White) that does not reward their achievements with commensurate opportunities. To a
significant degree, the research supports the existence of oppositional culture within high
minority schools (Farkas, 2002).
Ogbu (1991) also argues that there is a strong fear among African American students
of being perceived as “acting white.” He suggests that this dynamic is developed from
historical relationships of racial and class subordination and exclusion. According to
these researchers, Black and Latino students fear that “acting white” might get construed
with disloyalty toward their race and ethnicity. These studies revealed that attitudes and
behavior of “acting white” included speaking correct English, being on time to class,
going to the library, getting good grades, enrolling in advanced placement classes or
honors classes, listening to white music, and wearing clothing from The Gap and
Abercrombie & Fitch instead of FUBU or Tommy Hilfiger (Ogbu, 1991; Fryer, 2006).
21
Moreover, Fryer (2006) suggests this phenomenon may also apply to Latino students.
He generally refers to this dynamic as cultural self-sabotage. The theory, he opines,
appears to be more of a judgment than an explanation, does not appear to be based on
valid research, and is, therefore, less persuasive (Fryer, 2006). Much more research in
this area is needed to know if the dynamic of cultural self-sabotage has anything to do
with the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino high school
students in California.
A related dynamic to oppositional culture theory is the “schoolboy” phenomenon
(Hurd, 2004). Research in this area asserts that this phenomenon, which is apparent
among Latino male students, parallels and resonates with the phenomenon of “acting
white” among African American students. Both are characterized by self-imposed
sanctions within each group against doing well in school. Researchers have suggested
that the existence of this dynamic could point to a larger social, cultural, and community
identity issues. Nevertheless, the “schoolboy” phenomenon can directly inform this
study on the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino male
students.
Lastly, various scholars have studied and linked “resistance” theory and the concept of
“willful not-learning” with the theory of oppositional culture (Nieto, 2005; Kohl, 1994; &
Vigil 2004). According to this research, resistance theory can be interpreted as the
conscious decision by students to resist learning as a form of political resistance (Kohl,
1994). While students may feel this is an appropriate way to demonstrate their anguish
against the inequities of school institutions, it may prove self-defeating and
22
counterproductive in the long term (Nieto, 2005). The concept of “willful not-learning”
is defined as the notion that some Latino youth groups are influenced by their peers to
show solidarity for their group by demonstrating resistance, challenging authority, and
willfully not learning what they are taught by teachers (Kohl, 1994; Vigil, 2004). In
short, an argument can be made that resistance theory and the concept of “willful notlearning” have close linkages to “acting white” and other peripherals of the oppositional
culture theory.
In short, these theories informed the present study on the relationship between peer
perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento,
California area. The design methodology attempted to validate these theories and answer
research questions surrounding the possible existence of their suppositions.
Opposing views of oppositional culture theory.
The literature and research also provide opposing views and criticism of oppositional
culture theory and its supporting frameworks (Steele, 2004; Valenzuela, 1999; FloresGonzalez, 2002; Valencia & Black, 2002). In general, these critics assert that
oppositional culture theory (“acting white”) inappropriately blames the students and their
families for low academic achievement. Among these critics is Claude Steel. He opined
that the phenomenon of “stereotype threat” exists (Steel, 2004). He maintains that low
academic achievement among students of color is more likely based on institutional
racism and the impact of societal stereotypes and perceptions about certain groups’
academic achievement. This phenomenon posits that students’ perceptions of how others
stereotype their abilities based on race or ethnicity affect their self-image and academic
23
outcomes. Often, this results in their opposition and withdrawal from academic pursuits
in order to prevent the appearance of their academic inferiority.
Another critic of oppositional culture theory is Angela Valenzuela. Her studies
resulted in the phenomenon of “subtractive schooling” (Valenzuela, 1999). She defined
this dynamic as the institutional (schools) process that divests students of color from
needed social and cultural resources to help them succeed. In essence, she suggested that
low academic achievement among students of color was more a function of school and
organizational structures than the students themselves. Similarly, Flores-Gonzalez
(2002) studied Latino student achievement and determined that school structures and
climate were the determinants of student academic achievement. She maintained that it
was the schools who either created “school kids” (those who connect with the school and
will likely succeed) or “street kids” (those who do not feel they belong and have given
up). Through a similar critical lens and pedagogical framework, Valencia and Black
(2002) attributed the low achievement of Latino students on the phenomenon of “deficit
thinking.” These researchers define this dynamic as the blaming of the victim (student),
rather than the social inequities and oppressive school systems.
These critiques and counterpoints to oppositional culture theory have given balance to
this study. The research design attempted to test the hypotheses in an unbiased manner.
The findings demonstrated various alignments with the views of these critical theories
and frameworks.
Peer social capital theory.
24
Stanton-Salazar (2004) defines peer social capital theory as adolescents’ connections
to peers and peer networks that can provide access to tangible forms of support that
facilitate the accomplishment of academic goals. Proponents of this theory posit that the
leveraging of peer social capital can help improve student academic performance and
reduce the dropout rate (Oakes, 2004; Stanton-Salazar, 2004; Moll, 1992; Gibson, 2004).
Their rationale stems from the belief that the attainment of peer social capital can help
students navigate and understand the policies, practices, and structures that often limit
their academic opportunities. Moreover, proponents of peer social capital theory posit
that providing exposure to this valuable social capital to under-privileged students can
compensate for the lower educational levels of those students’ parents (Oakes, 2004).
This theory appears to challenge oppositional cultural theory in that it advocates the
benefits of associations between minority students and middle and upper class white
students. Thus, minority students have better opportunities for exposure to resources that
will enable higher academic achievement. As a case in point, Maxine Clark (1991)
conducted a study that concluded that the dropout rate for African American students
with only African American friends was significant higher (63%) that the dropout rate of
African American students with both African American and White friends (38%), or only
White friends (20%). These findings are significant and thought-provoking when
considering the nature of oppositional culture theory and the importance of peer groups.
Similar studies on Latino students could prove worthy.
A launch point for the present study was grounded in the fact that Latino students are
least likely to participate in extracurricular activities than students of any other ethnic
25
group (Gandara & Gibson, 2004). Moreover, research suggests that peer networks and
extracurricular activities can take up the role of uneducated parents (Gibson, Bejinez,
Hidalgo, & Rolon, 2004). Extracurricular activities could prove fertile grounds for the
attainment of peer social capital. The National Center of Education Statistics in 2003
(2005e) conducted a study on the impact of extracurricular activities on student academic
achievement. The results clearly revealed that the highest test performers were also the
most involved in extracurricular activities (NCES, 2005).
In summary, student peer social capital theory had a major role in informing this
study. There appears to be a relevant connection with the study’s exploration of factors
that contribute to the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino
students in an urban high school in the Sacramento, California area.
Other related theories and frameworks.
While not the cornerstone of this study, other theoretical and conceptual frameworks
were of secondary importance and added depth to this study. These are briefly discussed
and summarized below.
1. The theory of immigrant and involuntary minorities. There is wide speculation on
the relationship between culturally embedded differences among ethnicities, immigration
status, parental values on education, and the academic achievement of students (Gibson
& Ogbu, 1991; Trueba, 1998). In general, the theory of immigrant and involuntary
minorities asserts there is a difference between minority students who came here of their
own free will (e.g., Latino immigrants) versus those who were conquered, colonized, or
brought to this country as slaves (e.g., African Americans and Native Americans) (Ogbu,
26
1987). Much has been studied through the framework of this culturally-based theory on
minority academic achievement. This theory has the potential of informing this study.
The majority of this study’s participants fall under the category of immigrant minorities.
There were linkages to this study with regards to the relationship between perceptions
and grades among Latino high school students.
2. Funds of knowledge theory. Moll (1992) opined that minority students’ cultural,
domestic, and personal experiences should be leveraged at school to improve their
academic outcomes. This theory is relevant in studies focusing on culturally-relevant
instruction and professional development of teaches. The concept of funds of knowledge,
from a practitioner standpoint, has the potential of informing recommendations for
practice resulting from this study, e.g., training of faculty to harness Latino students’
familial experiences to counter negative relationships between peer perceptions and
grades.
3. The concept of school belonging. Osterman (2000) developed the theme
correlating a positive sense of belonging at school with the attainment of academic
achievement. This framework had application in the recommendations phase of the
present study, e.g., establishing role modeling and intervention programs that leverage on
institutional goals to give students a sense of belonging while at school. This could result
in the reversal of negative relationships between peer popularity and grades among
Latino high school students.
4. The concept of “street culture.” There have been provocative studies on gang
culture and its impact on schooling (Vigil, 1999). These studies suggest a negative
27
influence, and possible strong peer pressure, among gang-affiliated youth and their
propensity to drop out of school. Research in this area looks at gang organizational
behavior, internal rules, and the achievement of belonging for certain students of
dysfunctional families. This framework could have applications to future studies relating
to the topic of this study. There is a possibility that street culture and gang affiliation
among Latino students could impact the relationship between peer perceptions and grades
among Latino students in large urban schools. Such studies, however, would need to
breach the difficult dilemmas of access and survey design to study a subject population of
this nature.
5. The Multiple Worlds Model. The Multiple Worlds Model (Phelan, Davidson, &
Yu, 1998) can be used to examine how and why students engage in behavior that is
critical of high academic achievement. This theoretical framework looks at students’
behaviors with respect to their upbringing within multiple cultures (e.g., the culture at
home versus the culture at school). This dynamic could have direct application in studies
correlating home and school influences regarding academic outcomes. This model has
direct applications to studies such as this one, e.g., where the subject student population
lives within two cultures.
Theme two: Latino students, peer influence, and academic achievement.
This theme is organized into three sub-topics: California’s academic
underperformance and dropout rate among Latino students; factors impacting Latino
students’ academic achievement; and peer influence and its effect on Latino students’
academic achievement.
28
California’s academic underperformance and dropout rate among Latino students.
There are vast amounts of literature and research in the general category of
California’s dropout rate. The cumulative effect of available literature suggests there is
wide concern for the problem, but no one-dimensional or easy answer. Much of the
literature describes the root causes and early predictors of high school graduation and
dropout. It appears the most prevalent predictive mechanism entails demographic
factors. Perhaps the most involved agency in this effort is the California Dropout
Research Project (CDRP) at the University of California, Santa Barbara. After 25 years
of research, the CDRP determined that the major risk factors for dropping out fall under
two general categories: individual characteristics of students and institutional
characteristics of their families, schools, and communities (CDRP, October 2008). Some
of the specific factors include single-parent households, parents who did not graduate
from high school, older siblings who dropped out, spending long periods of time home
alone after school, limited English proficiency, and socio economic status (Rumberger,
2007).
As has been mentioned, the literature is rich with discussions of the negative
consequences of the high dropout rate to the economy. This resulting output, or student
outcomes, have been the subject of numerous data-driven articles describing who drops
out, what happens to them, their current status, and what can be predicted as a result of
dropping out (Frey, 2005). Additionally, the research suggests the current existence of
racial isolation, high dropout rates within California’s school systems, and a low
emphasis on graduation rate accountability (The Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2005).
29
Factors impacting Latino students’ academic achievement.
As previously discussed, the literature is plentiful in the description and predictions of
California’s dropout rate. This is particularly evident in what is known about incoming
students as inputs into the educational structure. These inputs include students’ cultural
and socio-economic backgrounds, parental influence (or lack of it), and other factors
hindering student achievement even before they enter high school. The literature
adequately describes barriers to education such as lack of preschool attendance,
linguistically-isolated households, poorly educated parents, lack of proficiency in the
English language, poor health among minority and socio-economically challenged
students, migratory and unstable family patterns, and large numbers of teens not
attending school (Newhouse, 2007).
While not substantiated by research, Fryer (2006) hypothesized on the root causes for
this behavior. One was that low-achieving groups question the loyalty of students whose
high achievement appears to signal a departure from their cultural identity, i.e., “acting
white.” Another was that such rejection stems from the group’s desire to preserve its
cultural identity. Ironically, the preservation of such low-achieving identities could keep
those cultures in an educationally and economically depressed cycle. The limited
research on this dynamic also suggests the inverse correlation is prevalent in public and
integrated schools, and is worse within the Latino student community. The correlation
was not as prevalent within private and segregated schools (Fryer, 2006). The report was
descriptive in nature. It did not provide definitive root causes or recommendations to
30
reverse the destructive cycle. Nevertheless, improvements in this area can lead to a
reduced dropout rate in California.
The literature also touches on the dynamic of cultural self-sabotage. One of the
explanations describes the possible existence of “oppositional culture” dynamics and selfimposed cultural sabotage (Fryer, 2006). According to proponents of this theory,
African-American and Latino cultures are dysfunctional and tend to punish their group
members, rather than reward them, for their individual successes (Ogbu, 1991). The
theory of cultural self-sabotage, however, appears to be more of a judgment than an
explanation (Fryer, 2006). It does not appear be based on valid research and, therefore, is
less persuasive. Much more research is this area is needed to know if the dynamic of
cultural self-sabotage has anything to do with California’s academic underperformance
and dropout rate among Latino high school students.
Peer influence and its effect on academic achievement.
This study focused on what is known about the relationship between peer perceptions
and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento, California
area. There is limited research on the correlation of student peer popularity, grades,
cultural self-sabotage, and on the dynamic of “acting white” with regards to Latino
students. Two of the main studies that informed the present study are discussed below.
In the research report titled, “Acting White,” Roland G. Fryer (2006) discussed how
students of differing ethnicities reacted to peer pressure with respect to their grade point
average (GPA). His study, mainly focused on African American students, drew from an
already-existing data set called the The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health
31
for the 1994/1995 and 2002 school years. The data contained in this longitudinal study
consisted of student survey results from a pool of 7th through 12th Graders from 75
schools across the country. Fryer used these results to devise a popularity index and to
convert the students’ self-reported grades on certain subjects (math, science, English) into
a GPA. His popularity index was based on the students’ answers (in the longitudinal
study) to the question “Who are your closest friends?” Basically, Fryer determined that
those students listed as a closest friend multiple times were the most popular. Based on
this methodology, he maintained his study was not based on self-reported popularity, as
had been the primary instrument for previous studies of this nature (Fryer, 2006; Ogbu,
1991 & 2003). Fryer also maintained his was a purely empirical, quantitative study. He
mainly used linear regression and weighted least squares to arrive at his results.
Fryer found that, unlike white students, African American and Hispanic students
became less popular among their peers when their GPA went up (refer to Figure 1 in
Chapter 1). In the most salient scenario, the loss of popularity among Hispanic students
appeared to begin at the 2.3 GPA level (Fryer, 2006). While not inclusive of all
ethnicities, the author concluded there was a trade-off between doing well and rejection
from peers within traditionally low-achieving groups (Fryer, 2006). With regard to
Latino high school students, however, we do not know the extent of this problem (e.g.,
the level of impact on the dropout rate) or the factors that may contribute to it. These
considerations served as a departure point for the present study.
The present study was also informed by a previous research study that explored the
influence of peers and the limited academic success of Latino youth (Gandara, O’Hara, &
32
Gutierrez, 2004). The main purpose of this study was to determine what impact peer
influence has on the achievement behavior and aspirations of Mexican-origin students.
This longitudinal study occurred between 1997 and 2001 within two Northern California
schools, one urban and one rural. The study focused on Mexican-origin students who
spoke English and came from mostly low-income, working-class families. The
methodology consisted of student surveys and follow-up interviews. Some of this
study’s findings included: Latino students select friends from their same ethnic group
and do not appear to have much access to close peers who can provide peer social capital;
Latina female students appear to maintain higher academic aspirations than their male
counterparts; and Latino students experience peer influence that may affect their
academic achievement through direct peer pressure, normative group peer influence, and
through the creation of a sense of belonging or alienation toward other fellow students
(Gandara, O’Hara, & Gutierrez, 2004). These findings partially informed the
methodology and focus of the present study.
In short, this literature review informed the present study and sought to identify areas
of broadly shared understanding with respect to the relationship between peer perceptions
and grades among Latino high school students in California. Additionally, the review
attempted to identify areas where the research falls short, has indications of gaps, splits,
or divergences in the literature. Finally, the literature review enabled the present study to
validate previous research methodologies to determine if findings appear accurate, valid,
and reliable.
Theme three: Interventions.
33
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t…you’re right” -Unknown
This theme discusses available research and literature regarding interventions with
respect to peer perceptions and the academic achievement of Latino high school students.
The purpose for reviewing literature in this arena was to inform the eventual
recommendations for practice of the present study. In essence, a review of the topic of
interventions was a proactive venture intended to inform the present study in its goal to
provide relevant, effective, and well-researched recommendations for future research and
for practices of educational leaders. This study opined that it is the responsibility of these
educational leaders to plant the seed of belief in our young students, e.g., to influence
them to “think they can.”
Three sub-topics are included within this theme. The first discusses literature and
research on student resilience. The intent of this section was to look at the research with
regards to at-risk students who have experienced academic success. The second subtopic discusses literature on possible interventions by institutions, such as schools,
parents, and communities—with regard to the impact of peer perceptions on student
academic achievement. The final sub-topic of this theme canvassed available literature
and research on role modeling and mentoring strategies and programs that aspire to
counter the negative impact of peer influence on the academic achievement of Latino
high school students.
Student resilience.
Academically resilient students have been defined as those who were classified as atrisk due to various adverse factors, yet graduated from high school on time (Bassett,
34
2002). With regards to resiliency and ethnicity, studies have shown that Latino students
credit their resiliency and academic achievement to a caring school environment and high
peer expectations (Wasonga, Christman, & Kilmer, 2003). These findings give way to
the possibility of framing interventions based on the experiences of these at-risk students
who had academic successes based on positive peer influences. Another study (mostly of
African American students) found that resilient behaviors among minority students are
closely linked to peer networks (Clark, 1991). Granted, these studies are limited with
respect to Latino students. Yet, the findings suggest a likely possibility of similar results
for Latinos—or at least the possible benefits of further research in this area.
Interventions within institutional environments.
Available research and literature also discusses what institutions (schools, teachers,
and staff) can do to mediate the effects of student peer influence on academic
achievement. Studies suggest that there are a variety of ways in which the school
contexts themselves influence the nature of student peer relationships and academic
achievement (Gibson, 2004; Hurd, 2004). These researchers maintain that schools have a
responsibility to understand student peer relationships at play and help create school
environments that facilitate learning. Hurd (2004) opines that too many schools
exonerate themselves of responsibility by attributing Latino students’ academic failures
to their cultural background, families, and peer networks (e.g., oppositional culture and
the “schoolboy” phenomenon).
The literature also suggests that peer relations can be productively structured by
institutions (Gibson, 2004). Teachers and schools can structure venues related to peer
35
social capital, such as extracurricular activities. In essence, the institutions can shape
peer relations in positive ways. Moreover, the research shows that high schools can
effectively intervene and frame the nature of student peer relations through
institutionalized policies and practices (Conchas, 2002). This research also suggests that
teachers and school staff need better skills for intervening. Similarly, educational leaders
and administrators need to know how to develop and prepare these school personnel to
deal with these dynamics.
The literature suggests that institutions need to create a stronger sense of student
belonging within the schools (Gibson, 2004). These findings also hold schools
responsible for preparing students to be competent “border crossers” in school (e.g.,
Latino students’ ability to maneuver successfully between their growing up cultures at
home and the academic achievement culture at school (Delgado-Gaitan & Trueba, 1991).
Other researchers, such as Stanton-Salazar (2004), concluded that academic institutions,
such as schools and districts, can set up interventions and posture resources to ensure that
low SES students will gain social capital from middle-class peers and adults in areas rich
in social capital (e.g., AP classes, extracurricular activities, etc.).
In summary, available literature and research adequately describes possible
interventions within institutional contexts. These studies posit that such interventions can
lead to positive student peer influence and higher academic achievement. Among these
interventions are the involvement of schools and teachers in the development of
structures that channel and support positive peer social capital. Such interventions have
36
the probability of enabling a positive relationship between peer perceptions and grades
among Latino students.
Intervention through role modeling and mentoring.
The final theme of this review aspires to determine what is known about the effects of
role modeling and mentoring within failing academic institutions. Based on the available
literature, the present study posits that a negative relationship between peer perceptions
and grades among Latino high school students can lead to academic underperformance
and higher dropout rate. This would suggest that such schools could be classified as
failing academic institutions. There is limited literature and research in the area of role
modeling as a counter to the negative relationship between peer perceptions and grades
among Latino high school students. Moreover, the limited literature and research
available is fairly outdated. Ultimately, this opined that such a mechanism (role
modeling) can be used to infiltrate these negative relationships and help reverse their
damaging effects.
Although somewhat dated, an insightful study surveyed incarcerated felons (Stephens,
1990). Of this group, 79% had been high school dropouts. They were asked to cite the
major reasons they dropped out of school. Many cited adverse socio-economic
conditions, peer influence, and poor role modeling as causes leading to dropping out and
pursuing criminal activities. While somewhat dated, this report gives credence to the
notion of role modeling could be one way to counter the negative effects of peer
perceptions on grades, which would help improve academic performance and reduce
dropout rates.
37
There appears to be sufficient literature on the effects of role modeling at the macro
level, i.e., within school systems, organizations, and at the policy level. The
preponderance of what is known about the effects of role modeling at this level involves
the roles of schools and parents in the prevention of dropping out of school. The bulk of
the literature points to the value of positive social relationships between teachers, parents,
and students as a counter to dropping out (Lee, 2001). Most of this research, however, is
broad and generic in nature, and does not sufficiently discuss the ramifications of currentday student and student peer group dynamics.
Teachers are students’ day-to-day role models. They are, perhaps, in the best position
to mediate and redirect the negative effects of student peer perceptions. Research has
shown that it only takes one role model’s influence to keep a student in school (CDRP,
Mar 2008). As previously discussed, almost half of California’s K-12 students are of
Latino origin. Ironically, the ratio of Latino teachers to Latino students is extremely low
(see Table 1). Improvements in this area would serve to increase the numbers of teacher
role models available to the group with the most dropouts. As of the 2006/2007 school
year, the California Department of Education reported the following ratio of
student/teacher demographics within the four largest subgroups in the K-12 category:
Table 1: California Demographics, K-12
Students
Teachers
Latino
48.1%
15.6%
White
29.4%
71.6%
38
Asian
Afr/Am
8.1%
4.9%
7.6%
4.5%
Source: CDE Ed Data, 2007
Moreover, California’s minorities now comprise the majority of this enormous state.
The student/teacher diversity imbalance could further act to exacerbate larger national
issues. Even a cursory evaluation of teacher diversity recruiting demonstrates that much
remains to be done. The demographic data presented earlier (particularly with regards to
Latinos) clearly suggest the enormity of the diversity imbalance problem within our
educational system. Enhanced diversity recruitment actions are needed, and time is of
the essence. It is critical to the nation’s educational and economic future. Perhaps the
best reason for enhancing diversity recruiting operations within the educational system is
to produce sufficient teacher role models of color. Collaborative literature asserts that
various minorities, particularly Latinos, have not generated a large cadre of high
achievers as role models (Fryer, 2006). Moreover, it takes time to “make” an effective
role model.
Given the low Latino graduation rates, the pipeline for role models is limited. A
research study focusing on the lack of Latino role models found that Latino students were
aware of this absence within the teacher community (Topete, 1999). In this study, a twostate (California and Texas) series of Latino student focus groups (elementary, high
school, and college level) indicated that the lack of Latino role models prevented them
39
from viewing professional opportunities as attainable for themselves. In short, the
cumulative effect of available research lends credence to the notion that role models of
similar race and ethnicity to the students being mentored might matter. This is
particularly relevant when the price of academic underperformance and dropping out are
at stake. Allocating increased resources to teacher diversity recruiting may help.
An evaluation of possible diversity recruiting grounds pointed to several positive
venues. A National Conference of State Legislatures found that 38% of new teachers did
not decide to become teachers until after they were in college (Webb & Norton, 2008).
This is useful information in the formulation of strategies and identification of locations
for effective minority teacher recruiting. This could include the Hispanic Serving
Institutions (HSI) and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU).
In summary, the literature suggests that research on role modeling at the micro
(individual) level had a greater focus in an earlier day. There was a higher incidence of
research and journalism targeting individual mentoring as a counter to negative peer
influence and high dropout rates. One particular document provides a how-to booklet to
help one-on-one mentors (Fennimore, 1988). The underlying premise of the booklet is
that that mentors and role models can relate to students in ways that parents and teachers
cannot. The immediate relevance to this study is that improved role modeling may be
one way to counter the negative relationship between peer perceptions and grades among
Latino high school students.
Role models of similar race and ethnicity—does it matter?
40
This review also explores what is known about the effectiveness of role models from
the same race and ethnicity as the students they are mentoring. This aspect is directly
aligned with the context and target group of the present study, Latino students.
Moreover, the topic of role modeling and ethnicity is of key significance when
considering that most of California’s dropouts are Latino students. The literature
suggests that improving access to role models by Latino students can have a positive
effect on the development of academic identities, peer relationships, and an enhanced
college-going culture (Huber, 2006). This same literature, however, cautions that this
needs to be accomplished in a manner that does not diminish students’ cultural identities.
Collaborative literature asserts that various minorities, particularly Latinos, have not
generated a large cadre of high achievers as role models (Fryer, 2006). In short, the
cumulative effect of what is known somewhat lends credence to the notion that role
models of similar race and ethnicity to the students being mentored might matter. This
dynamic could have particularly beneficial results in the facilitation of positive
relationships between Latino student peer groups.
Role modeling within schools and districts with the most dropouts.
According to a recent study, 100 California high schools (of approximately 2,500)
account for almost half of all dropouts in the state (Rotermund, 2008). Arguably,
negative peer influences could likely exist within these schools. Furthermore, targeted
role modeling within these specific schools and districts could lead to significant
interventions and improvements in the areas of negative peer influence and high dropout
rates. Areas that can be explored and communicated through role modeling include
41
access to peer social capital, the education of teachers and school staff in the area of peer
influence, and other environmental factors impacting the academic achievement of
students. Promoting student resilience and communicating best practices through role
modeling within these schools and districts would also help. A current example of a best
practice that can be communicated through role modeling is the finding that after school
programs targeting at-risk youth seem to be experiencing success (Afterschool Alliance,
2005). In summary, enhanced role modeling programs within schools and districts with
the most dropouts may likely lead to the positive channeling of student peer influence and
improvements in the academic performance of students within these schools. The subject
school for the present study was not one of these 100 schools. It does, however, have
many of the same demographics and student dynamics (e.g., high minority student
composition, low SES families, etc.) as many of those 100 schools.
Summary of the Research
It has been said that whatever California does, or fails to do, will impact the entire
nation. Educationally and economically, this state sets the tone for the country. This
literature review has broadly looked at what is known about various significant factors
impacting this state’s educational system and economy. The review also focused more
narrowly on areas more specific to the study’s topic. Among these areas were academic
underperformance, dropout rates, and the relationship between peer perceptions and
grades among Latino high school students. The review also summarized the state of
knowledge on this topic via two general findings. First, there is clear evidence of broad
concern and a plethora of literature and research on the state’s concern for academic
42
underperformance and dropout rates, in general. What is known, however, primarily
regards general root causes and broadly sweeping findings on predictors of
underperformance and dropping out. There appears to be a lack of definitive, workable,
and hands-on solutions to the problem. Secondly, this review found limited research and
literature regarding the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino
high school students and, more importantly, what to do about it. Another gap in the
literature appears to exist in the area of role modeling as an intervention to the negative
relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino high school students.
While the research and literature discusses these areas separately (role modeling and
student peer influence), there appears to be a gap in the body of knowledge connecting
the two. Appendix A provides a summary and matrix of selected literature demonstrating
these gaps.
Based on this review, the overall implications for this study were twofold. First, the
study will add to the body of knowledge with respect to solutions targeting the academic
underperformance and dropout rates among Latino students. Secondly, the study will
also add to the body of knowledge in the understanding of student peer perceptions,
academic achievement, and dropout prevention strategies among Latino students.
Research in these areas can lead to partial solutions to this overwhelming and complex
problem.
In summary, this literature review has looked at factors and issues surrounding the
relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino high school students in
California. The primary purpose of the review was to inform the present study.
43
To this end, the review delved into the research and literature within three themes:
theoretical frameworks and concepts; Latino students, peer influence, and academic
achievement; and interventions. Armed with this knowledge, the remaining chapters of
the study will ensue. In closing, this review opines that our state should want to know
more about this topic.
44
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between peer perceptions
and grades among Latino high school students at an urban high school in the Sacramento,
California area. The study attempted to determine the nature of this relationship (positive
or negative), how much influence peer perceptions have on these students’ grades, and
assessed various factors contributing to this relationship. Considering the significant
academic underperformance and severity of California’s dropout rate among Latino
students, an increased understanding about this dynamic will serve to identify possible
solutions and interventions to this complex and continuing problem. The remainder of
this chapter describes the research design, population, instrumentation, data collection,
data analysis, validity, reliability, generalisability, and the measures taken to protect the
privacy and rights of the participants.
Research Design
This was a quantitative study. The nature of the study’s major variables lends itself to
the use of quantitative methods (e.g., four grade levels, two genders, and various factors
impacting student perceptions). In general, the various student peer perceptions are the
dependent variables and grade point average (GPA) is the independent variable.
According to Muijs (2007), the use of quantitative research methods is particularly suited
to research questions seeking to explain certain phenomena, such as those related to
variations in student achievement. Moreover, quantitative research is ideally suited to the
45
testing of variables such as those regarding a possible relationship between peer
perceptions and grades among Latino high school students. The research instruments for
this study consisted of a student survey and the collection of coded/redacted student GPA
data. Each is described below.
The survey had a two-fold purpose: to provide a quantifiable measure of the element
of student peer popularity; and to assess various factors contributing to the possible
relationship between peer perceptions and academic achievement among the Latino
students in the study group. The majority of the survey consisted of Likert scale
questions. The survey also contained questions designed to employ a mathematical
sorting model to determine the most popular students according to their peers. This
measurement of student peer popularity was just one of the elements of peer perception.
Previous researchers have studied the relationship of student peer popularity and
academic achievement (Ainsworth-Darnell, J. & Downey, D. 1998; Cook, P. & Ludwig,
J., 1997; Fryer, R., 2006). The results appear to be mixed with regards to the clear
existence of a relationship between these two variables. Additionally, these studies were
mainly focused on African American students and relied on self-reported measures of
student popularity and/or grades. The present study focused on Latino students in the
Sacramento, California area and employed a survey design that did not rely solely on
self-reported measures of student popularity or grades. This gave the study’s primary
purpose, to determine the nature of the relationship between peer perceptions and grades
among Latino high school students, an element of uniqueness.
46
As discussed earlier, an important element of the research design was the collection
and use of school district-provided GPA data for the study’s student population. These
data, coupled with the student survey results, helped determine the relationship between
peer popularity and GPA among Latino students at this school. The research design for
this specific element (popularity) was partially based on a ground-breaking research
method devised by Dr. Roland Fryer, a Harvard University professor and researcher. The
strength of this method is that it does not rely solely on student self-reported measures of
popularity. Instead, the survey asks students to list their five closest friends (Fryer,
2006). In the present study, the survey contained this question and an additional, slightly
altered question asking students to list the five most popular students in their class.
Through a quantitative sorting and weighting process, those listed (as closest friends
and/or as the most popular students) on multiple surveys were given higher marks of
popularity. The end result was a list of the most popular students (according to their
peers) in each of the four grade levels. Logically, the next step was to compare the
popular students’ school-provided GPAs with the median GPA of their entire class and
the median GPA of all Latino students in their class. This helped determine if there was a
positive or negative relationship between the elements of peer popularity and GPA (i.e., a
positive or negative gradient).
The survey also asked students to self-report their GPA. This provided an indication
of the accuracy and truthfulness when collecting self-reported GPA data versus actual
GPA data. The collection and use of self-reported GPA data has been the primary
methodology of previous studies (Fryer, 2006). The results of the present study,
47
therefore, were able to confirm or deny the validity of using self-reported GPA data as
the primary measure. Moreover, the self-reported GPA data provided additional
indicators of students’ perceptions of their own GPA and their perception of the impact of
peer popularity on grades. The district-provided actual GPA data also served as a backup data source to the results of the survey’s self-reported GPA. Ultimately, these data
were analyzed using quantitative statistical methods to achieve the study’s purpose. The
matrix in Appendix B provides a visual demonstration of how each survey question
helped answer each of the three research questions.
The survey’s secondary purpose was to assess various factors contributing to the
possible relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino students. In
addition to the peer popularity/GPA factor already discussed, the study also looked at the
peer factors of respect, self-image, extracurricular activities and peer social capital,
oppositional culture (e.g., “acting white” or “schoolboy” phenomena), and students’
views on the importance of grades. The survey questions attempted to quantify the
relationship, nature, and impact of these factors. (This is in addition to the factor of peer
popularity already discussed).
Ultimately, these data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical
methods (i.e., cross tabulations and Chi-square testing), and a mathematical sorting
model to determine the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino
high school students at an urban high school in the Sacramento, California area.
This was a quantitative study. Admittedly, this type of research method limited the
study in providing the ethnographic richness derived from qualitative methods. Future
48
research in this area could employ qualitative research methods (such as follow-up
student interviews) to add richness and a more ethnographic, human element to this topic.
This type of research could utilize the Grounded Theory methodology (Strauss & Corbin,
1998). This is an analytic approach using a coding system and comparative analysis
(CCA) to identify emergent themes (Strauss, 1987). Theory is derived from both
inductive reasoning and deductive analysis and draws upon an understanding of the
world, utilizing the categories, themes, and patterns drawn from the participants
themselves. The focus is on making the implicit more explicit. This approach allows
emergent methods of analysis to be utilized to derive theory from data and has flexibility
built into its process. Thus, the research method can adapt as understanding deepens,
situations change, or unexpected patterns emerge from the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Population
This quantitative study was conducted at a large urban high school in the Sacramento,
California area. The site was selected due to its high concentration of Latino students—
the target population of the study. According to current California Department of
Education (CDE) data, this high school is a traditional, diverse, well established,
comprehensive, public urban high school. As a Title I school, it receives federal funding
for educationally disadvantaged students. A large portion of the entire school (46.2%)
qualifies for the Free/Reduced-price Meals Program. The school’s enrollment for the
2008/2009 academic year was 2,144 total students. Of these, 656 are Latino students.
The majority of these students are from low SES families, e.g., they qualify for the
Free/Reduced-Price Meals Program.
49
This is a diverse high school with respect to its student population. For the 2008/2009
academic year, the demographic composition of the four largest sub-groups of students
was: Latino (30.6%), Asian (27.1%), White (28.5%), and African American (10.6%).
Additionally, 19.4% of all the school’s students are coded as English Language Learners
(ELL). Approximately half of the total ELL students are Latino Spanish-speaking
students. The school’s parent district is also an urban, inner city, diverse, unified school
district. There are 12 high schools in this district.
While not seemingly related to the focus of this study, the data reflect an imbalance
with regards to teacher diversity at this high school. This has likely relevance to this
study’s eventual recommendations with regard to the practices of educational leaders.
The school employs 94 teachers. For the 2008/2009 academic year, the demographic
composition of the four largest sub-groups of teachers was: White (74.5%); Latino
(12.8%); Asian (6.4%); and African American (6.4%). The chart below reflects the
imbalance of this school’s student-to-teacher diversity representation.
Table 2: School Demographics, 2008/2009
(Total students: 2,144; Total teachers 94)
Students
Teachers
Latino
30.6%
12.8%
White
28.5%
74.5%
Asian
27.1%
6.4%
50
Afr/Am 10.6%
6.4%
The Academic Performance Index (API) goal for all schools in California is 800. In
2009, this school had a growth API of 757. The parent district had a growth API of 746.
The 2009 growth APIs for this school’s largest sub-groups were: 830 for White students;
812 for Asian students; 673 for Latino students; 635 for African American students; and
625 for ELL students.
Table 3: Growth API for 2009
(Goal 800)
(district 746)
School
757
White
830
Asian
812
Latino
673
(ELL 625)
Afr Am 635
The school’s adjusted dropout rate for the 2007/2008 academic year (based on the new
CDE methodology) was 16.9%. However, the CDE’s new methodology for determining
dropouts does not take into account ELL, migrant, or socioeconomically disadvantaged
students. It also does not account for students who have moved to another state,
transferred to a private school systems, went on to get their GED, or special education
51
students who received a certificate of completion. Combined, all these excluded students
(who did not graduate) suggest major inaccuracies and flaws in the state’s method for
counting dropouts. This is particularly applicable to the population group of this study,
Latino students. In essence, it is highly probable that many of these exempted students
dropped out and that the actual dropout rates are much higher than those reported.
Nevertheless, the reported disaggregated dropout rates among the four largest sub-groups
in this urban school are: White (10.7%); Asian (14.3%); Latino (16.5%); and African
American (36.9%).
Table 4: Reported dropout rates (2007/2008)
School
16.9%
White
10.7%
Asian
14.3%
Latino
16.5%
Afr Am
36.9%
In summary, the population for this study consisted of approximately 656 Latino
students in the 9th through 12th grades in a large urban high school in the Sacramento,
California area (488 English speakers and 168 Spanish-speaking ELL students). All
Latino students in this high school were invited to participate. Additionally,
coded/redacted district-provided GPA data were collected for all Latino students in this
high school. The purpose for this was to compare peer popularity measures with actual
52
district-provided GPA data and with student self-reported GPA. The self-reported data
was gleaned from one of the survey questions. These data also provided the study an
additional means of validating the accuracy of self-reported data and helped assess
students’ attitudes, behaviors, and actions regarding peer perceptions and academic
achievement.
This study only attempted to validate the relationship between peer perceptions among
all Latino high school students within the target school. Other racial, ethnic, or SES level
student groups were not studied. This provides opportunities for the future research of
peer perceptions and grades among other racial, ethnic, and SES level student groups.
Instrumentation
As previously discussed, the two main instruments in this study’s research design
were a student survey and district-provided GPA data. This section will discuss the
thought process and logic associated with the survey questions, GPA data, and their
linkage to the study’s three research questions. In essence, the survey and analysis of
GPA data are designed to answer the research questions. The narrative that follows
describes the linkage of the instrument, its questions, and the design used to arrive at
answers to the research questions. Furthermore, the matrix in Appendix B provides a
visual demonstration of how each survey question helps answer each of the three research
questions.
Analyses of the student survey and GPA data were designed to answer the following
research questions:
53
Research question #1: What is the nature of the relationship between peer perceptions
and GPA among Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento, California
area (positive or negative)?
Research question #2: How much influence does peer perception have on these
students’ grades?
Research question #3: How do various factors contribute to the relationship between
peer perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the
Sacramento, California area this relationship (e.g., popularity, respect, self-image,
extracurricular activities and peer social capital, oppositional culture, and importance of
grades)?
Discussion of survey questions.
The survey questions were designed to answer and measure aspects of each of the
three research questions. The design, logic, and rationale for various survey questions—
and the survey questions themselves—are discussed below. (Note: Appendix B provides
a matrix demonstrating how each survey question supports the answering of any, or all,
of the research questions).
The majority of the survey (questions 1-18) consisted of Likert scale and nominal-type
questions. The purpose of these questions was to assess various factors contributing to
the possible relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino students.
These factors include: extracurricular activities and peer social capital; students’ views
on the importance of grades; peer perceptions relating to students who get good grades;
student self-image; perceptions of student popularity and grades; peer perceptions of
54
respect; oppositional culture tendencies and grades; and self-reported GPA. The survey
questions attempted to quantify the existence and impact of these factors.
To achieve the study’s purpose of determining the relationship between peer
popularity and grades, questions 19 and 20 were included in the survey. These questions
were designed to determine the most popular students according to their peers. Having
identified these students, the next step was to compare the school-provided student GPA
of these popular students against the average GPA of their entire grade level and the
average GPA of all Latino students in their grade level. This helped determine the
possible existence of a positive or negative relationship between the elements of peer
popularity and GPA (i.e., a positive or negative gradient). Here is a more detailed
discussion of the formulation and logic of this part of the survey.
Question 19: “Who are your five closest friends?” This survey question attempted to
glean a measure of student popularity without relying on student self-reported data. Fryer
(2006) devised this question based on the assumption that popular students would appear
multiple times on the student surveys. Through a combination of mathematical sorting,
this question enables the identification of students with high popularity. The end result is
a list of students with above-average popularity. Having accomplished this, the schoolprovided GPA data on each student can be matched to each student with high measures
of popularity. This enables the determination of the nature of the relationship between
student popularity and GPA (positive and negative), which helps answer research
question #1 and partially helps answer research questions #2 and #3.
55
Question 20: “Who are the five most popular students in your class?” This was a
different variation of the question above. It may have elicited a more accurate answer
from student participants, since it may not have been perceived as personal as the
question above (i.e., closest friends).
The collection of district-provided GPA data was a key component of the research
design. However, the use of the student survey to glean student self-reported GPAs was
used as a correlative element to the perception of peer popularity. For this purpose,
survey question #14 read, “What is your current GPA?” A four-point Likert scale
(below) was used:
1.
Below 2.00
2.
2.00 to 2.99
3. 3.00 to 3.50
4. Above 3.50
The following series of questions sought to validate research findings suggesting that
participation in extracurricular activities exposes students to peer social capital, which
increases their opportunities for high academic achievement. The participant responses to
these questions were compared to their GPAs.
Question 1: “In how many extracurricular activities do you participate? (example:
sports, clubs, music, student council, academic groups, etc.)”
1. None
2. 1 or 2
3. 3 or 4
56
4. More than 4
Question 2: “On average, in how many extracurricular activities do your friends
participate? (example: sports, clubs, music, student council, academic groups, etc.)?
1. None
2. 1 or 2
3. 3 or 4
4. More than 4
Question 3: “On average, in how many extracurricular activities do popular students
participate? (example: sports, clubs, music, student council, academic groups, etc.)”
1. None
2. 1 or 2
3. 3 or 4
4. More than 4
The following series of survey questions are designed to examine various factors
contributing to the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino high
school students. They help answer the research questions. These questions are based on
research findings suggesting that friends have an influence on each other’s attitudes
toward school achievement (Gandara, O’Hara, & Gutierrez, 2004). The second and third
questions, which are asked a different way, are intended to glean similar peer perceptions.
Question 4: “How important is it to you to get good grades?”
1. Not important
2. Somewhat important
57
3. Important
4. Very important
Question 5: “How important is it to your best friends that they get good grades?”
1. Not important
2. Somewhat important
3. Important
4. Very important
Question 6: “How important do you believe it is to popular students that they get good
grades?”
1. Not important
2. Somewhat important
3. Important
4. Very important
Question 7: “What do you think of students who get good grades? (choose only one)”
1. I don’t like them
2. I think they are schoolboys
3. I don’t care either way
4. I respect them
Question 8: “What do your friends think of students who get good grades? (choose only
one)”
1. They don’t like them
2. They call them a schoolboy
58
3. They don’t care either way
4. They respect them
Question 9: “What do popular students think of those who get good grades? (choose
only one)”
1. They don’t like them
2. They call them a schoolboy
3. They don’t care either way
4. They respect them
The survey question below is also derived from a previous study. These researchers
determined that there is a relevant linkage between the peer perception of self-image and
grades (Gandara, O’Hara, & Gutierrez, 2004).
Question 10: “How would you MOST like other students to think of you?”
1. Someone who gets invited to all the best parties
2. Someone who is fun to be around
3. Someone who is nice
4. Someone who is smart and a good student
The following questions are designed to complement, triangulate, and facilitate the
answering of the research questions:
Question 11: “Which one of the following is MOST important in terms of what makes a
student popular?”
1. Not being a schoolboy or sellout
2. Being good-looking
59
3. Being nice
4. Getting good grades
Question 12: “Which one of the following is MOST likely to get you respect in the eyes
of other students at this school?”
1. Standing up to the system
2. Maintaining your racial or ethnic identity
3. Getting along with everyone
4. Getting good grades in school
Question 13: “Which of the following students are MOST likely to get good grades?”
1. Those who are trying to be a schoolboy or act white
2. Nerds who are out of touch with important things
3. Those who are naturally smart
4. Those who work hard on their school work
Data Collection
The following data were collected:
•
Results of a survey administered to Latino students within a large urban high
school in the Sacramento, California area (See Appendix C, Student Survey)
•
District-provided student GPA data for all these Latino students (See Appendices
FF and GG)
The school district provided the official list of all students coded as Latino (N=656).
All Latino students were asked (by their teachers) to take home parental consent letters.
60
Other than students who were 18 years or older, a signed parental consent letter was
required of them to take the survey. The parental consent letters, student assent letters,
and the surveys were written in English and Spanish. All participants, to include ELL
students, had the choice of taking the survey in English or Spanish. To provide an
incentive to take the survey, all students who took the survey were eligible to win a new
iPod. One IPod was raffled to each grade level (9th through 12th grades). A fifth iPod
was raffled to all teachers who helped administer the surveys. This acknowledged the
teachers’ positive and purposeful support toward the successful completion of the study.
The survey was administered at the school site. District-provided GPA data was
redacted, coded, and collected. Based on the school officials’ recommendations, the
actual location, time, and procedures for the administration of the survey was determined
well in advance. Samples of all these documents are included in the appendices section
of this study.
Data Analysis
Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. Among these
methods are cross tabulation, chi-square testing, and a mathematical sorting model to
determine the most popular students according to their peers. Cross tabulation is
appropriate to this study due to its various categorical variables (e.g., four grade levels,
two student genders, and other variables related to peer perceptions). These peer
perceptions include the factors of popularity, respect, self-image, extracurricular activities
and peer social capital, oppositional culture, and student views on the importance of
grades. The need to analyze multiple variables (in a non-parametric way) made this
61
suitable for the use of chi square testing. Through this method, statistical significance of
the data was determined (e.g., were the results due to chance?). Lastly, a mathematical
sorting model was used to determine the most popular students according to their peers.
These popular students’ actual GPAs were then compared to the GPAs of their class to
determine the relationship between popularity and grades (positive or negative).
Research questions and hypotheses.
The following research questions and hypotheses guided the study:
Research question #1: What is the nature of the relationship between peer
perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento,
California area (positive or negative)?
One null hypothesis (Ho) was evaluated:
Ho1: There is no specific relationship (positive nor negative) between peer
perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento,
California area.
One alternative hypothesis (H1), with four possible permutations, was evaluated.
Each permutation stipulates there is a relationship, either positive or negative, between
peer perceptions and grades. The following possible permutations define the alternative
hypothesis (H1):
H1-1: High Grades = Positive perceptions
H1-2: High Grades = Negative perceptions
H1-3: Low Grades = Positive perceptions
H1-4: Low Grades = Negative perceptions
62
Research question #2: How much influence do peer perceptions have on these Latino
students’ grades?
One null hypothesis was evaluated:
Ho2: Peer perceptions have no influence on the grades of Latino students in an urban
high school in the Sacramento, California area.
One alternative hypothesis was evaluated:
H2: Peer perceptions have significant influence on the grades of Latino students in an
urban high school in the Sacramento, California area.
Research question #3: How do various factors contribute to the relationship between
peer perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the
Sacramento, California area (i.e., popularity, respect, self image, extracurricular activities
and peer social capital, oppositional culture, and importance of grades)?
The following null hypothesis was evaluated:
Ho3: None of the factors evaluated (i.e., popularity, respect, self image,
extracurricular activities and peer social capital, oppositional culture, and importance of
grades) contribute to the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino
students in an urban high school in the Sacramento, California area.
One alternative hypothesis was evaluated:
H3: Multiple factors contribute to this relationship (i.e., popularity, respect, self
image, peer social capital, extracurricular activities, oppositional culture, and importance
of grades).
63
In summary, the key data analyses for this study included descriptive and inferential
statistics, and a mathematical sorting model to determine the most popular students
according to their peers. Due to the ordinal nature of most of the student survey (Likert
scale questions), the existence of multiple nominal groupings (i.e., male/female, four
grade levels, country of birth, language speaking abilities), and the evaluation of
relationships between multiple variables, these statistical measures appeared to be the
most appropriate. Additionally, a simple mathematical sorting model was used to
determine the most popular students in each grade level (according to their peers). The
GPAs of these most popular students were then compared to the median GPAs of their
entire class and of all Latino students in their class. Additionally, the student survey
collected self-reported GPA data to assess (among other things) the validity of studies
solely using self-reported data.
Validity, Reliability, and Generalisability
Validity.
Various actions were taken to ensure the validity of this study (i.e., did it measure
what it intended to measure?). The study’s methodology was subjected to a thorough
review by numerous subject-matter experts and a doctoral dissertation committee. The
two main instruments (a student survey and district-provided student GPA data) were
screened and tested to ensure all questions and protocols informed the study’s research
questions and measured what they intended to measure—the relationship between peer
perceptions and grades among Latino high school students. With regards to the target
measurements, the key words were “relationship” and “perceptions”—not correlation,
64
causation, behavior, or other measurements not closely tied to the study. Although the
study did not include a pilot survey, an informal pilot was conducted to ensure the target
audience (Latino high school students) understood and related to the terminology of
survey. The informal pilot validated survey participant understanding and use of terms
such as “acting white,” “schoolboy,” and “sellout.”
Reliability.
Measures were also taken to ensure the reliability of the study. Consistency and
reliability of the survey were assured by administering the exact survey to all students,
conducting the survey under the same conditions, by the same teachers, and in the same
general setting (e.g., at school and in the classroom). Meticulous care was taken to
ensure students did not take the surveys home and could not discuss the survey with other
students prior to taking it. Moreover, parents were not sent a copy of the survey prior to
students taking the survey. To address parental requests to see the survey, copies were
pre-positioned at the school. Parents were welcomed to see the survey at the school, but
not to take a copy home (there were no issues with this plan). To further ensure the
consistency and reliability of the study, similar methods were used in transferring and
recording the raw data into spreadsheets and SPSS. The same people who collected all
survey data recorded it onto the spreadsheets. A close chain of custody was observed in
the transfer of the raw data to SPSS. Although a formal pilot survey was not conducted,
informal queries of random students within the survey’s population were conducted. The
purpose of these queries was to ensure the terminology within the student survey was
65
understandable and resonated within this population (e.g., “acting white,” “schoolboy,”
etc.)
Generalisability.
A major strength of this study is in the generalisability of its findings. This is rooted
in the large sample of the study’s subject population. From this school’s total population
of Latino students (N=656), a sample of 169 students completed the survey (n=169).
This represents a 26% participation rate. The end result is that an inference of wider
generalisability can be made when studies employ larger samples (Muijs, 2007).
Moreover, a larger sample helps minimize Type I and Type II error because it enables the
discounting of outliers in the data (Muijs, 2007). An argument can be made, therefore,
that the results of this study may be generalized to the study’s population (Latinos in this
high school) and, perhaps, to a wider array of schools of similar demographics.
Protection of Participants’ Privacy and Rights
District, school, and university Human Subjects Committee approvals were granted
prior to the collection of data and administration of the survey. The research process did
not commence until these approvals were granted. Moreover, parental consents were
required prior to surveying the student participants. These processes provided a
comprehensive and complementary mechanism to ensure the protection, privacy, and
rights of all study participants. Documents used in this process are included as
appendices to this study.
66
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Introduction
The intent of this chapter was to analyze and present the study’s findings.
Specifically, the chapter will evaluate the study’s hypotheses; discuss the survey results
with regard to the study’s population (i.e., “who they are” according to resulting data);
identify the categories emerging from the findings; summarize and discuss the study’s
remaining findings; and provide a summary and conclusion for this phase of the study.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between peer perceptions and
grades among Latino high school students at an urban high school in the Sacramento,
California area. Considering the academic underperformance and severe dropout rates
among California’s Latino students, an increased understanding about this dynamic will
help educational leaders identify possible solutions and interventions to this challenging
problem.
The general research design for this study consisted of a student survey and the
collection of actual student GPA data. The combination of survey results and various
analyses of GPA data were designed to inform the three research questions. The survey
had a two-fold purpose: to assess various factors contributing to a possible relationship
between peer perceptions and grades among the Latino students; and to provide a
quantifiable method of determining the most popular students in the class. A statistical
“snapshot” of how student participants (in the aggregate) answered each survey question
is depicted in Appendix L (Descriptive Statistics for Each Survey Question). The
67
“mode” is highlighted because it depicts the most frequently selected answer by the
survey participants. For example, the mode for question #1 was answer choice #2, which
stated they participate in “1 or 2” extracurricular activities.
Evaluation of the Study’s Hypotheses
The study’s initially-proposed research questions and hypotheses were evaluated
based on the resulting data. These evaluations are discussed below.
Research question #1: What is the nature of the relationship between peer
perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento,
California area (positive or negative)?
One null hypothesis (Ho1) was evaluated:
Ho1: There is no specific relationship (positive nor negative) between peer
perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento,
California area.
To test this hypothesis, SPSS was used. This included descriptive and inferential
statistics (i.e., frequency tables, cross tabulations, and chi-square testing). The data
analysis suggested a negative relationship between peer perceptions of self-image and
grades (question #10). When asked how they would mostly like to be thought of, the
majority of participants answered, “Someone who is fun to be around.” Very few
answered “Someone who is smart and a good student.” These results were statistically
significant (N=163, chi square=20.407, df = 9, p=.016). Additionally, the analysis of
descriptive statistics revealed that 9th Graders (more so than the other three grade levels)
perceive that popular students look down on those who get good grades. When asked
68
what popular students think of those who get good grades, 35.3% (the mode) of 9th Grade
participants said, “They think they are a nerd or schoolboy.” This was the only grade
level for which this answer was the mode. This result also suggests a negative
relationship between peer perceptions and grades. As a result of these analyses, the null
hypothesis (Ho1) was rejected.
One alternative hypothesis (H1), with four possible permutations, was evaluated:
Each permutation stipulates there is a relationship, either positive or negative,
between peer perceptions and grades. The following possible permutations define the
alternative hypothesis (H1):
H1-1: High Grades = Positive perceptions
H1-2: High grades = Negative perceptions
H1-3: Low grades = Positive perceptions
H1-4: Low grades = Negative perceptions
When asked what they thought of students who get good grades, the majority of 12th
Grade participants (50.9%) answered, “I admire them.” This was the only grade level to
demonstrate such a positive perception of those who get good grades. Female
participants, the group demonstrating the second most positive perception in this
category, were statistically split between “I don’t care either way” (50.0%) and “I admire
them” (46.7%). Based on these analyses, permutation H1-1 (High grades = High
perceptions) of the alternative hypothesis (H1) was partially accepted.
The data analysis revealed that 9th Graders perceive popular students look down on
students who get good grades. When asked what popular students think of those who get
69
good grades (Question #9), 35.3% of 9th Grade participants said, “They think they are a
nerd or schoolboy.” Statistically, this answer was the mode for the 9th grade, i.e., more
participants selected this answer than any of the other answers. As a result of this
analysis, permutation H1-2 (High grades = Negative perceptions) of the alternative
hypothesis (H1) was accepted.
An analysis of GPAs and peer popularity resulted in the finding that the median GPAs
of the most popular Latino students in the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grades were lower than
the median GPAs of all students in their class, i.e., 2.40/2.91, 1.68/3.00, 2.31/2.86, and
2.29/2.87, respectively. (Note: the 9th Grade had only been in high school a few months
during the time of the study, and had not established a high school GPA yet. The 9th
grade GPAs shown are from the 7th & 8th grade). These results point to a negative
relationship between peer popularity and grades. As a result of this analysis, permutation
H1-3 (Low grades = Positive perceptions) of the alternative hypothesis (H1) was
accepted.
A thorough review and analysis of the survey’s findings confirmed the absence of any
concrete data to support permutation H1-4 (Low grades = Low perceptions) of alternative
hypothesis H1. Therefore, this permutation of the alternative hypothesis (H1) was
rejected.
Research question #2: How much influence do peer perceptions have on these Latino
students’ grades?
One null hypothesis was evaluated (Ho2):
70
Ho2: Peer perceptions have no influence on the grades of Latino students in an urban
high school in the Sacramento, California area.
The data analysis revealed that 9th Graders (more so than the other three grade levels)
perceive that popular students look down on those who get good grades. When asked
what popular students think of those who get good grades, 35.3% of 9th Grade
participants said, “They think they are a nerd or schoolboy.” Statistically, this answer
was the mode for the 9th grade. These data suggest that peer perceptions have some
influence on the grades of Latino students. As a result of this analysis, the null
hypothesis (Ho2) was rejected.
One alternative hypothesis was evaluated (H2):
H2: Peer perceptions have significant influence on the grades of Latino students in an
urban high school in the Sacramento, California area.
The data analysis revealed that the median GPAs of the most popular Latino students
in the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grades were lower than the median GPAs of all students in
their class, i.e., 2.40/2.91, 1.68/3.00, 2.31/2.86, and 2.29/2.87, respectively. (Note: the
9th Grade had only been in high school a few months during the time of the study, and
had not established a high school GPA yet. The 9th grade GPAs shown were from the 7th
and 8th grade). Although the study did not specifically quantify or define “significant,”
these data demonstrate consistency across all four grade levels with regards to a negative
influence with regards to peer perceptions of popularity and GPA. As a result of this
analysis, the alternative hypothesis (H2) was accepted.
71
Research question #3: How do various factors contribute to the relationship between
peer perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the
Sacramento, California area (i.e., popularity, respect, self-image, extracurricular activities
and peer social capital, oppositional culture, and importance of grades)?
The following null hypothesis was evaluated (Ho3):
Ho3: None of the factors evaluated (i.e., popularity, respect, self-image,
extracurricular activities and peer social capital, oppositional culture, and importance of
grades) contribute to the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino
students in an urban high school in the Sacramento, California area.
To test the null hypothesis (Ho3), cross tabulations and chi-square testing were used
(SPSS). When asked how many extracurricular activities they participated in (Question
#1), the majority of 10th Graders (69.6%) answered “None” and the 9th, 11th, and 12th
Graders answered “1 or 2” (64.7%, 53.4%, and 49.1%, respectively). These results
revealed a statistically significant relationship (N=168, chi square=21.917, df=9, p=.009)
with regards to by-grade level variables (9th through 12th Grades). As a result of this
analysis, the null hypothesis (Ho3) was rejected.
One alternative hypothesis was evaluated (H3):
H3: Multiple factors contribute to the relationship between peer perceptions and
grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento, California area
(i.e., popularity, respect, self-image, extracurricular activities and peer social capital,
oppositional culture, and importance of grades).
72
The data analysis revealed that participation in extracurricular activities (or lack of it)
has a linkage to low GPAs. A comparison of student survey results (Question #1) and
actual GPA data showed that the 10th Grade had the lowest participation rate in
extracurricular activities (“none”) and the lowest actual GPAs of all four grade levels.
Moreover, the results for that question were statistically significant (N=168, chi
square=21.917, df=9, p=.009) with regard to by-grade level variables (9th through 12th
Grades). Additionally, the factor of self-image also contributed to the relationship
between peer perceptions and grades (question #10). When asked how they would
mostly like to be thought of, the majority of participants answered, “Someone who is fun
to be around.” Very few answered “Someone who is smart and a good student.” These
results were also statistically significant (N=163, chi square=20.407, df = 9, p=.016).
Based on the results of these analyses, the alternative hypothesis (H3) was accepted.
Findings Regarding the Study’s Population—“Who They Are”
The purpose of this sub-section is to present a “statistical snapshot” (based on the
results of the student survey) of the study’s student participant group.
Overall results of survey participation:
-169 Latino students took the survey (26% of the study’s Latino population [656])
-75 Male; 93 Female (one 9th Grader did not check either block)
-18 Freshmen; 23 Sophomores; 73 Juniors; 55 Seniors
-the majority (65.9%) speak both English and Spanish
-the vast majority (87.5%) were born in the U.S.
A statistical summary of survey participation by gender:
73
-overall participation (all four grade levels): Male 44.6%; Female 55.4%
-9th Grade: Male 58.8%; Female 41.2%
-10th Grade: Male 39.1%; Female 60.9%
-11th Grade: Male 47.9%; Female 52.1%
-12th Grade: Male 38.2%; Female 61.8%
A statistical summary of survey participation by grade level:
-9th Grade: 10.7% (10 Males/7 Females [one did not designate gender])
-10th Grade: 13.6% (9 Males, 14 Females)
-11th Grade: 43.2% (35 Males, 38 Females)
-12th Grade: 32.5% (21 Males, 34 Females)
A statistical summary of survey participants born in the U.S.:
-all participants: 87.5%
-males: 82.7%
-females: 91.4%
These data and findings regarding the study’s student population merit a brief
discussion. With the exception of the 9th grade, the majority of survey participants were
female students. Yet, there are slightly more males than females at this school.
Additionally, there was a variance in the study’s participation rate by grade level. Of the
169 survey participants in this study, 18 were from the 9th grade, 23 from the 10th grade,
73 from the 11th grade, and 55 from the 12th grade. Moreover, the overwhelming
majority of male and female student participants were born in the U.S. However, more
females than males (proportionately) were born in the U.S. While interesting, these
74
findings, and unexplained dynamics, were outside the focus of this study. However, they
present possible venues for future studies or further research.
Categories of Findings
Four general categories emerged from the study’s various findings. They are listed in
Table 5 below.
Table 5 (Categories of Findings)
Category 1: Oppositional Culture
Category 2: Extracurricular Activities and Peer Social Capital
Category 3: Perceptions of Self-Image, Respect, and Grades
Category 4: Findings Providing Qualitative Depth to the Study
The remainder of this chapter will summarize the study’s findings within a framework
of these categories. For purposes of cross-referencing, detailed statistical data (e.g., cross
tabulations and chi-square testing) are found in the appendices section of this study.
There is a corresponding appendix detailing the statistical results of each survey question.
This chapter, however, will only introduce, summarize, and briefly discuss the resulting
data. A brief discussion of findings will follow each quantitative summary of results.
This serves as a transitional catalyst to the deeper interpretations, recommendations, and
conclusions in Chapter 5.
Category 1: Peer perceptions relating to oppositional culture and grades.
75
Oppositional culture was a pivotal theme in this study. This category emerged from
multiple findings regarding the existence of oppositional culture within the study group.
Included in these multiple findings are factors of peer popularity, grades (GPA),
perception of the importance of grades, and perceptions of students who get good grades.
The findings are discussed below.
Sub-category #1-1: findings regarding factors associated with peer popularity.
In developing this area, the student survey sought to glean peer perceptions on what
factors are most important in making a student popular. This area was informed by the
results of survey question #11 (Which one of the following is MOST important in terms
of what makes a student popular?)
Quantitative summary of results:
All four grade levels: The majority answered “Being fun or good-looking” ( 70.6%,
68.2%, 62.5%, and 69.1%, respectively). Only 9.6% of all grade levels (average)
answered “Getting good grades” (11.8%, 13.6%, 12.5%, and 3.6%, respectively) KEY
FINDING
9th Graders: Had the highest response rate to “Not being a nerd, schoolboy, or sellout”
(11.8% versus 0%, 8.3%, and 6.6%, respectively of the higher grade levels) KEY
FINDING
Males: 74.3% said “Being fun or good-looking”; 6.8% said “Getting good grades” KEY
FINDING
Females: 59.8% said “Being fun or good-looking”; 12.0% said “Getting good grades”
KEY FINDING
76
Discussion of findings regarding factors associated with peer popularity:
Most students believe “Being fun and good-looking” is the most important factor in
being popular. Very few respondents chose “getting good grades” or “not being a nerd,
schoolboy, or sellout” as factors contributing to popularity. Compared to the three grade
levels above them, 9th graders had a higher response rate with regards to perceiving that
“Not being a nerd, schoolboy, or sellout” was an important factor in making a student
popular. These findings suggest the existence of an oppositional culture perception
within this population of students—particularly within the 9th grade.
Sub-category #1-2: findings regarding peer popularity and GPA.
The study utilized a combination of actual student GPA data and the determination of
the most popular students (according to their peers) to glean possible relationships
between popularity and GPA. Participants were asked to name five of their closest
friends and five of the most popular students in their class. Based on their answers, a
simple mathematical sorting process was used. Students whose names appeared on either
list (as a closest friend or as most popular student) were given a point for each time their
name was cited. The students’ names were then transformed into random numbers to
ensure confidentiality and privacy. For the purposes of this study, the students (now
identified by random number) with the most points were considered the most popular.
This method partially employed a technique used in a prior study (Fryer, 2006). To
achieve statistical consistency with respect to the participant sample size of each grade
level (which had much variance), the top 15% to 20% of the most popular students
identified within each grade level made the “cut” as the subjects of this analysis.
77
The next step was to compare these popular students’ actual GPAs with the median
GPA of their entire class and the median GPA of all Latino students in their class to
determine if there was a negative or positive relationship (gradient) of popularity and
GPA. This helped determine the existence of oppositional culture tendencies within this
sample of students (e.g., is it popular or not popular to get good grades? Is academic
achievement seen as “acting white?” etc.). Additionally, the self-reported GPAs of these
popular students (if the student was a survey participant) were compared to their actual
GPAs to assess the validity of self-reported data and glean other relevant factors related
to perceptions and grades among these Latino students. The codes under the column
labeled “Popular Students” represent each popular student’s confidential code number
and gender.
Quantitative Summary of Results:
9th Grade
Grade Level Popular Students Actual GPA
Self-Reported GPA
9th
83M
2.40
“2.0 to 2.9”
9th
6M
3.50
Did not take survey
9th
162F
2.10
Did not take survey
9th
F
3.00
Not a Latino student (Hmong)
Median: 2.40 (does not include the Hmong student)
9th Grade Median GPA (All Latino students): 2.34 (7th/8th Grade GPA)
9th Grade Median GPA (All students): 2.91
78
10th Grade
Grade Level
Popular Students
Actual GPA
Self-Reported GPA
10th
178F
2.88
Did not take survey
10th
200F
1.00
Did not take survey
10th
207M
2.35
Did not take survey
10th
288M
2.89
Did not take survey
10th
M
1.88
Not a Latino student (Filipino)
Median: 1.68 (does not include the Filipino student)
10th Grade Median GPA (All Latino students): 2.33
10 Grade Median GPA (All students): 3.00
11th Grade
Grade Level
Popular Students
Actual GPA
Self-Reported GPA
11th
440M**
2.96
“3.0 to 3.5”
11th
358F*
3.00
“3.0 to 3.5”
11th
365F*
1.40
Did not take survey
11th
452F
2.57
“3.0 to 3.5”
11th
461M
2.06
Did not take survey
11th
484F
1.66
Did not take survey
Median: 2.31
* Highest popularity ratings
**The top popularity rating
11th Grade Median GPA (All Latino students): 2.28
79
11th Grade Median GPA (All students): 2.86
12th Grade
Grade Level
Popular Students
Actual GPA
Self-Reported GPA
12th
506M**
2.39
No answer
12th
623F*
2.01
“2.0 to 2.9”
12th
647F*
3.03
“3.0 to 3.5”
12th
649F*
2.82
“3.0 to 3.5”
12th
501M
2.06
Did not take survey
12th
573F
2.07
Did not take survey
12th
579M
1.63
“Below 2.0”
12th
584F
2.19
“2.0 to 2.9”
12th
667F
3.44
“Above 3.5”
12th
F
3.43
Not listed as Latino (Nicaraguan)
Median: 2.29
* Highest popularity ratings
**The top popularity rating
12th Grade Median (All Latino students): 2.43
12th Grade Median (All students): 2.87
Discussion of findings related to this category (peer popularity and grades):
A cursory review of Table 6 below reveals the negative nature/gradient of the
relationship between popularity and GPA. A comparison of the median GPAs of the
most popular students (according to their peers) with the median GPAs of all students in
80
their class and all Latino students in their class reveals that most of the popular students’
GPAs are lower. The chart also shows that median Latino GPAs are lower than the
median GPAs of all students in the class. Moreover, the GPAs of Latino students are
included in determining the GPA average of all students. This implies that the gap
(between Latino and entire class GPAs) would be even greater if the Latino GPAs were
extracted from the overall average. A deeper analysis and discussion on this finding,
along with a more visual representation (chart), will ensue in Chapter 5. For the moment,
it suffices to infer that this finding resulted in a negative relationship between peer
popularity and GPA.
Table_6 (Median GPAs)
9th Grade*
10th Grade
11th Grade
12th Grade
Popular Students (n=23)
2.40
1.68
2.31
2.29
Study Participants (n=169)
2.63
2.36
2.30
2.58
All Latino Students (n=656) 2.34
2.33
2.28
2.43
All Students (n=2,144)
3.00
2.86
2.87
2.91
*These are 7th/8th Grade GPAs. 9th Graders did not have a high school GPA yet.
The strength of the negative relationship from this finding is not as great as that of
previous studies (e.g., Fryer, 2006). It does present a negative gradient, however. Unlike
Dr. Fryer’s methodology of using student self-reported GPAs, the present study used
actual, district-provided GPA data. The significance of this will be discussed further in
Chapter 5.
81
The findings of this portion of the study also revealed that 23 of the 25 most popular
students (according to their peers) were Latinos. Yet, the question did not ask them to
name the most popular Latinos in their class—it asked them to name the most popular
students in their class (regardless of race or ethnicity). This has significant implications,
one of which is in the area of peer social capital. A deeper analysis and discussion of this
finding will ensue in Chapter 5.
Sub-category #1-3: findings regarding peer perceptions on importance of grades.
This area was informed by the results of survey questions 4, 5, and 6.
Survey Question 4: How important is it to you to get good grades?
Quantitative summary of results:
The most common answer of 9th, 10th, and 11th Graders was “Very Important”
(58.8%, 47.8%, and 59.7%, respectively)
12th Graders were split between “Important” and “Very Important” (bi-modal)
(43.6% said “Important” and 41.8% said “Very Important”)
Males: 45.9% said “Very important”
Females: 57.0% said “Very important”
Survey Question 5: How important is it to your friends that they get good grades?
Quantitative summary of results:
The most common answer for all grade levels, 9th – 12th, was “Important”
(52.9%, 47.8%, 41.7%, and 40.0%, respectively)
Males: 43.2% said “Important”
Females: 43.0% said “Important”
82
Survey Question 6: How important do you believe it is to popular students that they get
good grades?
Quantitative summary of results:
9th and 10th Graders answered “Somewhat Important” (52.9% and 43.5%, respectively)
KEY FINDING
11th Graders answered “Somewhat Important,” “Important,” and “Very
Important” (32.4%, 25.4%, and 29.6%, respectively) KEY FINDING
12th Graders answered “Somewhat Important” and “Important” (Split)
(36.4% and 32.7%, respectively) KEY FINDING
Males: 41.1% said “Somewhat important”
Females: 34.4% said “Somewhat important”; 31.2% said “Important” (bi-modal split)
KEY FINDING
Discussion of findings related to importance of grades:
Overall, students perceive that grades are “Very important” to themselves,
“Important” to their friends, and only “Somewhat important” to popular students. These
findings clearly suggest a perception of declining importance of grades as students
become more popular. This perception was particularly evident within the 9th and 10th
grades. This finding suggests a negative relationship between peer popularity and grades
and the possible existence of an oppositional culture within this population, particularly
with the 9th and 10th grades.
Sub-category #1-4: findings regarding perceptions of students who get good grades.
This area was informed by the results of survey questions 7, 8, 9, and 13.
83
Survey Question 7: What do you think of students who get good grades (choose one)?
Quantitative summary of results:
9th, 10th, and 11th Graders: The majority answered “I don’t care either way”
(70.6%, 68.2%, and 56.2%, respectively)
12th Graders: 50.9% answered “I admire them”; 47.3% answered “I don’t care either
way” (bi-modal split)
Males: 64.0% said “I don’t care either way”
Females: 50.0% said “I don’t care either way”; 46.7% said “I admire them” (split) KEY
FINDING
(Chi-square for gender variables: .081, which approaches statistical significance. This
means there is a confidence level of 91.9% that these results did not occur by chance)
Survey Question 8: What do your friends think about students who get good grades?
Quantitative summary of results:
9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Graders: The majority answered “They don’t care either way”
(82.4%, 65.2%, 80.6%, 61.8%, respectively)
(Chi-square for grade level variables: .079, which approaches statistical significance.
This means there is a confidence level of 92.1% that these results did not occur by
chance)
Males: 73.0% said “They don’t care either way”
Females: 72.0% said “They don’t care either way”
Survey Question 9: What do popular students think about those who get good grades?
Quantitative summary of results:
84
9th Graders: 35.3% answered “They think they are a nerd or schoolboy” and 35.3%
answered “They don’t care either way” (even split) KEY FINDING
10th, 11th, and 12th Graders: The majority answered “They don’t care either way”
(65.2%, 54.2%, 58.2%, respectively)
Males: 49.3% said “They don’t care either way”
Females: 59.8% said “They don’t care either way”
Survey Question 13: Which of the following students are MOST likely to get good
grades?)
Quantitative Summary of Results:
9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Graders: Nearly unanimously, they answered “Those who work
hard on their school work” (94.1%, 100.0%, 84.7%, and 94.5%, respectively)
Males: 86.5% said “Those who work hard on their school work”; 2.7% said “Those who
are nerds, schoolboys, or acting white” KEY FINDING
Females: 94.6% said “Those who work hard on their school work”; 2.2% said “Those
who are nerds, schoolboys, or acting white” KEY FINDING
Discussion of findings related to peer perceptions of students who get good grades:
Overall, students are somewhat ambivalent (“I don’t care either way”) about students
who get good grades. The majority of 12th graders, however, answered “I admire them.”
Conversely, the majority of 9th graders perceive that popular students regard those who
get good grades as “nerds or schoolboys” or just “don’t care either way.” This finding
suggests the possible existence of oppositional culture within the 9th grade psyche. It also
85
suggests that over the course of high school, the somewhat negative perception of high
achievers becomes slightly more positive.
Almost unanimously, students feel that “Those who work hard on their school work”
are most likely to get good grades. A minimal percentage of students felt that “Those
who are nerds, schoolboys, or acting white” or “Those who are out of touch with
important things” are the ones most likely to get good grades. This finding suggests a
more positive (or less negative) perception of students who get good grades.
Category 2: Peer perceptions relating to extracurricular activities and peer social
capital.
This area was informed by the results of survey questions 1, 2, and 3.
Survey Question 1: In how many extracurricular activities do you participate? (example:
sports, clubs, student council, academic groups, etc.)
Quantitative summary of results:
10th Graders: The majority answered “None” (69.6%)—KEY FINDING
9th, 11th,
and
12th Graders: Their most common answer was“1 or 2”
(64.7%, 53.4%, and 49.1%, respectively)
(Chi-square for grade level variables: .009*, which is statistically significant. This
means there is a 99.1% confidence level that these results did not occur by chance)
Males: 44.0% said “1 or 2” (the mode)
Females: 52.7% said “1 or 2” (the mode)
Survey Question 2: On average, in how many extracurricular activities do your friends
participate?
86
Quantitative summary of results:
9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Graders: The majority answered “1 or 2”
(64.7%, 69.6%, 59.7%, and 58.2%, respectively)
Males: The majority answered said “1 or 2” (63.5%)
Females: The majority answered said “1 or 2” (59.1%)
Survey Question 3: On average, in how many extracurricular activities do popular
students participate?
Quantitative summary of results:
9th and 10th Graders: 47.1% and 47.8%, respectively, said “3 or 4”
11th and 12th Graders: They were split between “1 or 2” and “3 or 4” (bi-modal split)
(11th Graders: 32.4% said “1 or 2”; 40.8% said “3 or 4”)
(12th Graders: 34.5% said “1 or 2”; 40.0% said “3 or 4”)
Males: 39.2% said “1 or 2”; 37.8% said “3 or 4”; 21.7% said “More than 4” KEY
FINDING
Females: 45.7% said “3 or 4” (the mode). 21.7% said “More than 4” KEY FINDING
(Chi-square for gender variables: .027*, which is statistically significant. This means
there is a 97.3% confidence level that these results did not occur by chance)
Discussion of findings related to extracurricular activities/peer social capital:
Overall, students perceive their friends (to some degree) and popular students (to a
greater degree) participate in more extracurricular activities than themselves. However,
11th and 12th graders have a more tempered perception of popular students’ participation
in extracurricular activities than do 9th and 10th graders. The majority of 10th graders
87
answered “None” to the amount of extracurricular activities in which they participate.
The 10th graders also had the lowest average GPA (actual) of the other three grade levels
and, ironically, self-reported the highest GPAs of all other grade levels! Intuitively, these
findings suggest a relationship between lower participation in extracurricular activities
and lower grades. Moreover, a potential link between extracurricular activities and peer
social capital can be argued. A deeper discussion will occur in Chapter 5.
Category 3: Perceptions of Self-Image, Respect, and Grades.
This category was informed by the results of survey questions #10 and #12.
Sub-category #3-1: findings regarding perceptions of self-image.
Survey Question 10: How would you MOST like other students to think of you?
Quantitative summary of results:
9th and 10th Graders: The majority answered “Someone who is fun to be around”
(62.5% and 81.8%, respectively)
11th Graders: 42.3% answered “Someone who is fun to be around” and 33.8% answered
“Someone who is smart and a good student” KEY FINDING
12th Graders: They were split between “Someone who is fun to be around” (44.4%) and
“Someone who is nice” (37.0%)—a bi-modal split
(Chi-square for grade level variables: .016*, which is statistically significant. This
means there is a confidence level of 98.4% that these results did not occur by chance)
Males: 53.5% said “Someone who is fun to be around”
Females: 47.8% said “Someone who is fun to be around” (the mode)
Discussion of findings related to self-image and academics:
88
The majority of students surveyed prefer to be seen as “Someone who is fun to be
around.” A significant number of 12th graders prefer to be seen as “Someone who is
nice.” A significant number of 11th graders prefer to be seen as “Someone who is smart
and a good student.” With the slight exception of these 11th graders, very few students
prefer to be seen as “Someone who is smart and a good student.” It appears to be more
important to their self-esteem to be thought of as “Someone who is fun to be around” or
“Someone who is nice” than to be looked at as an academic. Additionally, these findings
suggest that students appear to mature as they progress through each grade level. That is,
they place more value on academic achievement as they progress to higher grade levels.
Sub-category #3-2: findings regarding perceptions respect.
Survey Question 12: Which one of the following is MOST likely to get you respect in
the eyes of other students at this school?
Quantitative summary of results:
9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Graders: The majority answered “Getting along with everyone”
(93.8%, 63.6%, 74.0%, and 74.1%, respectively)
9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th Graders: Very few answered “Getting good grades in school”
KEY FINDING
(6.3%, 4.5%, 11.0%, and 9.3%, respectively)
Males: 72.6% said “Getting along with everyone”
Females: 76.1% said “Getting along with everyone”
Discussion of findings related to respect and grades:
89
Overwhelmingly, students perceive that “getting along with everyone” is predominant
in getting respect from their peers. Very few students believe that “standing up to the
system” or “getting good grades in school” have anything to do with getting respect from
other students.
Category 4: Findings providing qualitative depth to the study.
This category emerged from findings in three areas. Each is discussed below.
Sub-category #4-1: findings related to language ability of survey participants.
Survey Question 17: What language(s) do you speak? English only___ English &
Spanish___ Spanish only___
Quantitative summary of results:
All Grade levels combined: 65.9% said they speak “English & Spanish” KEY FINDING
Only 4 of 169 survey participants said they speak “Spanish only” KEY FINDING
Only 53 of 169 survey participants said they speak “English only”
9th Grade: 58.8% answered “English & Spanish”
10th Grade: 77.3% answered “English & Spanish”
11th Grade: 65.8% answered “English & Spanish”
12th Grade: 63.6% answered “English & Spanish”
Males: The majority of participants (69.3%) answered “English & Spanish”
Females: The majority of participants (63.0%) answered “English & Spanish”
Discussion of findings related to language ability:
The great majority of the participants speak both English and Spanish. Interestingly,
the bilingual abilities of the study’s participants are higher than the overall abilities of the
90
population in the Sacramento Region they live in, e.g., 66% and 41%, respectively (CDE,
2009). More specifics will be discussed in Chapter 5. Moreover, this finding was outside
the focus of this study. It lends itself, however, to exciting venues for follow-up studies
or further research.
Sub-category #4-2: findings related to self-reported student GPA.
Survey Question 14: What is your current GPA?
Quantitative summary of results:
9th Graders: 43.8% self-reported their GPAs in the “3.0 to 3.5” range (the mode)
9th Grade actual GPA average: 2.39 (Over-reported--KEY FINDING)
10th Graders: 36.4% self-reported their GPAs in the “3.0 to 3.5” range (the mode)
10th Grade Actual GPA Average: 2.25 (Over-reported--KEY FINDING)
11th Graders: 48.6% self-reported their GPAs in the “2.0 to 2.9” range.
11th Grade Actual GPA Average: 2.35 (Accurately reported)
12th Graders: 45.3% self-reported their GPAs in the “2.0 to 2.9” range.
12th Grade Actual GPA Average: 2.56 (Accurately reported)
Males: 45.1% self-reported their GPAs in the “2.0 to 2.9” range
Females: 42.2% self-reported their GPAs in the “2.0 to 2.9” range
9.9% of all males, compared to 22.2% of all females, self-reported GPAs in the
“Above 3.5” range (KEY FINDING). Actual GPA data by gender were not collected.
Discussion of findings related to self-reported student GPA:
On average, self-reported GPAs for 9th and 10th graders are higher than those of 11th
and 12th graders. Actual GPA data does not corroborate these results, however. The
91
majority of 9th and 10th graders self-reported higher GPAs than they actually had. In fact,
the 10th graders had the highest self-reported GPAs, yet the lowest average actual GPA of
all four grade levels. The majority of 11th and 12th graders accurately self-reported their
GPAs compared to their actual GPAs. In short, the discrepancy between self-reported
and actual GPA is higher for 9th and 10th graders than 11th and 12th graders. These
findings may suggest lack of information or an immaturity level of the younger, less
experienced students. Moreover, of all grade levels, 10th graders reported the lowest
participation rate in extracurricular activities in Question 1 of this survey (i.e., “None”).
As discussed earlier, these findings give credence to the link between extracurricular
activities, peer social capital, and grades.
Sub-category #4-3: findings related to unsolicited student emotional responses.
When asked to name the five most popular students in their class (survey question
#20), many participants displayed emotional responses. Various students, from all four
grade levels and genders, wrote unsolicited comments on the survey. These student
quotes are included here, verbatim, to help put a “voice” to the data. Following each
quote is a code denoting that student’s assigned random number, gender, and actual GPA.
9th Grade Quotes (verbatim):
“I don’t really care about popular kids cuz they are ignorant.” #139/M/3.21
“I don’t know, that stuff does not matter to me. I try to get good grades & I know I’m a
good person. You don’t need good grades to be respected but it does help because it
show how you are as a person” #119/M/2.08
10th Grade Quotes (verbatim):
92
“I don’t believe in popularity…everyone’s equal socially!” #302/F/3.83
11th Grade Quotes (verbatim):
“I don’t think people really look on who’s popular now-a-days” #426/F/2.14
“Everyone is pretty chill. no better or worse” #350/F/2.17
“I feel that at my school there aren’t any “popular kids”. There are “cliques” and within
those cliques there are popular kids.” #672/F/3.16
“I don’t talk to many popular students in my class, but in my trig class I bet a lot of my
classmates are well involved in after school activities.” #452/F/1.8
“I have no friends just my brother…and I don’t really know people.” #421/F/3.5SR
“I really DNT care↓” #482/F/1.82
12th Grade Quotes (verbatim):
“I would like to add that the people that may be considered “popular” are considered so
by themselves, and they are without merit. They are not popular, because they are in fact,
are nasty people that no one likes. They are only well known for their meanness, and the
fact that they are in ASB, which I in fact was, but I know myself to be well-liked by a
great many. ” #554/F/2.8
“There is no such thing as a popular student. They all hangout in different cliques at
school. Theres too many kids at the school.” #648/M/1.43
Discussion of findings related to student emotional responses:
Unexpectedly, students displayed an emotional response when asked to name the five
most popular students in their class. Their unsolicited write-in responses provided
93
qualitative depth to this quantitative study. The passionate responses from these young
students also suggest that popularity is a complex construct.
Summary and Conclusion of Data Analysis
This chapter summarized and discussed the findings and statistical results of the study.
It did so within a framework of four emerging categories: oppositional culture;
extracurricular activities and peer social capital; perceptions relating to self-image,
respect, and grades; and unexpected findings adding depth to the study. In general, the
analyses of findings and raw data were disaggregated by student grade level and gender.
Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to determine possible relationships
between peer perceptions and grades among the Latino students in the study.
This chapter concludes with a resounding reiteration of the tenacious theme that has
been interwoven throughout this study. Considering the significant underperformance
and severe dropout rates among California’s Latino students, an increased understanding
about the relationship between peer perceptions and grades could serve to identify
possible solutions and interventions to this complex and continuing problem. The
discussion of findings, data analyses, and summary of survey results in this chapter
serves as a natural transition to the next chapter. Chapter 5 will effect deeper
interpretation of key findings, make recommendations to educational leaders, suggest
areas for further research, and provide a summary, “voice,” and conclusion for the overall
study.
94
Chapter 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
“The future ain’t what it used to be” –Yogi Berra
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between peer perceptions
and grades among Latino students at an urban high school in the Sacramento, California
area. The study aspired to determine the nature of this relationship (positive or negative);
how much influence peer perceptions have on these students’ grades; and how various
factors contribute to this relationship. Considering the significant academic
underperformance and severity of California’s dropout rate among Latino students, an
increased understanding about this dynamic could serve to identify possible solutions and
interventions to this complex and continuing problem.
The intent of this chapter is to effect a deeper interpretation of the study’s findings
with respect to its three research questions, suggest areas for further research, provide
recommendations for practice to educational leaders, summarize the overall study, and
make final conclusions. The raw data supporting the interpretation of findings in this
chapter can be referenced in Chapter 4 and in the various appendices. For reference, the
study’s three research questions are listed below:
Research question #1: What is the nature of the relationship between peer
perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento,
California area (positive or negative)?
95
Research question #2: How much influence do peer perceptions have on these Latino
students’ grades?
Research question #3: How do various factors contribute to the relationship between
peer perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the
Sacramento, California area (i.e., oppositional culture, extracurricular activities and peer
social capital, popularity, respect, self image, and importance of grades)?
Composite Profiles of the Study’s Participants
To “humanize” the interpretation of findings, the following composite profiles
(“snapshots”) of the study’s participants emerged. The intent of these composite profiles
is to summarize the overall findings in simple, school-age terminology. The deeper,
more complex inferences and interpretations will be discussed farther into the chapter. In
some respects, however, these short composite profiles forecast the complexities of the
study’s results. There are five composite profiles: one for each of the four grade levels
(Tables 7 through 10) and one to illuminate the study’s by-gender findings (Table 11).
For each profile, quantitative results have been articulated into a first person narrative
form.
Table 7: Composite Profile of the Study’s 9th Graders
-I’m in my first semester of High School…I don’t even have a High School GPA
yet
-I came into High School with a 2.63 GPA from the 7th & 8th grade…but I selfreported a higher GPA than I really have…I reported a 3.0 to 3.5 on the survey.
-Grades are very important to me…but I don’t think grades are that important to
96
my friends…and definitely not that important to popular students.
-I participate in 1 or 2 extracurricular activities…but I think popular students
participate in 3 or 4.
-I think popular students look down on those who get good grades…they think they
are “nerds” or “schoolboys.”
-I hang out mostly with other Latino students.
___________________________________________________________________
-I speak both English and Spanish.
-Although they didn’t ask for it, here’s what I wrote on the survey, “I don’t really
care about popular kids cuz they are ignorant.”
Table 8: Composite Profile of the Study’s 10th Graders
-The researcher thought I was the most “interesting” of this study.
-I have a 2.26 average GPA, the lowest of all four grade levels…but I self-reported
a higher GPA on the survey, said my GPA was in the 3.0-3.5 range.
-I don’t participate in any extracurricular activities, NONE…but I think popular
students participate in 3 or 4.
-I mostly like to be seen as someone who is fun to be around, and not as someone
who is smart and a good student.
-I speak both English and Spanish.
-I didn’t like the question on popular students, so I wrote, “I don’t believe in
97
popularity…everyone’s equal socially!”
Table 9: Composite Profile of the Study’s 11th Graders
-The researcher thought I was more “academically mature” now…whatever that
means.
-I have a 2.30 GPA…and that’s about what I self-reported on the survey.
-Getting good grades is very important to me.
-I participate in 1 or 2 extracurricular activities.
-I like to be seen as someone who is fun to be around…but also as someone who is
smart and a good student…which is different from the other grade levels.
-I don’t think popular students care either way about students who get good grades.
___________________________________________________________________
-I speak both English and Spanish.
-I felt I had to say something on that survey, so I wrote, “I feel that at my school
there aren’t any “popular kids”. There are “cliques” and within those cliques there
are popular kids.”
Table 10: Composite Profile of the Study’s 12th Graders
-Well, it’s my last year of High School…and it looks like I’m not gonna drop out.
-I have a 2.58 GPA…and I self-reported the same on the survey.
-In a way, I actually admire those who get good grades…maybe it’s cuz I’m older.
98
-I participate in 1 or 2 extracurricular activities.
-More so than other students, I like to be seen as someone who is nice.
___________________________________________________________________
-I speak both English and Spanish.
-I felt funny about the question on popular students, so I wrote on the margin of the
survey, “There is no such thing as a popular student. They all hangout in different
cliques at school. There’s too many kids at the school.”
Table 11: Composite Profile of the Study’s Female Participants
-The researcher thought we were the more “mature” ones of the study.
-More than our male classmates, we admire those who get good grades.
-We believe getting good grades can lead to popularity…especially by the time
we’re in the 11th and 12th grades.
-We participate in 1 or 2 extracurricular activities…and we believe popular
students participate in 3 or 4.
-We think that getting along with everyone is the most important factor in getting
respect from other students.____________________________________________
-We speak both English and Spanish.
-I’m not sure how I felt about the question on popular students, so I wrote,
“Everyone is pretty chill. No better or worse”
Interpretation of Findings by Category
99
For purposes of consistency, the discussions in this chapter will follow the general
framework of the four categories of findings identified in Chapter 4 (Table 5). The
categories are: Oppositional culture; Extracurricular activities and peer social capital;
Perceptions of self-image, respect, and grades; and Findings providing qualitative depth
to the study. In this chapter, each category will be sub-divided into various findings.
Each of these findings are given a number, a short title, and discussed in more detail.
Category 1: Oppositional culture.
The study’s findings pointed toward varying levels of oppositional culture tendencies
within the four grade levels and by gender. Several connections were made to previous
studies regarding oppositional culture theory and other theoretical frameworks related to
cultural background and identity (Ogbu, 1991; Fryer, 2006; Trueba, 1998).
FINDING ONE (Perceptions of those who get good grades): In the aggregate, Latino
student participants of all four grade levels are somewhat ambivalent about students who
get good grades. When asked how they felt about students who get good grades, most
said “I don’t care either way.” The majority of 12th graders, however, answered “I
admire them.” This suggests a higher maturity level of these older and more experienced
students. It appears these more “seasoned” students have worked their way past
oppositional culture tendencies. Perhaps it was this mindset that kept them from
dropping out motivated them to participate in this study!
Conversely, 9th graders (more so than the other three grade levels above them)
perceive that popular students look down at those who get good grades, i.e., “They think
they are a nerd or schoolboy.” This finding suggests the possible existence of an
100
oppositional culture perception within the 9th grade psyche, i.e., a negative relationship
between peer perceptions of popularity and grades. Moreover, the finding appears to
corroborate findings of previous research regarding oppositional culture theory (Ogbu,
1991; Fryer, 2006). The findings also highlight and bring to bear the challenges
associated with this pivotal 9th grade transition. The present findings may inform future
studies and research on this important elementary to high school transition.
Along gender lines, female students appear to admire peers who get good grades to a
greater degree than their male counterparts. This suggests a positive relationship between
peer perceptions and grades among female Latina students. When asked what they
thought of students who get good grades, 64.0% of male participants answered “I don’t
care either way.” Conversely, female survey participants were split between “I don’t care
either way” (50.0%) and “I admire them” (46.7%). This finding suggests that female
students have a more positive perception of students who get good grades than their male
counterparts. Moreover, there appears to be a connection to previous studies resulting in
findings that Latina female students appear to maintain higher academic aspirations than
their male counterparts (Gandara, O’Hara, & Gutierrez, 2004). These data expose
exciting venues for further research.
The majority of male and female survey participants, 73.0% and 72.0%, respectively,
said that their friends “Don’t care either way” about students who get good grades.
Similarly, both gender groups agreed that popular students “Don’t care either way” about
students who get good grades. These findings indicate both genders believe their friends
101
and popular students are more ambivalent than themselves about those who get good
grades, i.e., a higher prevalence of oppositional culture with regards to “others.”
FINDING TWO (Perceptions of popularity factors): Most students believe “Being
fun or good-looking” is the most important factor in being popular. Very few
participants chose “Getting good grades” as the most important factor in making a
student popular. Comparing all four grade levels, the 9th grade had the highest response
rate to “Not being a nerd, schoolboy, or sellout” as the most important factor in making a
student popular. As in the previous finding, this alludes to a negative relationship
between peer perceptions and grades among many 9th graders. Moreover, these findings
suggest the possible existence of an oppositional culture perception within this population
of students—particularly within the 9th grade. As the trend builds with regards to this 9th
grade phenomenon, the need for further research into these dynamics increases.
Along gender lines, the majority of male and female participants, 74.3% and 59.8%,
respectively, reported that “Being fun or good-looking” is most important in terms of
what makes a student popular. Female participants reported that “Getting good grades” is
most important in terms of what makes a student popular at nearly twice the rate of male
participants, i.e., 12.0% females versus 6.8% males. This finding has great significance
in terms of gender-related perceptions of peer popularity and grades among Latino
students. It suggests this relationship appears to be more positive among female Latina
students than male Latino students. Additionally, these data may also suggest that
oppositional culture tendencies are more present within male student groups than female
groups. Again, these data present exciting venues for additional research. The apparent
102
academic “maturity” of female students might be harnessed (in a role modeling effort) to
cast positive influence upon the younger, more oppositional culture-minded students.
FINDING THREE (Perceptions of students most likely to get good grades): Almost
unanimously, students feel that “Those who work hard on their school work” are most
likely to get good grades. A minimal percentage of students felt that “Those who are
nerds, schoolboys, or acting white” or “Those who are out of touch with important
things” are the ones most likely to get good grades. This finding suggests a more positive
(or less negative) relationship between peer perceptions and grades among this group of
students. Moreover, the finding somewhat gives balance to previous findings suggesting
the existence of an oppositional culture within this group of students.
This finding was consistent along gender lines. Nearly unanimously (86.5% male,
94.6% female), student participants believe that “Those who work hard on their school
work” are most likely to get good grades. Very few respondents (2.7% male, 2.2%
female) said that “Those who are nerds, schoolboys, or acting white” are most likely to
get good grades. As inferred above, this finding suggests a more positive, supportive
student peer perception toward academics and a somewhat toned-down attitude toward
the existence of an oppositional culture. Moreover, the finding casts a more positive light
with respect to perceptions of those who work hard to get good grades.
FINDING FOUR (Peer popularity, GPA, and peer social capital): Three interesting
dynamics are at play within this finding (See Figure 2 below for reference).
103
GPA
Figure 2: Peer Popularity & GPA*
(Actual)
2.91
2.33
Median GPA, All Students (2.91)
Median GPA, Latino Students (2.33)
Most Popular Students (According to their peers)
*Topete, H. (2010). Calculations from doctoral dissertation on peer perceptions and grades among Latino students
1) Based on an analysis of the study’s data, Figure 2 reveals a negative relationship
between peer popularity and GPA. This suggests oppositional culture tendencies within
the study group. The scatter points in Figure 2 depict the GPAs of the most popular
students (black dots). These GPAs are arranged in grade level sequence from left to
right, i.e., the first dots on the left side of the chart represent the most popular 9th Graders;
the last dots on the right side of the chart represent the 12th Graders. The chart reveals a
negative relationship between the GPAs of the most popular students and the median
GPAs of all students in their grade level (i.e., their GPAs are much lower than the median
GPA of their entire class). Moreover, the data also show a somewhat negative
relationship between the GPAs of the most popular students and the median GPAs of all
Latino students in their grade level (i.e., their GPAs are slightly lower than the median
GPA of all Latinos in their entire class). Stated differently, the data reveal that the
104
preponderance of the popular students’ GPAs are much lower than the median GPAs of
their class and somewhat lower than the median GPAs of all Latino students in their
class.
The results of these data enable a comparison and discussion vis-à-vis the results of
previous studies on “Acting White” (Fryer, 2006). The strength of the relationship (peer
popularity versus GPA) in the present study is not as strong as that of the Fryer study
(e.g., it does not portray such a steep decline in popularity). But it does, however,
suggest a negative gradient with regards to the lower GPAs of the most popular students.
But, unlike Fryer’s methodology of using student self-reported GPAs, the present study
used actual, district-provided GPA data. Two inferences can be made. The first is that
the findings of the present study add to the body of knowledge in this arena with respect
to the demographics of the study’s population. Secondly, one can infer that, because the
present study provides new information based on actual student GPA data, the Fryer
study should be re-examined. His study did not have a way to determine the accuracy (or
truthfulness) of his subjects’ self-reported GPAs. The present study collected selfreported GPA data and actual GPA data, and then compared the two. The results
revealed that two of the four grade levels (9th and 10th) claimed much higher self-reported
GPAs than their actual GPAs. From this result, an inference can be made that studies,
such as Fryer’s, should collect actual GPA data to achieve a higher level of accuracy and
validity. At minimum, the generalisability of studies based solely on self-reported
student data should be considered somewhat narrow and limited. This assertion is
105
particularly applicable if generalizing these results to urban high schools within the
Sacramento, California area!
2) An analysis of the data depicted in Figure 2 also shows that the median GPAs of
Latino students are lower than the median GPAs of all the students in their class. While
not the focus of this study, this dynamic presents avenues for further study and additional
research. It also provides a firm foundation for recommendations to educational leaders
who are focused on closing achievement gaps and improving Latino students’ academic
performance.
3) Finally, this finding revealed that 23 of the 25 most popular students (according to
their peers) were Latinos. Yet, the question did not ask them to name the most popular
Latinos in their class—it asked them to name the most popular students in their class
(regardless of race or ethnicity). This finding strikingly suggests that these students
mostly associate and establish friendship networks with other Latino students. The data
also show that the preponderance of this study group come from low SES families. The
merging of these data alludes to significant implications. One of these implications is in
an area previously discussed, peer social capital. Based on these students’ internal
friendship networks, it is likely they will not have exposure and access to valuable peer
social capital resources associated with peers and friendship networks outside of their
own ethnicity and socioeconomic environment. This finding corroborates the findings of
previous studies, e.g., that Latino students select friends from their same ethnic group and
do not appear to have much access to close peers who can provide peer social capital
(Gandara, O’Hara, & Gutierrez, 2004). And, as discussed earlier, proponents of peer
106
social capital theories posit that the leveraging of peer social capital can help improve
student academic performance and possibly reduce the dropout rate (Oaks, 2004;
Stanton-Salazar, 2004; Moll, 1992; Gibson, 2004). This area presents a promising
opportunity for additional studies and future research in an area with vast potential for
significant improvements in the enhanced education of students from disadvantaged
backgrounds.
FINDING FIVE (Perceptions of importance of grades): Overall, students perceive
that grades are “Very important” to themselves, “Important” to their friends and only
“Somewhat important” to popular students. These findings clearly suggest a perception
of declining importance of grades as students become more popular. The majority of
participants perceived that grades are only “somewhat important” to popular students.
This perception was particularly evident within the 9th and 10th grades. This finding
suggests a negative relationship of peer popularity and grades and the possible existence
of an oppositional culture within the 9th and 10th Grades.
Male and female participants differed in their perception of what good grades mean to
popular students. Males perceived that getting good grades is “Somewhat important” to
popular students. Female participants had a bi-modal split in their perceptions, reporting
that getting good grades is “Somewhat important” and “Important” to popular students.
As with the previous finding, this might suggest a higher maturity level of female
students with regards to the linkage of good grades and popularity. Male and female
participants, however, concurred that getting good grades was “Very important” to
themselves and “Important” to their friends.
107
Category 2: Extracurricular activities and peer social capital.
Analysis of the survey data also suggests interesting linkages between student
participation in extracurricular activities and grades.
FINDING SIX (Perceptions of participation in extracurricular activities): With
regards to extracurricular activities, most student survey participants perceive that their
friends (to some degree) and popular students (to a greater degree) participate in more
extracurricular activities than themselves. However, 11th and 12th graders have a more
tempered perception of popular students’ participation in extracurricular activities than do
9th and 10th graders, i.e., a less inclining scale. The data may suggest that Juniors and
Seniors have a more balanced view of participation in extracurricular activities by all
grade levels, regardless of popularity level. This may also be indicative of the years of
school experience these older students have under their belt. The fact of the matter is, 9th
graders in their first semester of high school, may not even know who’s who at this point.
The majority of 10th graders reported the lowest participation rate in extracurricular
activities of all four grade levels, i.e., “None” (Question 1 of the survey). Moreover, the
10th grade had the lowest average GPA (actual) of all four grade levels. These findings
suggest a strong relationship between lower participation in extracurricular activities and
lower grades. Moreover, a potential link to an absence of the positive aspects of peer
social capital can also be made. Ironically, the 10th graders self-reported higher GPAs
than the other grade levels! Perhaps they believed this is what they were expected to say.
Regardless, the dynamics of the 10th grade class are worthy of school leaders’ attention
and present interesting subjects for further research.
108
With regards to gender, the majority of male and female students reported that they
and their friends participate in “1 or 2” extracurricular activities. With regards to popular
students, however, there was a difference in male and female perceptions. The majority
of male participants believe popular students participate in “1 or 2” or “3 or 4”
extracurricular activities (split). The majority of female students believe popular students
participate in “3 or 4” extracurricular activities. Additionally, a larger percentage of
female students (21.7%) versus male students (9.5%) believe that popular students
participate in “More than 4” extracurricular activities. This might suggest female
students are more aware of the value of extracurricular activities with regard to popularity
among peers. It could also be argued that female students approach the view of the
benefits of extracurricular activities with a higher level of maturity than their male
counterparts. This has emerged as a common theme of this study.
Category 3: Perceptions of self-image, respect, and grades.
FINDING_SEVEN (Perceptions of self-image and academic achievement): With
regard to the factor of self-image, the majority of students surveyed prefer to be seen as
“Someone who is fun to be around” or “Someone who is nice” rather than “Someone
who is smart and a good student.” With the slight exception of some 11th graders, very
few students in this study prefer to be seen as “Someone who is smart and a good
student.” It appears to be more important to their self-image to be thought of as
“Someone who is fun to be around” or “Someone who is nice” than to be looked at as an
academic. These findings corroborate the work of previous researchers who have
determined that there is a relevant linkage between the peer perception of self-image and
109
grades (Gandara, O’Hara, & Gutierrez, 2004). These findings may also suggest that
students mature as they progress through each grade level. That is, they place more selfimage value on academic achievement as they progress to higher grade levels. These
findings were consistent along gender lines.
FINDING EIGHT (Perceptions of respect and grades): Overwhelmingly, students
perceive that “getting along with everyone” is predominant in getting respect from their
peers. Very few students believe that “getting good grades in school” has anything to do
with getting respect from other students. These results were consistent along gender
lines. This finding suggests these adolescents may be faced with choosing behaviors they
believe are more likely to get them respect from their peers. As they maneuver their way
through their formative years, they may choose to bypass efforts to get good grades as a
tradeoff to getting respect and not be seen as a “schoolboy” or “acting white.”
Category 4: Findings providing qualitative depth to the study.
The study’s findings also resulted in various significant areas worthy of discussion.
While not directly related to the focus and research questions of this study, these findings
add depth to the study and avail themselves to exciting venues for additional study and
further research. These findings are listed below.
FINDING NINE (Language skills): Student participants in this study are doing better
than the overall community they live in with regards to language skills. A significant
majority of student survey participants (65.9%) speak both English and Spanish.
Approximately one third (31.7%) speak English only, and very few (2.4%) speak Spanish
only. These are positive indicators when considering that within the population of the
110
Sacramento Region, only 41% speak both English and Spanish, 40% speak only English,
and 19% speak Spanish only (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). This finding suggests a
positive outlook for future educational levels of Latino students and the eventual
economy of the area. The finding also provides a positive affirmation that these students
are able to retain proficiency in Spanish and are graduating as bilingual young adults.
This was an encouraging finding. Every bit of positive news helps! While not the focus
of this study, this finding avails exciting venues for future research.
FINDING TEN (Self-reported versus actual GPAs): The study yielded interesting
findings with regards to students’ self-reported versus actual GPAs. On average, selfreported GPAs for 9th and 10th graders are higher than those of 11th and 12th graders. Yet,
actual GPA data does not corroborate these results. The majority of 9th and 10th graders
self-reported higher GPAs than they actually had. The majority of 11th and 12th graders,
however, accurately self-reported their GPAs compared to their actual GPAs. The 12th
grade had the highest average actual GPA, followed by 9th, 11th, and 10th grades,
respectively. This finding may suggest lack of information or an immaturity level of
these younger, less experienced students. This has been a common thread within the
study’s findings.
Along gender lines, female student participants reported higher GPAs than their male
counterparts. 45.1% of male students and 42.2% of female students reported GPAs in the
“2.0 to 2.9” range (the mode). However, at the “Above 3.5” range, female students
reported at much higher rates than male students (i.e., 22.2% versus 9.9%, respectively).
The study was not able to compare these self-reported GPAs with actual GPAs along
111
gender lines. The collection of actual GPA data did not include a disaggregation by
gender. However, this phenomenon presents interesting topics for additional research.
FINDING ELEVEN (Emotional responses to the concept of popular students): As
discussed in the previous chapter, the survey question regarding the most popular
students raised emotional responses from student participants. Various students, from all
four grade levels and genders, wrote unsolicited comments on the survey. The previous
chapter listed the quotes by grade level of the student survey participant who wrote them.
In essence, this student input helped give a “voice” to the data and a “face” to this study.
These student quotes gave this study a glimpse of “who” they are, a peek into their
thoughts and emotions, and humanizes the subjects of the study. These unsolicited
quotes give a qualitative depth to this quantitative study. The students’ emotional
responses also show that popularity is a complex construct. In short, the unexpected and
unsolicited responses may provide a window into these students’ internal emotional
psyches and allude to interesting topics for further research.
FINDING TWELVE (Differences in place of birth and survey participation rates by
gender and grade level): Three unexpected areas emerged with regard to the study
group’s participants. First, the overwhelming majority of student participants were born
in the U.S. (87.5%). Yet, more females than males (proportionately) were born in the
U.S. (i.e., 91.4% and 82.7%, respectively). There could be numerous explanations for
this dynamic. Perhaps this finding suggests that male Latino students are simply working
full time and no longer in school. Regardless, this finding is well outside the focus of this
study, but thought-provoking, indeed. It lends itself to additional research by
112
demographers or other researchers interested in birth rate trends and migration patterns
among Latinos.
Secondly, the majority of survey participants were female students (55.4%). Yet,
there are more Latino male students than Latina female students at this school. There
could be many explanations for this. It could mean female students are more interested in
taking surveys. Perhaps winning an iPod had more value to females. It might be
indicative of the impact of effective role modeling by teachers (e.g., there were more
female teachers administering the survey than male teachers). Perhaps a greater
influence to take the survey was imparted on female students. Could it mean male
students see taking surveys as “schoolboy” behavior? While thought-provoking, this
topic is outside the specific focus of this study. It does, however, present an interesting
area for further study and future research.
Lastly, the majority of survey participants were from the 11th grade (73), followed by
12th (55), 10th (23), and 9th grade (18). With the exception of the 9th grade, the majority of
survey participants in each grade level were females. Parallel to the discussion above,
there could be many reasons for this offset in participation rates. The fact of the matter
is, 9th graders had only been in high school for two months at the time of the survey. It
would be a reasonable inference that they were still wrestling the challenging transition
between elementary and high school and, perhaps, were too shy to volunteer for the
survey. As discussed earlier, the 9th grade transition makes for keenly relevant areas for
further study and important research.
113
Armed with the results, data, and interpretation of findings discussed in this chapter,
the study will proceed to provide pragmatic recommendations for use by educational
leaders and suggest topics for further research. This is the intent of the sections that
follow.
Recommendations
Suggestions for further research.
The findings of this study revealed exciting venues for additional research and study.
The following topics are suggested for further research:
1. A study of increased depth into the dynamics of the 9th grade transition. The findings
of the present study clearly suggested higher oppositional culture tendencies within this
group of young students. The majority believed popular students look down on those
who get good grades.
2. Deeper research leveraging on gender differences in perceptions of academic
achievement. Female students appear to be more positive and mature in their perceptions
about peer popularity and grades. Furthermore, female students exhibited less of an
oppositional culture tendency.
3. Replicate the present study to examine other factors such as different student
populations, multiple ethnicities, comparisons by SES level, or relationships between
various degrees of parental support and academic achievement.
4. Replicate the present study using a larger sample of the student population and/or
multiple urban high schools within this region.
114
5. Replicate the present study using different methodologies and research designs, such
as qualitative research methods. This would provide a greater depth and richness to this
kind of study.
6. Conduct a longitudinal research study to follow-up on the progress of the student
population of the present study (e.g., compare graduation and dropout rates of the target
student population).
7. Conduct a deeper analysis into the 10th grade dynamics identified in the present study.
This class had the lowest participation rates in extracurricular activities (none), the lowest
average GPAs of all four grade levels, and the most inflated self-reported GPAs.
8. According to the findings of the present study, Latino average GPAs were
significantly lower than the average GPAs of all students combined. A study could be
launched to determine the factors behind this dynamic.
9. Conduct a study into the aspects of peer social capital within student populations
similar to the one in the present study. This study suggested that Latino students develop,
and stay within, peer and friendship networks mostly comprised of other Latino students.
A deeper study could determine if this trend hinders them from acquiring access to the
peer social capital-and its associated resources-needed to do well in school.
10. The findings of the present study suggested that female students appear to place more
value on extracurricular activities with regard to their impact on peer popularity and their
own self-image. Deeper research in this area presents opportunities for the development
of positive peer-to-peer role model groups.
115
11. Conduct a study to determine how student language skills can be harnessed to
improve overall educational levels. The present study found that its student population is
doing better than the overall community they live in with regards to language skills (i.e.,
they speak both English and Spanish in much greater proportions).
12. Conduct a deeper study into the dynamics of students’ self-reporting of their GPAs.
The present study determined that 9th and 10th graders self-reported higher GPAs than
they actually had. A new study could look into the factors associated with these
tendencies.
13. Conduct additional research on student emotional responses to questions regarding
peer popularity. An unexpected finding of the present study clearly revealed this
phenomenon.
14. Conduct a demographic analysis to determine why more Latina female students
(proportionately) were born in the U.S. compared to Latino male students. This was one
of the findings of the present study—and could be of interest to demographers.
15. With regard to research designs, conduct a study to determine why Latina female
students appear to have higher survey participation rates than their male counterparts.
This was the finding of the present study.
16. With regard to research designs, conduct a study to determine why there appears to
be a significant variance in the survey participation rates of each grade level. The present
study determined that 11th and 12th graders participated in significantly greater numbers
than 9th and 10th graders.
Recommendations for practice.
116
Based on the findings of the study, the following pragmatic recommendations for
practice are submitted to educational leaders:
1. Local area educational leaders, teachers, interested stakeholders, students, parents, and
community enablers should be made aware of these findings. The focus should be on
areas with schools similar to the demographics of the target school of this study (e.g., a
large, public urban high school with a large Latino student population).
2. Local school districts and schools with similar demographics should develop or
enhance their role modeling programs to encourage positive reinforcement of peer
perceptions and high academic performance. Teachers should be especially included as
primary role models within these programs. This study revealed a significant imbalance
in student/teacher diversity ratios. This current imbalance between students and teachers
of color (particularly among Latinos) is a significant role modeling issue. An
improvement in this area has the great potential of improving the overall positive
influence imparted on students. Arguably, teacher role models are in the most immediate
vicinity of these young, impressionable students.
3. Start peer-to-peer mentorship programs within schools of demographics similar to the
subject of this study. The findings revealed that high school 11th grade, 12th grade, and
female students have a more mature and positive perception of high academic
performance. They are more apt to believe good grades can lead to respect, a higher selfimage, and popularity.
4. Local area educational leaders should initiate targeted professional development
programs for administrators and faculty. This includes training programs to inform and
117
improve their knowledge on the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among
students of different backgrounds and ethnicities. These programs can be enhanced
through linkages to meta-curricular networks such as parent groups, community
programs, local chambers of commerce, and other enablers.
5. Local area educational leaders should devise and implement interventions and student
awareness programs focusing on the relationship between peer perceptions and grades
among students. Findings of studies, such as this one, can be used to inform students.
6. Local area educational leaders should create programs and interventions specifically
focusing on 9th and 10th graders. This study’s findings revealed the existence of
oppositional culture tendencies within these lower grade levels (i.e., these students
believe their peers look down on those who get good grades).
7. Local area educational leaders should devise programs to provide information and
better access to extracurricular activities for all students—with particular emphasis on the
lower grade levels (9th and 10th grades). The findings of this study clearly suggest a
linkage between participation in extracurricular activities and grades (e.g., 10th graders in
this study reported the lowest participation rates in extracurricular activities [none] and
had the lowest actual GPAs of all four grade levels).
8. Local primary and secondary school leaders should devise strategies to avail all
students (with emphasis on those of low SES families) to peer social capital (e.g., posture
systems to enhance exposure to peer and friend networks that have higher availability to
resources that enable students to achieve high academic performance).
118
9. Local educational leaders should initiate school programs to highlight the high
potential and positive achievements of high school students in large, public, urban high
schools. Included in these achievements are the high bilingual proficiencies of students.
Findings in this study revealed that these students are bilingual at much higher rates than
the overall population around them (U.S. Census, 2008). This has significant positive
implications to their future well-being and that of our economy.
10. Educational leaders of schools similar to the target school of this study should initiate
programs and interventions to help increase students’ admiration of peers who get good
grades and affect their “buy in” into the belief that good grades can lead to popularity.
Specifically, use 11th and 12th graders and female students to deliver this message. The
study’s findings suggested these students were positively inclined about these
perceptions. Consider, for example, showing students current data (charts) demonstrating
the correlation between education level (degree) and income.
Summary
Four general categories of findings emerged from this study: oppositional culture;
extracurricular activities and peer social capital; perceptions of self-image, respect, and
grades; and findings providing qualitative depth to the study. The key findings within
each category are summarized below.
With regards to oppositional culture, the study resulted in various important findings.
It appears there are greater oppositional culture tendencies within the lower grade levels
and with males more than females. To a greater degree than the other three grade levels
above them, 9th graders perceive that popular students look down at those who get good
119
grades, i.e., “They think they are a nerd or schoolboy.” Conversely, 12th graders and
female students appear to admire peers who get good grades to a greater degree than all
others. Most students believe “Being fun or good-looking” is the most important factor
in being popular. Very few participants chose “Getting good grades” as the most
important factor in making a student popular. Comparing all four grade levels, the 9th
grade had the highest response rate to “Not being a nerd, schoolboy, or sellout” as the
most important factor in making a student popular. Female participants, however,
reported that “Getting good grades” is most important in terms of what makes a student
popular at nearly twice the rate of male participants. The findings also suggest a
perception of declining importance of grades as students become more popular.
The data revealed a negative relationship between peer popularity and GPA. The
preponderance of the popular students’ GPAs were below the median GPAs of their
class. The strength of the relationship (peer popularity versus GPA) in the present study
was not as strong as that of previous studies in this arena (Fryer, 2006). But, unlike
Fryer’s methodology of using student self-reported GPAs, the present study used actual,
district-provided GPA data. The data also showed that average Latino GPAs were lower
than the average GPAs of the overall class. Lastly, the findings revealed that 23 of the 25
most popular students (according to their peers) were Latinos. Yet, the question did not
ask them to name the most popular Latinos in their class. It asked them to name the most
popular students in their class (regardless of race or ethnicity). This has peer social
capital implications.
120
There were significant findings with regard to extracurricular activities and peer social
capital. Most student survey participants perceive that their friends (to some degree) and
popular students (to a greater degree) participate in more extracurricular activities than
themselves. The majority of 10th graders reported the lowest participation rate in
extracurricular activities of all four grade levels, i.e., “None.” Moreover, the 10th grade
had the lowest average GPA (actual) of all four grade levels. And, ironically, the 10th
graders self-reported higher GPAs than the other grade levels! This finding suggests a
strong relationship between lower participation in extracurricular activities and lower
grades. It also reveals a potential link to an absence of the positive aspects of peer social
capital within this group of students. Finally, a larger percentage of female students
(21.7%) versus male students (9.5%) believe that popular students participate in “More
than 4” extracurricular activities. This might suggest female students are more aware of
the value of extracurricular activities with regard to popularity among peers.
The study produced various key findings with regard to Latino student perceptions of
self-image, respect, and grades. The majority of students surveyed prefer to be seen as
“Someone who is fun to be around” or “Someone who is nice” rather than “Someone
who is smart and a good student.” With the slight exception of some 11th graders, very
few students in this study prefer to be seen as “Someone who is smart and a good
student.” These findings may suggest that students place more self-image value on
academic achievement as they progress to higher grade levels. Overwhelmingly, students
perceive that “getting along with everyone” is predominant in getting respect from their
peers. Very few students believe that “getting good grades in school” has anything to do
121
with getting respect from other students. This finding suggests these adolescents may be
faced with choosing behaviors they believe are more likely to get them respect from their
peers. As they maneuver their way through their formative years, they may choose to
bypass efforts to get good grades as a tradeoff to getting respect and not be seen as a
“schoolboy” or “acting white.” These results were consistent along gender lines.
The final category (findings providing qualitative depth to the study) presented
interesting findings for further research. Student participants in this study are doing
better than the overall community they live in with regards to language skills. A
significant majority of student survey participants (65.9%) speak both English and
Spanish. This is compared to 41% having this proficiency within the population of the
Sacramento Region (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). This finding suggests a positive
outlook for future educational levels of Latino students and the eventual economy of the
area. On average, self-reported GPAs for 9th and 10th graders are higher than those of
11th and 12th graders. Actual GPA data did not corroborate these results, however. The
majority of 9th and 10th graders self-reported higher GPAs than they actually had. The
majority of 11th and 12th graders, however, accurately self-reported their GPAs compared
to their actual GPAs. This finding may suggest lack of information or an immaturity
level of these younger, less experienced students. The survey question regarding the
most popular students raised emotional responses from student participants. Various
students, from all four grade levels and genders, wrote unsolicited comments on the
survey. This student input helped give a “voice” to the data, a “face” to participants, and
a “story” to this study. Additionally, these unsolicited quotes gave a qualitative depth to
122
this quantitative study and suggested that popularity is a complex construct. The
overwhelming majority of student participants were born in the U.S. (87.5%). Yet, more
females than males (proportionately) were born in the U.S. (i.e., 91.4% and 82.7%,
respectively). Moreover, the majority of survey participants were female students
(55.4%). Yet, there are more Latino male students than Latino female students at this
school. Lastly, the majority of survey participants were from the 11th grade (73),
followed by 12th (55), 10th (23), and 9th grade (18). With regard to the 9th grade’s low
participation rates, one can make an inference that they were still wrestling the
challenging transition between elementary and high school. Perhaps they were too shy to
volunteer for the survey. As discussed earlier, the 9th grade transition makes for keenly
relevant areas for further study and important research.
Conclusion
Several conclusions and implications emerged from this study. As the most
populous state in the nation, California’s educational leaders need to lead by example
when it comes to improving the academic achievement of its students. This is
particularly applicable to Latino K-12 students—a group now comprising approximately
half of the state’s entire K-12 student population (Ceja, 2007). In this regard, no other
state in the nation is impacted to such a high degree. A deeper understanding of the
relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino high school students (the
focus of this study) is one of the numerous ways our state educational leaders can start
formulating strategies to affect the academic improvement of our children. Considering
the significant academic underperformance and severity of California’s dropout rate
123
among Latino students, the recommendations presented in this study could serve as
partial answers to this complex and continuing problem. If for no other reason, our
state’s economy and future depend on it. Local and state educational leaders must
support, prioritize, champion, and resource programs and strategies, such as those
recommended in the present study, that target the state’s academic underperformance.
These leaders must act on current signals that seem to point toward an incessant
education and economic crisis. The indicators are astounding and time-sensitive.
Once known as the pioneer in the education arena, California must now act on
recommended solutions to critical education issues and the vicious cycles that continue to
feed it. Harnessing and promoting positive relationships between peer perceptions and
grades among our young students can become a partial solution to some of these weighty
local and state problems. Some of the positive findings of this study, such as the high
proficiency in bilingual abilities of our students, can be leveraged to provide positive
momentum and prime the engine of academic improvement. Conversely, unabated
academic underperformance and continued high dropout rates could become catalysts to
a certain and eminent state economic debacle. As this study comes to a close, our state is
experiencing a $20 billion dollar deficit (LAO, 2010). Meanwhile, recent data show that
each cohort of dropouts in this state costs the state $46 billion (Belfield, 2007). The
clock is ticking. If we ignore it, it will not go away. Bad news does not get better with
age.
124
APPENDICES
125
Appendix A
Summary of Selected Literature
Does the literature adequately describe what is known about each theme?
Theme 1
Theme 2
Theme 3
Publication Date
& Author
(1991) Ogbu
(2006) Fryer
(2004) Gandara,
O’Hara &
Gutierrez
(2007)
Newhouse
Peer Perception Theories and
and Grades
Concepts
Yes
Yes
Interventions
as a Solution
Limited
Yes
Limited
Limited
Peer Influence &
Academics
No
Limited
Limited
Immigrant
Families
(2006) Huber,
Huidor,
Malagon,
Sanchez, &
Solorgano
(2005) The
Civil
Rights Project
Limited
No
Yes
Latino
Educational
Pipeline
No
Limited
Limited
Harvard Project
on California
(2005) Frey,
Perry, Brazil, &
Oregon
No
No
Limited
Spotlight on
(2005)
Afterschool
Alliance
No
Remarks
“Acting White”
California
No
Limited
After School
Programs
(1990) Stephens Limited
No
Yes
Felons/dropouts
(1988)
Fennimore
Limited
No
Yes
Mentor booklet
(2001) Lee &
Burkam
Limited
No
Yes
Schools &
Parents as role
models
126
(2007) Monreal
No
No
Yes
Dropout Project
(2007)
Rumberger
No
Limited
Limited
Dropout
Research
127
Appendix B
Matrix (Survey Questions – Research Questions)
The Relationship Between Peer Perceptions and Grades Among Latino High School
Students: Myth or Reality?
Research questions:
#1: What is the nature of the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among
Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento, California area (i.e., positive
or negative)?
#2: How much influence does peer perception have on these students’ grades?
#3: How do various factors contribute to the relationship between peer perceptions and
grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento, California area
(e.g., popularity, respect, self image, extracurricular activities and peer social capital,
oppositional culture, and importance of grades)?
Survey Questions:
Informs Research Question(s):
1. In how many extracurricular activities do you participate? (example: sports, clubs,
student council, academic groups, etc.)
(peer social capital, correlation to GPA) #3
1. None
2. 1 or 2
3. 3 or 4
4. More than 4
2. On average, in how many extracurricular activities do your friends participate?
(example: sports, clubs, student council, academic groups, etc.) (same as above)
1. None
2. 1 or 2
3. 3 or 4
4. More than 4
#3
128
Informs Research Question(s):
3. On average, in how many extracurricular activities do popular students participate?
(example: sports, clubs, student council, academic groups, etc.) (popularity)
#3
1. None
2. 1 or 2
3. 3 or 4
4. More than 4
4. How important is it to you to get good grades? (importance of grades factor)
1. Not important
2. Somewhat important
3. Important
4. Very important
#3
5. How important is it to your friends that they get good grades? (same as above)
1. Not important
2. Somewhat important
3. Important
4. Very important
#3
6. How important do you believe it is to popular students that they get good grades? #1,3
1. Not important
2. Somewhat important
3. Important
4. Very important
7. What do you think of students who get good grades (choose one)?
1. I don’t like them
(same as above)
2. I think they are a schoolboy
3. I don’t care either way
4. I respect them
#1-3
8. What do your friends think about students who get good grades (choose one)?
1. They don’t like them
(same as above) #1-3
2. They call them a schoolboy
3. They don’t care either way
4. They respect them
9. What do popular students think about those who get good grades (choose one)?
1. They don’t like them
(popularity & oppositional culture factors) #1-3
2. They call them a schoolboy
3. They don’t care either way
4. They respect them
129
Informs Research Question(s):
10. How would you MOST like other students to think of you? (self-image factor) #1,3
1. Someone who gets invited to all the best parties
2. Someone who is fun to be around
3. Someone who is nice
4. Someone who is smart and a good student
11. Which one of the following is MOST important in terms of what makes a student
popular?
(popularity & oppositional culture factors) #1-3
1. Not being a schoolboy or sellout
2. Being good-looking
3. Being nice
4. Getting good grades
12. Which one of the following is MOST likely to get you respect in the eyes of other
students at this school?
(respect factor, grades)
#3
1. Standing up to the system
2. Maintaining your racial or ethnic identity
3. Getting along with everyone
4. Getting good grades in school
13. Which of the following students are MOST likely to get good grades?
(oppositional culture)
1. Those who are trying to be a schoolboy or act white
2. Nerds who are out of touch with important things
3. Those who are naturally smart
4. Those who work hard on their school work
#1-3
14. What is your current GPA? (to compare popularity rating to GPAs)
1. Below 2.0
2. 2.0 to 2.9
3. 3.0 to 3.5
4. Above 3.5
#1-3
15. What is your gender? Male___ Female___
#1-3
16. What grade are you in? 9th___ 10th___ 11th___ 12th___
#1-3
17. What languages do you speak: English only___ English & Spanish___ Spanish
only___
#1-3
18. Were you born in the U.S.? Yes___ No___
#1-3
130
Informs Research Question(s):
19. Who are your five closest friends in your class? (to determine popular peers)
#1-3
20. Who are the five most popular students in your class? (same as above)
#1-3
131
Appendix C
Student Survey
Student Code:_________________________(DO NOT START WITHOUT A CODE)
By completing this survey, you are agreeing to participate in the research.
_____I agree
_____I do not agree
1. In how many extracurricular activities do you participate? (example: sports, clubs,
student council, academic groups, etc.)
1. None
2. 1 or 2
3. 3 or 4
4. More than 4
2. On average, in how many extracurricular activities do your friends participate?
(example: sports, clubs, student council, academic groups, etc.)
1. None
2. 1 or 2
3. 3 or 4
4. More than 4
3. On average, in how many extracurricular activities do popular students participate?
(example: sports, clubs, student council, academic groups, etc.)
1. None
2. 1 or 2
3. 3 or 4
4. More than 4
4. How important is it to you to get good grades?
1. Not important
2. Somewhat important
3. Important
4. Very important
5. How important is it to your friends that they get good grades?
1. Not important
2. Somewhat important
3. Important
4. Very important
132
6. How important do you believe it is to popular students that they get good grades?
1. Not important
2. Somewhat important
3. Important
4. Very important
7. What do you think of students who get good grades (choose one)?
1. I don’t like them
2. I think they are a nerd or schoolboy
3. I don’t care either way
4. I admire them
8. What do your friends think about students who get good grades (choose one)?
1. They don’t like them
2. They think they are a nerd or schoolboy
3. They don’t care either way
4. They admire them
9. What do popular students think about those who get good grades (choose one)?
1. They don’t like them
2. They think they are a nerd or schoolboy
3. They don’t care either way
4. They admire them
10. How would you MOST like other students to think of you?
1. Someone who gets invited to all the best parties
2. Someone who is fun to be around
3. Someone who is nice
4. Someone who is smart and a good student
11. Which one of the following is MOST important in terms of what makes a student
popular?
1. Not being a nerd, schoolboy, or sellout
2. Being fun or good-looking
3. Being nice
4. Getting good grades
12. Which one of the following is MOST likely to get you respect in the eyes of other
students at this school?
1. Standing up to the system
2. Maintaining your racial or ethnic identity
3. Getting along with everyone
4. Getting good grades in school
133
13. Which of the following students are MOST likely to get good grades?
1. Those who are nerds, schoolboys, or acting white
2. Those who are out of touch with important things
3. Those who are naturally smart
4. Those who work hard on their school work
14. What is your current GPA?
1. Below 2.0
2. 2.0 to 2.9
3. 3.0 to 3.5
4. Above 3.5
15. What is your gender? Male___ Female___
16. What grade are you in? 9th___ 10th___ 11th___ 12th___
17. What language(s) do you speak? English only___English & Spanish___Spanish
only___
18. Were you born in the U.S.? Yes___ No___
19. Who are your five closest friends in your class (first and last names)?
(Their names will be kept confidential and will not be mentioned anywhere in the
study)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
20. Who are the five most popular students in your class (first and last names)?
(Their names will be kept confidential and will not be mentioned anywhere in the
study)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
134
Appendix D
Student Survey (Spanish Version)
Código del Estudiante____________________(NO EMPIEZES SIN ESTE CODIGO)
Quiero completar este cuestionario y participar en este studio.
_____Si
_____No
1. ¿En cuántas actividades fuera de tus clases participas tú? (Ejemplo: deportes, clubes,
govierno de estudiantes, grupos académicos, etc.)
1. Ninguna
2. 1 o 2
3. 3 o 4
4. Más de 4
2. ¿Como en cuántas actividades fuera de las clases participan tus amigos?
(Ejemplo: deportes, clubes, govierno de estudiantes, grupos académicos, etc.)
1. Ninguna
2. 1 o 2
3. 3 o 4
4. Más de 4
3. ¿Como en cuántas actividades fuera de las clases participan los estudiantes populares?
(Ejemplo: deportes, clubes, govierno de estudiantes, grupos académicos, etc.)
1. Ninguna
2. 1 o 2
3. 3 o 4
4. Más de 4
4. ¿Para ti, que tan importante es lograr buenos grados en la escuela?
1. No es importante
2. Un poco importante
3. Importante
4. Muy importante
5. ¿Para tus amigos, que tan importante es lograr buenos grados en la escuela?
1. No es importante
2. Un poco importante
3. Importante
4. Muy importante
135
6. ¿Para los estudiantes populares, que tan importante es lograr buenos grados en la
escuela?
1. No es importante
2. Un poco importante
3. Importante
4. Muy importante
7. ¿Qué piensas tú de los estudiantes que logran buenos grados en la escuela?
1. No los quiero
2. Pienso que son pazguatos (nerd) o muchachitos de escuela (“schoolboy”)
3. No tengo opinión de ninguna manera
4. Los admiro
8. ¿Qué piensan tus amigos de los estudiantes que logran buenos grados en la escuela?
1. No los quieren
2. Piensan que son pazguatos (nerds) o muchachitos de escuela
(“schoolboy”)
3. No tienen opinión de ninguna manera
4. Los admiran
9. ¿Qué piensan los estudiantes populares de los estudiantes que logran buenos grados en
la escuela?
1. No los quieren
2. Piensan que son pazguatos (nerds) o muchachitos de escuela
(“schoolboy”)
3. No tienen opinión de ninguna manera
4. Los admiran
10. ¿Cómo quisieras MAS que otros estudiantes piensen de ti?
1. Alguien que quieren envitar a todas las fiestas mejores
2. Alguien que es muy divertido y todos lo siguen
3. Alguien que es buena gente
4. Alguien que es listo y un buen estudiante
11. ¿Cuál cosa es MAS importante para ser un estudiante popular?
1. No ser pazguato, ni “muchachito de escuela”, ni traicionar sus raíces
2. Ser divertido o guapo
3. Ser buena gente
4. Lograr buenos grados en la escuela
136
12. ¿Cuál cosa es MAS importante para lograr el respeto de otros estudiantes en esta
escuela?
1. Parándose contra la sistema
2. Mantener su identidad y raíces étnicas
3. Llevándose bien con todos
4. Lograr buenos grados en la escuela
13. ¿Cuáles estudiantes son MAS probables de lograr buenos grados?
1. Los que son pazguatos, muchachitos de escuela, o quieren ser gringos
2. Los que pierden contacto con cosas importantes
3. Los que son naturalmente inteligente
4. Los que se aplican mucho a su trabajo de escuela
14. ¿Qué es tu punto de grado (GPA)?
1. Menos de 2.0
2. 2.0 a 2.9
3. 3.0 a 3.5
4. Mas de 3.5
15. ¿Qué es tu género? Macho___ Hembra___
16. ¿En qué grado estas? 9___ 10___ 11___ 12___
17. ¿Qué idioma hablas?: No mas Inglés___ Inglés y Español___ No mas Español__
18. ¿Naciste en Los Estados Unidos? Sí___ No___
19. ¿Quienes son tus cinco mejores amigos en tú clase (nombre y apellido)?
(Sus nombres serán confidencial y no serán mencionados en ninguna parte del
estudio)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
20. ¿Cuales estudiantes son los mas populares en tú clase (nombre y apellido)?
(Sus nombres serán confidencial y no serán mencionados en ninguna parte del
estudio)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
137
Appendix E
Parental Consent Letter
Dear Parent(s):
My name is Hector E. Topete. I would like to invite your child to participate in a study
on the relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino high school
students. Participation is completely voluntary. The study will consist of a short survey
and an analysis of student grade point averages (GPA). If you are interested, the survey
is available for your review at the school administration office. The survey, GPA data,
and all information will be kept confidential and anonymous. None of the information
will be associated with you or your child. The final report will not include your child’s
name or the name of the high school.
I was born in Mexico and immigrated to the U.S. with my parents at the age of eight. My
parents are of low income, do not speak English, and only attained a 3rd grade education
in Mexico. I was fortunate to get a good education and am now working on my
doctorate. Your child’s participation in this study will help me complete my doctorate at
California State University, Sacramento and contribute to the education of our children.
The overall purpose of this study is to identify ways to help improve the academic
achievement of Latino high school students.
Your permission will allow me to conduct the student survey and to ask XXXXXXX
Unified School District to release student GPA information. The questions on the survey
ask students’ input on such things as extracurricular activities, importance of grades, and
student popularity. The survey consists of 20 questions, should take about 15 minutes to
complete, and will be conducted during school hours. The survey and GPA data will be
coded and kept confidential. Your child will be assigned a code number so that personal
information cannot be linked back to his or her name. GPA data will not include the
name of any students.
Your consent and your child’s participation are completely voluntary. Your child may
skip any question or leave the study at any time.
I am raffling four iPods (one per grade level) to students who volunteer to
participate in this study.
If you are willing to allow your child to participate in this study, please sign below to
authorize the XXXXXXXXX Unified School District to release the GPA data. Your
signature will also indicate that you give permission for your child to complete the
survey. Please feel free to call me at (916) 837-1691 or my advisor, Dr. Dan Orey at
(916) 278-5531, if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your help.
138
Sincerely,
Hector E. Topete
Doctoral Candidate
California State University,
Sacramento__________________________________________________________
PLEASE CHECK ONE OF THE BOXES BELOW AND SIGN
□ YES, I give permission for (your child’s name) __________________________to
participate in this study. I also authorize the XXXXXXX Unified School District to
release my child’s coded GPA data.
Parent/Guardian Signature ___________________________________
Date__________________________
□ NO, I do not give permission for my child__________________________ to
participate in this study.
Parent/Guardian Signature ____________________________________
Date__________________________
139
Appendix F
Parental Consent Letter (Spanish Version)
Estimados Padres,
Me llamo Hector E. Topete. Quisiera envitar a su hijo o hija a participar en mi estudio de
mi doctorado. El propósito general del estudio es identificar maneras de ayudar a
mejorar la educación de nuestros estudiantes Latinos. Mi estudio analizará las
percepciones entre estudiantes Latinos y el efecto que esto tiene en sus calificaciones de
escuela. Para poder analisar esto, voy a dar un cuestionario corto a cada estudiante. Si
Usted decea, puede revisar el cuestionario en la oficina administriva de la escuela.
Yo Nací en México. Mis padres se emigraron cuando yo tenia ocho años de edad. Mis
padres son de raíces humildes, ingresos bajos, no hablan mucho inglés, y tuvieron menos
de tres años de escuela. Por sus sacrificios, yo tuve muchas oportunidades y educación.
Estoy a fin de completar mi doctorado en la Universidad de California en Sacramento.
Con la ayuda de Usted, y si Dios quiere, este estudio va a mejorar la educacion de
nuestros estudiantes Latinos.
Con su permiso, yo puedo dar el cuestionario y lograr informacion de grados con el
distrito de la escuela. Las preguntas en el cuestionario se tratan de cosas como
actividades afuera de las clases, la importancia de grados, y el efecto de la popularidad
entre estudiantes. El cuestionario contiene 20 preguntas, se completara como en 15
minutos, y lo voy a dar en la escuela. Los estudiantes no ponen sus nombres en el
cuestionario. El cuestionario es voluntario, anonimo, y confidencial. El reporte final no
va a incluir los nombres de nadie, ni de la escuela.
Su permiso y la participacion de su hijo/hija son completamente voluntarios. Ademas,
Usted o su hijo o hija pueden decidir no participar a cualquier tiempo.
Voy a rifar cuatro iPods para los estudiantes que participen en el cuestionario.
Si Usted da permiso que su hijo o hija participe en mi estudio, por favor firmen en la
línea que sigue. Su firma también indicará que Usted da permiso para que su hijo o hija
tome el cuestionario. Por favor llámeme a (916) 837-1691 o a mi consejero, Dr. Daniel
Orey a (916) 278-5531, si tiene preguntas acerca de este estudio. Le agradesco mucho
por su ayuda. Muchas gracias.
Sinceramente,
140
Hector E. Topete
Candidato para el Doctorado
Universidad de California en Sacramento______________________________________
POR FAVOR PONGA SU FIRMA Y FECHA EN UNA DE LAS LINEAS QUE
SIGUEN
□ Sí doy permiso que (nombre de su hijo/hija) ________________________participe en
este estudio.
Firma del Padre/Madre ______________________
Fecha___________________
□ No doy permiso que (nombre de su hijo/hija)______________________ participe en
este estudio.
Firma del Padre/Madre_______________________
Fecha____________________
141
Appendix G
Student Assent Form (English Version)
PLEASE SIGN THIS FORM BEFORE YOU START THE SURVEY
Agreement to Participate in Research (Student Participants)
Hector E. Topete, a doctoral candidate at California State University, Sacramento, is
asking you to participate in a research project to determine the relationship between peer
perceptions and grades among Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento,
California area.
You will be eligible to participate in a raffle for an iPod if you take this survey.
This research is important because it may help improve the academic achievement of
Latino high school students. You will be asked to complete a short survey. The survey is
anonymous and confidential. Your name and your school’s name will not appear on the
survey or anywhere else in the study. Your participation in this research will be kept
private. The questions ask your input on such things as extracurricular activities,
importance of grades, and student popularity. Your GPA will also be obtained from your
school district, but without your name.
Your parents have already said it is OK with them for you to participate in this research
project. But if you decide not to participate, no one will be upset with you. Please write
your name and today’s date on the line below if you are willing to participate in this
study. This will make you eligible to enter a raffle for an iPod. Thank you.
________________________________ ____________________
Signature of Participant
Date
142
Appendix H
Student Assent Form (Spanish Version)
POR FAVOR FIRMA ESTA FORMA ANTES DE EMPEZAR EL
CUESTIONARIO
Forma Para Estudiantes
Hector E. Topete, de la Universidad de California en Sacramento, te envita a
participar en este estudio. El estudio es para analisar las percepciones entre
estudiantes Latinos y el efecto que esto tiene en sus calificaciones de escuela.
Puedes entrar en una rifa para ganar un iPod si participas en este estudio.
Este estudio es importante porque trata de identificar maneras de mejorar la
educacion de estudiantes Latinos. Te envitamos a que tomes este cuestionario
corto. El cuestionario es voluntario y anonimo. Tu nombre y el nombre de tu
escuela no van a aparecer en ninguna parte. Tu participacion en este estudio es
voluntario y privado.
Tus padres nos dieron permiso para que participes en este estudio. Pero si no
quieres participar, esta bien. Por favor pon tu firma y fecha en la línea de abajo
si quieres participar en este cuestionario y ser eligible para la rifa de un iPod.
Muchas gracias por tu ayuda.
________________________________
Firma del Estudiante
____________________
Fecha
143
Appendix I
Survey Instructions to Teachers
Instructions for Teachers (student surveys)
Phase One: Parental Consent Letters
1. Teachers give letters to Latino students on list provided
(Students who are 18, or older, do not need these)
2. Students return signed letters to their teacher next day
3. Teachers ensure the students’ names are on the letters
4. Hector will collect signed letters from teachers
After receiving enough parental consents (~200-300):
Phase Two: Administering Student Surveys
1. Hector provides teachers the surveys (Spanish for ELL)
2. Teachers give students the survey & have them do it on their own (takes ~10-15 min)
3. When survey is completed & returned, the teacher:
-ensures the student assent form is signed
-tears off the raffle ticket for the iPod, gives it to the student, and retains ticket with
student name stapled to the survey (need not be present to win)
-checks off the student’s name
4. Hector will collect completed surveys & raffle tickets
Phase Three: Raffling of iPods
1. The raffle will take place after all surveys are completed
2. Five iPods will be raffled (one for each grade level + one for assisting teachers)
Thank you. I genuinely appreciate your support for this study!
Hector E. Topete
Doctoral Candidate, 837-1691 cell, TopeteH@aol.com
144
Appendix J
Inducement to Participate in the Survey
145
Appendix K
Request to Conduct Research Within the School District
(For purposes of confidentiality, the district approval letter is not attached)
Description: A doctoral dissertation study.
Purpose and Scope: To explore the relationship between peer perceptions and grades
among Latino students in an urban high school in the Sacramento, California area.
Research Design (include sample selection and proposed statistical treatment): The
population will consist of Latino students from all four classes, male and female. The
instruments will consist of an anonymous student survey and school-provided student
GPA data. Student data will be coded and redacted to protect participant confidentiality.
Neither the survey results nor the GPA data will be linked to a specific student.
Extent of Participation of Subjects and School/District Staff: Minimal. All research
actions should be completed in less than one week. See Impact Summary.
Protection of Participant Confidentiality: An anonymous survey and coded/redacted
GPA data will be used for this study. The school’s name will never be mentioned.
Students’ names will not be collected, mentioned, written, documented, nor maintained.
Expected Use of Project Results: Completion of doctoral dissertation.
Benefits to Schools and/or District: The findings of this study aspire to provide valuable
information to educational leaders, teachers, and stakeholders in their quest to identify
solutions to the lower academic achievement of many Latino students. This could help
reduce high school dropout rates, which eventually helps to improve the state’s economy.
Numerous factors contribute to dropping out. A negative relationship between peer
perceptions and grades among Latino high school students could be one of them. This is
the focus of this study.
Timetable: The goal is to complete the research during the 2009 Fall Semester.
Attach all permission forms, tests, surveys or other instruments to be used.
A copy of the survey questions is attached.
Attach IRB letter or Campus Committee for Protection of Human Subjects Review letter.
CSUS Human Subjects Committee requires the district/school approval prior to their
approval. The researcher will provide the district a copy of the CSUS Human Subjects
approval when granted. Research will not commence without these approvals.
Signed Research Agreement Attached (with original signature, not copy)
146
Appendix L
Request for Human Subjects Approval
Application Form (Revised 07/2008)
Request for Review by the Sacramento State
Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects
(Submit 11 copies of this form and any attachments to the Office of Research
Administration, Hornet Bookstore, Suite 3400, mail code 6111. Please type your
responses or use a word processor.)
Project Title: The relationship between peer perceptions and grades among Latino
high school students: Myth or reality? (Doctoral Dissertation)
Funding Agency (if any): N/A
Name(s) and affiliation(s) of Researchers: Hector E. Topete, CSUS Doctoral Program
Mailing address: 9013 Grumman Way, Fair Oaks, CA 95628
Telephone and e-mail address for researcher (916) 837-1691, TopeteH@aol.com
Anticipated starting date October 15, 2009
Dr. Daniel Clark Orey
Name of faculty sponsor (for student research)
1.
Orey@csus.edu
E-mail address of sponsor
Who will participate in this research as subjects (e.g., how many people, from what
source, using what criteria for inclusion or exclusion)? How will their participation
be recruited (e.g., what inducements, if any, will be offered)?
(Note: I have received approval from XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Unified School District
and XXXXXXXXXX High School to conduct this study at their site (approval
attached). The contact at XXXXX is XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. All
requirements to conduct research within their district have been met.)
General Concept: This study will be conducted at XXXXXXX High School--a diverse,
urban high school with many Latino students. I have received approval from the
district and school. The main instruments for this study consist of a student survey
and coded/redacted district-provided GPA data. Specifically, I have requested
current coded/redacted GPA data for all Latino students (9th through 12th grades)
from XXXXXXX High School, who will be taking the survey, and for whom I have
received parental consent. To protect confidentiality, the school district will provide
147
me a list of participant names with a code number for each participant. This code
will be annotated on the survey before it is given to the participant. When the
survey has been completed, I will return the list of names and codes to the district.
That list will then be destroyed by the district, and they will give me a new list
containing only GPA data and code numbers. I will not retain any names. The
participants are volunteer Latino high school students from that school. We expect
approximately 200 to 400 participants from all four grades (9th through 12th). As an
inducement to participate, I plan to raffle four iPods (one for each grade—9th
through 12th). If the survey is given during the lunch hour, I will also provide pizza
for the participants. The lunch hour will be the primary timeframe for the survey.
If needed, make-up surveys will be given in the classroom under the supervision of
the teacher for that classroom. The teacher can either allow the participant to take
the survey in the back of the classroom while the others proceed with their normal
schedule or ask the participant to take the survey in the designated survey make-up
room. (Note: my facilitator—a teacher at that school and my doctoral colleague—
has identified a designated room for survey make-ups, if necessary). In all three
cases (lunch hour, classroom, designated room), the survey will be administered in a
manner that is not overly intrusive of students’ time and does not impact students
who are not taking the survey. The following major steps will be taken:
Step 1: The school district will provide me a list of all Latino students in this high school.
All these students will be invited to participate.
Step 2: The school district will also provide a list of coded/redacted GPA data for these
students.
Step 3: Volunteer teachers/facilitators from the high school will provide the parental
consent forms to the students in class. The students will be asked to take them
home, get them signed, and return them to the teachers. The teachers will then give
the signed consent forms to me.
Step 4: On survey day, the teacher/facilitator will identify each participant and give
him/her a survey which includes his/her specific code assigned by the school district
(Step 2, above). The survey will not contain the students’ actual names. This will
enable the confidential and anonymous handling of the survey and GPA data. I will
not collect the list of students’ names and codes.
Step 5: Prior to starting the survey, all students will be asked to sign and turn in the
Assent forms.
Step 6: After completing the survey, the student will give it to the teacher/monitor, who
will then give the student the raffle ticket for the iPod. The teachers/monitors will
give me the completed surveys.
148
Step 7: Once all surveys are completed, the raffle for the iPods will be conducted in one
of the school’s common areas (e.g., cafeteria, etc.).
Step 8: I will ensure that students’ specific names are not in my possession before I leave
the school grounds. Only school personnel will have knowledge and visibility of the
students’ actual names. I will not include, document, maintain nor record the actual
names of the students or the high school in the study.
2.
How will informed consent be obtained from the subjects? Attach a copy of the
consent form you will use. If a signed written consent will not be obtained, explain
what you will do instead and why. (See Appendix C for examples of consent forms,
an example of an assent form for children, and a list of consent form requirements.
Also see Informed Consent earlier in this manual.)
Informed consent will be obtained as discussed in Step 3, above. A copy of the parental
consent letter and student assent form is attached.
3.
How will the subjects’ rights to privacy and safety be protected? (See Level of Risk
earlier in this manual. For online surveys, also see Appendix B.)
Students’ rights to privacy and safety will be protected as discussed in Steps 4 and 8,
above. The survey is anonymous and the GPA data is coded and redacted. Students
will only be allowed to take the survey with parental consent and their own assent.
4.
Summarize the study’s purpose, design, and procedures. (Do not attach lengthy
grant proposals, etc.)
The purpose of the study is to explore the relationship between peer perceptions and
grades among Latino high school students. The instruments consist of a survey and
coded/redacted district-provided GPA data. These data will be analyzed using
quantitative methods to determine the relationship between peer perceptions and
grades among Latino high school students.
5.
Describe the content of any tests, questionnaires, interviews, etc. in the research.
Attach copies of the questions. What risk of discomfort or harm, if any, is involved
in their use?
A copy of the survey questions is attached. The general content of the questions deals
with student peer perceptions and academic achievement. In my opinion, there is
minimal to no risk of discomfort or harm in the use of this survey or the
coded/redacted GPA data.
6.
Describe any physical procedures in the research. What risk of discomfort or harm,
if any, is involved in their use? N/A
149
7.
Describe any equipment or instruments and any drugs or pharmaceuticals that will
be used in the research. What risk of discomfort or harm, if any, is involved in their
use? N/A
8.
Taking all aspects of this research into consideration, do you consider the study to
be “exempt,” “no risk,” “minimal risk,” or “at risk?” Explain why. (See Level of
Risk earlier in this manual.)
I consider this study to be minimal to no risk. The survey is anonymous. The districtprovided GPA data will be coded and redacted of students’ names. I will not know, nor
collect any data by student name. I will not use the actual school’s name in any
portion of the study.
________________________________
Signature of Researcher
____________________
Date
________________________________
Signature of Faculty Sponsor
(for student research)
____________________
Date
Questions about the application procedures for human subjects approval may be
directed to the Office of Research Administration, (916) 278-7565, or to any member of
the committee. Questions about how to minimize risks should be directed to a committee
member. Applicants are encouraged to contact a committee member whose professional
field most closely corresponds to that of the researcher. See
www.csus.edu/research/humansubjects/ for the current year’s due dates when submitting
an application.
150
To assure prompt review of your application,
ALL researchers should complete this checklist:

Have you written an appropriate answer for each question on the application
form? (Please do not attach research proposals, grant applications, etc. as the
committee cannot read such documents.)

Have you answered all of the questions on the application form? (Please enter
“N/A” if a particular question does not apply to your research.)

Have you provided an e-mail address and a phone number where you can be
reached on the application?

Have you (and any co-researchers) signed the application form? Did you
submit an original copy of your application with those signatures?

Have you included your consent form with your application? Does that
consent form identify you as the researcher and your department?

Does your consent form clearly describe what participants will be asked to do
in your research? Does it clearly describe any direct benefit they will receive
as a result of their participation? Does it clearly describe any risks they will be
exposed to during their participation, and what you will do to minimize those
risks?

Have you included with your application any screening forms that will be used
to determine the eligibility of participants for your research?

Have you included with your application all tests, questionnaires, surveys,
interview questions, focus group questions, etc. that will be used in your
research?

Have you checked the grammar and spelling throughout all of your
documents?

Have you prepared 11 copies of your complete application packet, including
all attachments, for the committee?
151
STUDENT researchers must also complete this checklist:

Have you met with your faculty advisor before preparing your application?
Has your faculty advisor thoroughly reviewed all of your materials before you
submitted your application?

Have you provided an e-mail address and a phone number where you can be
reached on the application? Did you also include your home address on the
application?

Have you included the name of your faculty advisor and that person’s e-mail
address on your application?

Has your application been signed by you, any co-researchers, and your faculty
advisor? Did you submit an original copy of your application with all of those
signatures?

Does your department have an approved Human Subjects committee that
reviews student research projects? (As of July 2008, the approved departments
are Child Development; Communication Studies; Criminal Justice;
Economics; Educational Leadership & Policy Studies; Kinesiology & Health
Science; Nursing; Psychology; Public Policy & Administration; Social Work;
Sociology; Special Education, Rehabilitation & School Psychology; and
Teacher Education.) If your research is in one of these departments, it must be
reviewed and approved by that department’s committee first. Has your
department’s committee completed the following form?
DEPARTMENT HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL
Project Title: The relationship between peer perceptions and grades among
Latino high school students: Myth or reality?
Student Researcher: Hector E. Topete
Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Daniel Clark Orey
152
Appendix M
Human Subjects Approval Letter
153
Appendix N
Descriptive Statistics for Each Survey Question
Statistics for Each Survey Question
Q1
N
Q2
Valid
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
169
168
167
168
168
167
167
Missing
Mean
0
1.8757
1
2.2560
2
2.6527
1
3.3869
1
2.9167
2
2.6766
2
3.4012
Median
2.0000
2.0000
3.0000
4.0000
3.0000
3.0000
3.0000
2.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
.80323
.78150
.85678
.71699
.79983
.95229
.52710
Mode
Std. Deviation
Statistics for Each Survey Question
Q8
N
Q9
Valid
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q14
167
167
163
166
165
166
161
Missing
Mean
2
2.9581
2
2.7784
6
2.7117
3
2.3012
4
2.8667
3
3.8494
8
2.5590
Median
3.0000
3.0000
2.0000
2.0000
3.0000
4.0000
2.0000
Mode
Std. Deviation
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
.60473
.76364
.82195
.73419
.64895
.54625
.87210
Statistics for Each Survey Question
Q15
N
Q13
Q16
Q17
Q18
Valid
168
168
167
168
Missing
Mean
1
1.55
1
10.9881
2
2.34
1
.88
Median
2.00
11.0000
3.00
1.00
Mode
Std. Deviation
2
11.00
3
1
.499
.93494
.930
.332
154
Appendix O
Statistical Results for Survey Question #1 (Grade level analysis)
1. In how many extracurricular activities do you participate?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #1 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Grade Level
9.00
Answer 1.00
Choices
22
16
57
% within Q1
5.3%
28.1%
38.6%
28.1%
100.0%
17.6%
69.6%
30.1%
29.1%
33.9%
1.8%
9.5%
13.1%
9.5%
33.9%
11
5
39
27
82
% within Q1
13.4%
6.1%
47.6%
32.9%
100.0%
% within grade
level
64.7%
21.7%
53.4%
49.1%
48.8%
6.5%
3.0%
23.2%
16.1%
48.8%
1
1
11
8
21
% within Q1
4.8%
4.8%
52.4%
38.1%
100.0%
% within grade
level
5.9%
4.3%
15.1%
14.5%
12.5%
.6%
.6%
6.5%
4.8%
12.5%
2
1
1
4
8
% within Q1
25.0%
12.5%
12.5%
50.0%
100.0%
% within grade
level
11.8%
4.3%
1.4%
7.3%
4.8%
1.2%
.6%
.6%
2.4%
4.8%
Count
Count
% of Total
Count
% of Total
Total
Total
16
% of Total
4.00
12.00
3
% of Total
3.00
11.00
Student
Participants
% within grade
level
2.00
10.00
Count
17
23
73
55
168
% within Q1
10.1%
13.7%
43.5%
32.7%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.1%
13.7%
43.5%
32.7%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
21.917a
21.637
.816
168
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
9
9
1
a. 6 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .81.
.009
.010
.366
155
Appendix O (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #1 (Gender analysis)
1. In how many extracurricular activities do you participate?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #1 and Gender of Student Participants
Choices for Question 1
1.00
Male
Female
Total
Count
2.00
3.00
4.00
26
33
12
% within Q15
34.7%
44.0%
% within Q1
45.6%
40.2%
% of Total
15.5%
Total
4
75
16.0%
5.3%
100.0%
57.1%
50.0%
44.6%
19.6%
7.1%
2.4%
44.6%
31
49
9
4
93
% within Q15
33.3%
52.7%
9.7%
4.3%
100.0%
% within Q1
54.4%
59.8%
42.9%
50.0%
55.4%
% of Total
18.5%
29.2%
5.4%
2.4%
55.4%
57
82
21
8
168
Count
Count
% within Q15
33.9%
48.8%
12.5%
4.8%
100.0%
% within Q1
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
33.9%
48.8%
12.5%
4.8%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
2.084a
2.079
.321
168
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 3.57.
.555
.556
.571
156
Appendix P
Statistical Results for Survey Question #2 (Grade level analysis)
2. On average, in how many extracurricular activities do your friends participate?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #2
and Grade Level of Student Participants
9.00
Answer 1.00
Choices
Count
5
19
% within Q2
5.3%
15.8%
52.6%
26.3%
100.0%
% within Q16
5.9%
13.0%
13.9%
9.1%
11.4%
.6%
1.8%
6.0%
3.0%
11.4%
11
16
43
32
102
% within Q2
10.8%
15.7%
42.2%
31.4%
100.0%
% within Q16
64.7%
69.6%
59.7%
58.2%
61.1%
6.6%
9.6%
25.7%
19.2%
61.1%
4
0
12
14
30
% within Q2
13.3%
.0%
40.0%
46.7%
100.0%
% within Q16
23.5%
.0%
16.7%
25.5%
18.0%
2.4%
.0%
7.2%
8.4%
18.0%
1
4
7
4
16
% within Q2
6.3%
25.0%
43.8%
25.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
5.9%
17.4%
9.7%
7.3%
9.6%
.6%
2.4%
4.2%
2.4%
9.6%
17
23
72
55
167
Count
Count
Count
% of Total
Total
Total
10
% of Total
4.00
12.00
3
% of Total
3.00
11.00
1
% of Total
2.00
10.00
Count
% within Q2
10.2%
13.8%
43.1%
32.9%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.2%
13.8%
43.1%
32.9%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
9.789a
13.553
.071
167
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
9
9
1
a. 6 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.63.
.368
.139
.791
157
Appendix P (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #2 (Gender analysis)
2. On average, in how many extracurricular activities do your friends participate?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #2 and Gender of Student Participants
Question 2 (answer choices)
1.00
Male
Count
4.00
Total
47
11
9
74
% within Q15
9.5%
63.5%
14.9%
12.2%
100.0%
% within Q2
36.8%
46.1%
36.7%
56.3%
44.3%
4.2%
28.1%
6.6%
5.4%
44.3%
12
55
19
7
93
% within Q15
12.9%
59.1%
20.4%
7.5%
100.0%
% within Q2
63.2%
53.9%
63.3%
43.8%
55.7%
7.2%
32.9%
11.4%
4.2%
55.7%
19
102
30
16
167
Count
% of Total
Total
3.00
7
% of Total
Female
2.00
Count
% within Q15
11.4%
61.1%
18.0%
9.6%
100.0%
% within Q2
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
11.4%
61.1%
18.0%
9.6%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
2.193a
2.203
.343
167
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
.533
.531
.558
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 7.09.
158
Appendix Q
Statistical Results for Survey Question #3 (Grade level analysis)
3. On average, in how many extracurricular activities do popular students participate?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #3 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Grade Level
9.00
Q3
1.00
Count
Total
Total
8
4
15
% within Q3
20.0%
.0%
53.3%
26.7%
100.0%
% within Q16
17.6%
.0%
11.3%
7.3%
9.0%
1.8%
.0%
4.8%
2.4%
9.0%
6
6
23
19
54
% within Q3
11.1%
11.1%
42.6%
35.2%
100.0%
% within Q16
35.3%
26.1%
32.4%
34.5%
32.5%
3.6%
3.6%
13.9%
11.4%
32.5%
8
11
29
22
70
% within Q3
11.4%
15.7%
41.4%
31.4%
100.0%
% within Q16
47.1%
47.8%
40.8%
40.0%
42.2%
4.8%
6.6%
17.5%
13.3%
42.2%
0
6
11
10
27
% within Q3
.0%
22.2%
40.7%
37.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
.0%
26.1%
15.5%
18.2%
16.3%
% of Total
.0%
3.6%
6.6%
6.0%
16.3%
Count
Count
% of Total
4.00
12.00
0
% of Total
3.00
11.00
3
% of Total
2.00
10.00
Count
Count
17
23
71
55
166
% within Q3
10.2%
13.9%
42.8%
33.1%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.2%
13.9%
42.8%
33.1%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
9.098a
13.411
.371
166
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
9
9
1
a. 5 cells (31.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.54.
.428
.145
.542
159
Appendix Q (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #3 (Gender analysis)
3. On average, in how many extracurricular activities do popular students participate?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #3 and Gender of Student Participants
Q3
1.00
Q15
Male
Count
4.00
29
28
% within Q15
13.5%
39.2%
% within Q3
66.7%
53.7%
6.0%
Total
7
74
37.8%
9.5%
100.0%
40.0%
25.9%
44.6%
17.5%
16.9%
4.2%
44.6%
5
25
42
20
92
% within Q15
5.4%
27.2%
45.7%
21.7%
100.0%
% within Q3
33.3%
46.3%
60.0%
74.1%
55.4%
3.0%
15.1%
25.3%
12.0%
55.4%
15
54
70
27
166
Count
% of Total
Total
3.00
10
% of Total
Female
2.00
Count
% within Q15
% within Q3
9.0%
32.5%
42.2%
16.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.0%
32.5%
42.2%
16.3%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
9.178a
9.386
9.119
166
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
.027
.025
.003
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 6.69.
160
Appendix R
Statistical Results for Survey Question #4 (Grade level analysis)
4. How important is it to you to get good grades?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #4 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q4
1.00
2.00
Count
Total
1
0
1
% within Q4
.0%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
.0%
.0%
1.4%
.0%
.6%
% of Total
.0%
.0%
.6%
.0%
.6%
2
3
6
8
19
% within Q4
10.5%
15.8%
31.6%
42.1%
100.0%
% within Q16
11.8%
13.0%
8.3%
14.5%
11.4%
1.2%
1.8%
3.6%
4.8%
11.4%
5
9
22
24
60
% within Q4
8.3%
15.0%
36.7%
40.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
29.4%
39.1%
30.6%
43.6%
35.9%
3.0%
5.4%
13.2%
14.4%
35.9%
10
11
43
23
87
% within Q4
11.5%
12.6%
49.4%
26.4%
100.0%
% within Q16
58.8%
47.8%
59.7%
41.8%
52.1%
6.0%
6.6%
25.7%
13.8%
52.1%
Count
Count
Count
% of Total
Total
12.00
0
% of Total
4.00
11.00
0
% of Total
3.00
10.00
Count
17
23
72
55
167
% within Q4
10.2%
13.8%
43.1%
32.9%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.2%
13.8%
43.1%
32.9%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
6.351a
6.758
.913
167
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
9
9
1
a. 6 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .10.
.704
.662
.339
161
Appendix R (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #4 (Gender analysis)
4. How important is it to you to get good grades?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #4 and Gender of Student Participants
Q4
1.00
Q15
Male
Count
% within Q15
4.00
Total
1
10
29
34
74
1.4%
13.5%
39.2%
45.9%
100.0%
52.6%
48.3%
39.1%
44.3%
.6%
6.0%
17.4%
20.4%
44.3%
0
9
31
53
93
% within Q15
.0%
9.7%
33.3%
57.0%
100.0%
% within Q4
.0%
47.4%
51.7%
60.9%
55.7%
% of Total
.0%
5.4%
18.6%
31.7%
55.7%
1
19
60
87
167
% of Total
Total
3.00
100.0%
% within Q4
Female
2.00
Count
Count
% within Q15
% within Q4
.6%
11.4%
35.9%
52.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
.6%
11.4%
35.9%
52.1%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
3.148a
3.522
2.520
167
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .44.
.369
.318
.112
162
Appendix S
Statistical Results for Survey Question #5 (Grade level analysis)
5. How important is it to your friends that they get good grades?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #5 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q5
1.00
Count
0
4
% within Q5
25.0%
50.0%
25.0%
.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
5.9%
8.7%
1.4%
.0%
2.4%
.6%
1.2%
.6%
.0%
2.4%
5
3
23
17
48
% within Q5
10.4%
6.3%
47.9%
35.4%
100.0%
% within Q16
29.4%
13.0%
31.9%
30.9%
28.7%
3.0%
1.8%
13.8%
10.2%
28.7%
9
11
30
22
72
% within Q5
12.5%
15.3%
41.7%
30.6%
100.0%
% within Q16
52.9%
47.8%
41.7%
40.0%
43.1%
5.4%
6.6%
18.0%
13.2%
43.1%
2
7
18
16
43
% within Q5
4.7%
16.3%
41.9%
37.2%
100.0%
% within Q16
11.8%
30.4%
25.0%
29.1%
25.7%
1.2%
4.2%
10.8%
9.6%
25.7%
Count
Count
Count
% of Total
Total
Total
1
% of Total
4.00
12.00
2
% of Total
3.00
11.00
1
% of Total
2.00
10.00
Count
17
23
72
55
167
% within Q5
10.2%
13.8%
43.1%
32.9%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.2%
13.8%
43.1%
32.9%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
11.018a
11.366
.839
167
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
9
9
1
a. 6 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .41.
.275
.251
.360
163
Appendix S (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question # (Gender analysis)
5. How important is it to your friends that they get good grades?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #5 and Gender of Student Participants
Q5
1.00
Q15
Male
Count
4.00
Total
23
32
18
74
% within Q15
1.4%
31.1%
43.2%
24.3%
100.0%
% within Q5
25.0%
47.9%
44.4%
41.9%
44.3%
.6%
13.8%
19.2%
10.8%
44.3%
3
25
40
25
93
% within Q15
3.2%
26.9%
43.0%
26.9%
100.0%
% within Q5
75.0%
52.1%
55.6%
58.1%
55.7%
1.8%
15.0%
24.0%
15.0%
55.7%
4
48
72
43
167
Count
% of Total
Total
3.00
1
% of Total
Female
2.00
Count
% within Q15
% within Q5
2.4%
28.7%
43.1%
25.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
2.4%
28.7%
43.1%
25.7%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
.963a
.999
.058
167
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.77.
.810
.802
.809
164
Appendix T
Statistical Results for Survey Question #6 (Grade level analysis)
6. How important do you believe it is to popular students that they get good grades?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #6 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q6
1.00
Count
5
16
% within Q6
12.5%
.0%
56.3%
31.3%
100.0%
% within Q16
11.8%
.0%
12.7%
9.1%
9.6%
1.2%
.0%
5.4%
3.0%
9.6%
9
10
23
20
62
% within Q6
14.5%
16.1%
37.1%
32.3%
100.0%
% within Q16
52.9%
43.5%
32.4%
36.4%
37.3%
5.4%
6.0%
13.9%
12.0%
37.3%
3
8
18
18
47
% within Q6
6.4%
17.0%
38.3%
38.3%
100.0%
% within Q16
17.6%
34.8%
25.4%
32.7%
28.3%
1.8%
4.8%
10.8%
10.8%
28.3%
3
5
21
12
41
% within Q6
7.3%
12.2%
51.2%
29.3%
100.0%
% within Q16
17.6%
21.7%
29.6%
21.8%
24.7%
1.8%
3.0%
12.7%
7.2%
24.7%
Count
Count
Count
% of Total
Total
Total
9
% of Total
4.00
12.00
0
% of Total
3.00
11.00
2
% of Total
2.00
10.00
Count
17
23
71
55
166
% within Q6
10.2%
13.9%
42.8%
33.1%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.2%
13.9%
42.8%
33.1%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
7.726a
9.841
.305
166
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
9
9
1
a. 4 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.64.
.562
.364
.581
165
Appendix T (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #6 (Gender analysis)
6. How important do you believe it is to popular students that they get good grades?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #6 and Gender of Student Participants
Q6
1.00
Q15
Male
Count
4.00
Total
30
18
16
73
% within Q15
12.3%
41.1%
24.7%
21.9%
100.0%
% within Q6
56.3%
48.4%
38.3%
39.0%
44.0%
5.4%
18.1%
10.8%
9.6%
44.0%
7
32
29
25
93
% within Q15
7.5%
34.4%
31.2%
26.9%
100.0%
% within Q6
43.8%
51.6%
61.7%
61.0%
56.0%
4.2%
19.3%
17.5%
15.1%
56.0%
16
62
47
41
166
Count
% of Total
Total
3.00
9
% of Total
Female
2.00
Count
% within Q15
% within Q6
9.6%
37.3%
28.3%
24.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.6%
37.3%
28.3%
24.7%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
2.491a
2.490
2.031
166
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
.477
.477
.154
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 7.04.
166
Appendix U
Statistical Results for Survey Question #7 (Grade level analysis)
7. What do you think of students who get good grades (choose one)?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #7 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q7
2.00
3.00
Count
12.00
Total
0
2
1
3
% within Q7
.0%
.0%
66.7%
33.3%
100.0%
% within Q16
.0%
.0%
2.7%
1.8%
1.8%
% of Total
.0%
.0%
1.2%
.6%
1.8%
12
15
41
26
94
% within Q7
12.8%
16.0%
43.6%
27.7%
100.0%
% within Q16
70.6%
68.2%
56.2%
47.3%
56.3%
7.2%
9.0%
24.6%
15.6%
56.3%
5
7
30
28
70
% within Q7
7.1%
10.0%
42.9%
40.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
29.4%
31.8%
41.1%
50.9%
41.9%
3.0%
4.2%
18.0%
16.8%
41.9%
17
22
73
55
167
% within Q7
10.2%
13.2%
43.7%
32.9%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.2%
13.2%
43.7%
32.9%
100.0%
Count
Count
% of Total
Total
11.00
0
% of Total
4.00
10.00
Count
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
5.269a
5.939
2.686
167
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
6
6
1
a. 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .31.
.510
.430
.101
167
Appendix U (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #7 (Gender analysis)
7. What do you think of students who get good grades (choose one)?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #7 and Gender of Student Participants
Q7
2.00
Q15
Male
Female
Count
4.00
Total
0
48
27
75
% within Q15
.0%
64.0%
36.0%
100.0%
% within Q7
.0%
51.1%
38.6%
44.9%
% of Total
.0%
28.7%
16.2%
44.9%
Count
3
46
43
92
3.3%
50.0%
46.7%
100.0%
100.0%
48.9%
61.4%
55.1%
1.8%
27.5%
25.7%
55.1%
% within Q15
% within Q7
% of Total
Total
3.00
Count
3
94
70
167
1.8%
56.3%
41.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1.8%
56.3%
41.9%
100.0%
% within Q15
% within Q7
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
5.021a
6.158
.832
167
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
2
2
1
a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.35.
.081
.046
.362
168
Appendix V
Statistical Results for Survey Question #8 (Grade level analysis)
8. What do your friends think about students who get good grades?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #8 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q8
1.00
2.00
Count
Total
0
4
5
% within Q8
.0%
20.0%
.0%
80.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
.0%
4.3%
.0%
7.3%
3.0%
% of Total
.0%
.6%
.0%
2.4%
3.0%
2
5
7
5
19
% within Q8
10.5%
26.3%
36.8%
26.3%
100.0%
% within Q16
11.8%
21.7%
9.7%
9.1%
11.4%
1.2%
3.0%
4.2%
3.0%
11.4%
14
15
58
34
121
% within Q8
11.6%
12.4%
47.9%
28.1%
100.0%
% within Q16
82.4%
65.2%
80.6%
61.8%
72.5%
8.4%
9.0%
34.7%
20.4%
72.5%
1
2
7
12
22
% within Q8
4.5%
9.1%
31.8%
54.5%
100.0%
% within Q16
5.9%
8.7%
9.7%
21.8%
13.2%
.6%
1.2%
4.2%
7.2%
13.2%
Count
Count
Count
% of Total
Total
12.00
1
% of Total
4.00
11.00
0
% of Total
3.00
10.00
Count
17
23
72
55
167
% within Q8
10.2%
13.8%
43.1%
32.9%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.2%
13.8%
43.1%
32.9%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
15.482a
16.518
.656
167
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
9
9
1
a. 8 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .51.
.079
.057
.418
169
Appendix V (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #8 (Gender analysis)
8. What do your friends think about students who get good grades?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #8 and Gender of Student Participants
Q8
1.00
Q15
Male
Count
4.00
Total
9
54
9
74
% within Q15
2.7%
12.2%
73.0%
12.2%
100.0%
% within Q8
40.0%
47.4%
44.6%
40.9%
44.3%
1.2%
5.4%
32.3%
5.4%
44.3%
3
10
67
13
93
% within Q15
3.2%
10.8%
72.0%
14.0%
100.0%
% within Q8
60.0%
52.6%
55.4%
59.1%
55.7%
1.8%
6.0%
40.1%
7.8%
55.7%
5
19
121
22
167
Count
% of Total
Total
3.00
2
% of Total
Female
2.00
Count
% within Q15
% within Q8
3.0%
11.4%
72.5%
13.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
3.0%
11.4%
72.5%
13.2%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
.218a
.218
.054
167
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 2.22.
.975
.975
.817
170
Appendix W
Statistical Results for Survey Question #9 (Grade level analysis)
9. What do popular students think about those who get good grades?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #9 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q9
1.00
Count
4
10
% within Q9
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
5.9%
8.7%
4.2%
7.3%
6.0%
.6%
1.2%
1.8%
2.4%
6.0%
6
5
17
13
41
% within Q9
14.6%
12.2%
41.5%
31.7%
100.0%
% within Q16
35.3%
21.7%
23.6%
23.6%
24.6%
3.6%
3.0%
10.2%
7.8%
24.6%
6
15
39
32
92
% within Q9
6.5%
16.3%
42.4%
34.8%
100.0%
% within Q16
35.3%
65.2%
54.2%
58.2%
55.1%
3.6%
9.0%
23.4%
19.2%
55.1%
4
1
13
6
24
% within Q9
16.7%
4.2%
54.2%
25.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
23.5%
4.3%
18.1%
10.9%
14.4%
2.4%
.6%
7.8%
3.6%
14.4%
Count
Count
Count
% of Total
Total
Total
3
% of Total
4.00
12.00
2
% of Total
3.00
11.00
1
% of Total
2.00
10.00
Count
17
23
72
55
167
% within Q9
10.2%
13.8%
43.1%
32.9%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.2%
13.8%
43.1%
32.9%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
7.233a
7.737
.004
167
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
9
9
1
a. 7 cells (43.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.02.
.613
.561
.952
171
Appendix W (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #9 (Gender analysis)
9. What do popular students think about those who get good grades?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #9 and Gender of Student Participants
Q9
1.00
Q15
Male
Count
4.00
Total
22
37
12
75
% within Q15
5.3%
29.3%
49.3%
16.0%
100.0%
% within Q9
40.0%
53.7%
40.2%
50.0%
44.9%
2.4%
13.2%
22.2%
7.2%
44.9%
6
19
55
12
92
% within Q15
6.5%
20.7%
59.8%
13.0%
100.0%
% within Q9
60.0%
46.3%
59.8%
50.0%
55.1%
3.6%
11.4%
32.9%
7.2%
55.1%
10
41
92
24
167
Count
% of Total
Total
3.00
4
% of Total
Female
2.00
Count
% within Q15
% within Q9
6.0%
24.6%
55.1%
14.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
6.0%
24.6%
55.1%
14.4%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
2.436a
2.433
.079
167
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 4.49.
.487
.487
.778
172
Appendix X
Statistical Results for Survey Question #10 (Grade level analysis)
10. How would you MOST like other students to think of you?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #10 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q10
1.00
2.00
Count
Total
1
0
1
% within Q10
.0%
.0%
100.0%
.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
.0%
.0%
1.4%
.0%
.6%
% of Total
.0%
.0%
.6%
.0%
.6%
10
18
30
24
82
% within Q10
12.2%
22.0%
36.6%
29.3%
100.0%
% within Q16
62.5%
81.8%
42.3%
44.4%
50.3%
6.1%
11.0%
18.4%
14.7%
50.3%
3
4
16
20
43
% within Q10
7.0%
9.3%
37.2%
46.5%
100.0%
% within Q16
18.8%
18.2%
22.5%
37.0%
26.4%
1.8%
2.5%
9.8%
12.3%
26.4%
3
0
24
10
37
% within Q10
8.1%
.0%
64.9%
27.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
18.8%
.0%
33.8%
18.5%
22.7%
1.8%
.0%
14.7%
6.1%
22.7%
Count
Count
Count
% of Total
Total
12.00
0
% of Total
4.00
11.00
0
% of Total
3.00
10.00
Count
16
22
71
54
163
% within Q10
9.8%
13.5%
43.6%
33.1%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.8%
13.5%
43.6%
33.1%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
20.407a
24.498
3.426
163
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
9
9
1
a. 7 cells (43.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .10.
.016
.004
.064
173
Appendix X (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #10 (Gender analysis)
10. How would you MOST like other students to think of you?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #10 and Gender of Student Participants
Q10
1.00
Q15
Male
Female
Count
3.00
4.00
Total
0
38
15
18
71
% within Q15
.0%
53.5%
21.1%
25.4%
100.0%
% within Q10
.0%
46.3%
34.9%
48.6%
43.6%
% of Total
.0%
23.3%
9.2%
11.0%
43.6%
1
44
28
19
92
% within Q15
1.1%
47.8%
30.4%
20.7%
100.0%
% within Q10
100.0%
53.7%
65.1%
51.4%
56.4%
.6%
27.0%
17.2%
11.7%
56.4%
1
82
43
37
163
Count
% of Total
Total
2.00
Count
% within Q15
.6%
50.3%
26.4%
22.7%
100.0%
% within Q10
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
.6%
50.3%
26.4%
22.7%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
2.736a
3.132
.008
163
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .44.
.434
.372
.928
174
Appendix Y
Statistical Results for Survey Question #11 (Grade level analysis)
11. Which one of the following is MOST important in terms of what makes a student
popular?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #11 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q11
1.00
Count
0
6
3
11
.0%
54.5%
27.3%
100.0%
% within Q16
11.8%
.0%
8.3%
5.5%
6.6%
1.2%
.0%
3.6%
1.8%
6.6%
12
15
45
38
110
% within Q11
10.9%
13.6%
40.9%
34.5%
100.0%
% within Q16
70.6%
68.2%
62.5%
69.1%
66.3%
7.2%
9.0%
27.1%
22.9%
66.3%
1
4
12
12
29
% within Q11
3.4%
13.8%
41.4%
41.4%
100.0%
% within Q16
5.9%
18.2%
16.7%
21.8%
17.5%
.6%
2.4%
7.2%
7.2%
17.5%
Count
Count
Count
2
3
9
2
16
% within Q11
12.5%
18.8%
56.3%
12.5%
100.0%
% within Q16
11.8%
13.6%
12.5%
3.6%
9.6%
1.2%
1.8%
5.4%
1.2%
9.6%
% of Total
Total
Total
2
% of Total
4.00
12.00
18.2%
% of Total
3.00
11.00
% within Q11
% of Total
2.00
10.00
Count
17
22
72
55
166
% within Q11
10.2%
13.3%
43.4%
33.1%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.2%
13.3%
43.4%
33.1%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
7.893a
10.166
.093
166
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
9
9
1
a. 8 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.13.
.545
.337
.760
175
Appendix Y (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #11 (Gender analysis)
11. Which one of the following is MOST important in terms of what makes a student
popular?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #11 and Gender of Student Participants
Q11
1.00
Q15
Male
Count
4.00
Total
4
55
10
5
74
5.4%
74.3%
13.5%
6.8%
100.0%
% within Q11
36.4%
50.0%
34.5%
31.3%
44.6%
2.4%
33.1%
6.0%
3.0%
44.6%
7
55
19
11
92
% within Q15
7.6%
59.8%
20.7%
12.0%
100.0%
% within Q11
63.6%
50.0%
65.5%
68.8%
55.4%
4.2%
33.1%
11.4%
6.6%
55.4%
11
110
29
16
166
Count
% of Total
Total
3.00
% within Q15
% of Total
Female
2.00
Count
% within Q15
6.6%
66.3%
17.5%
9.6%
100.0%
% within Q11
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
6.6%
66.3%
17.5%
9.6%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
3.956a
4.019
1.789
166
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 4.90.
.266
.259
.181
176
Appendix Z
Statistical Results for Survey Question #12 (Grade level analysis)
12. Which one of the following is MOST likely to get you respect in the eyes of other
students at this school?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #12 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q12
1.00
2.00
3.00
Count
12.00
Total
4
3
3
10
% within Q12
.0%
40.0%
30.0%
30.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
.0%
18.2%
4.1%
5.6%
6.1%
% of Total
.0%
2.4%
1.8%
1.8%
6.1%
0
3
8
6
17
% within Q12
.0%
17.6%
47.1%
35.3%
100.0%
% within Q16
.0%
13.6%
11.0%
11.1%
10.3%
% of Total
.0%
1.8%
4.8%
3.6%
10.3%
15
14
54
40
123
% within Q12
12.2%
11.4%
43.9%
32.5%
100.0%
% within Q16
93.8%
63.6%
74.0%
74.1%
74.5%
9.1%
8.5%
32.7%
24.2%
74.5%
1
1
8
5
15
% within Q12
6.7%
6.7%
53.3%
33.3%
100.0%
% within Q16
6.3%
4.5%
11.0%
9.3%
9.1%
.6%
.6%
4.8%
3.0%
9.1%
Count
Count
Count
% of Total
Total
11.00
0
% of Total
4.00
10.00
Count
16
22
73
54
165
% within Q12
9.7%
13.3%
44.2%
32.7%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.7%
13.3%
44.2%
32.7%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
10.806a
11.655
.017
165
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
9
9
1
a. 9 cells (56.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .97.
.289
.233
.896
177
Appendix Z (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #12 (Gender analysis)
12. Which one of the following is MOST likely to get you respect in the eyes of other
students at this school?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #12 and Gender of Student Participants
Q12
1.00
Q15
Male
Count
4.00
Total
5
6
53
9
73
6.8%
8.2%
72.6%
12.3%
100.0%
% within Q12
50.0%
35.3%
43.1%
60.0%
44.2%
3.0%
3.6%
32.1%
5.5%
44.2%
5
11
70
6
92
% within Q15
5.4%
12.0%
76.1%
6.5%
100.0%
% within Q12
50.0%
64.7%
56.9%
40.0%
55.8%
3.0%
6.7%
42.4%
3.6%
55.8%
10
17
123
15
165
Count
% of Total
Total
3.00
% within Q15
% of Total
Female
2.00
Count
% within Q15
6.1%
10.3%
74.5%
9.1%
100.0%
% within Q12
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
6.1%
10.3%
74.5%
9.1%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
2.262a
2.261
.436
165
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 4.42.
.520
.520
.509
178
Appendix AA
Statistical Results for Survey Question #13 (Grade level analysis)
13. Which of the following students are MOST likely to get good grades?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #13 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q13
1.00
Count
3.00
4.00
12.00
Total
0
3
0
4
% within Q13
25.0%
.0%
75.0%
.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
5.9%
.0%
4.2%
.0%
2.4%
.6%
.0%
1.8%
.0%
2.4%
0
0
1
1
2
% within Q13
.0%
.0%
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
.0%
.0%
1.4%
1.8%
1.2%
% of Total
.0%
.0%
.6%
.6%
1.2%
0
0
7
2
9
% within Q13
.0%
.0%
77.8%
22.2%
100.0%
% within Q16
.0%
.0%
9.7%
3.6%
5.4%
% of Total
.0%
.0%
4.2%
1.2%
5.4%
16
22
61
52
151
Count
Count
Count
% within Q13
10.6%
14.6%
40.4%
34.4%
100.0%
% within Q16
94.1%
100.0%
84.7%
94.5%
91.0%
9.6%
13.3%
36.7%
31.3%
91.0%
% of Total
Total
11.00
1
% of Total
2.00
10.00
Count
17
22
72
55
166
% within Q13
10.2%
13.3%
43.4%
33.1%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.2%
13.3%
43.4%
33.1%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
9.786a
13.358
.079
166
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
9
9
1
a. 12 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .20.
.368
.147
.779
179
Appendix AA (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #13 (Gender analysis)
13. Which of the following students are MOST likely to get good grades?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #13 and Gender of Student Participants
Q13
1.00
Q15
Male
Count
2
2
4.00
Total
6
64
74
2.7%
2.7%
8.1%
86.5%
100.0%
% within Q13
50.0%
100.0%
66.7%
42.4%
44.6%
1.2%
1.2%
3.6%
38.6%
44.6%
2
0
3
87
92
% within Q15
2.2%
.0%
3.3%
94.6%
100.0%
% within Q13
50.0%
.0%
33.3%
57.6%
55.4%
1.2%
.0%
1.8%
52.4%
55.4%
4
2
9
151
166
Count
% of Total
Total
3.00
% within Q15
% of Total
Female
2.00
Count
% within Q15
2.4%
1.2%
5.4%
91.0%
100.0%
% within Q13
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
2.4%
1.2%
5.4%
91.0%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
4.606a
5.353
1.926
166
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
a. 6 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .89.
.203
.148
.165
180
Appendix BB
Statistical Results for Survey Question #14 (Grade level analysis)
14. What is your current GPA?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #14 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q14
1.00
Count
5
14
% within Q14
7.1%
21.4%
35.7%
35.7%
100.0%
% within Q16
6.3%
13.6%
7.1%
9.4%
8.7%
.6%
1.9%
3.1%
3.1%
8.7%
6
6
34
24
70
% within Q14
8.6%
8.6%
48.6%
34.3%
100.0%
% within Q16
37.5%
27.3%
48.6%
45.3%
43.5%
3.7%
3.7%
21.1%
14.9%
43.5%
7
8
22
13
50
% within Q14
14.0%
16.0%
44.0%
26.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
43.8%
36.4%
31.4%
24.5%
31.1%
4.3%
5.0%
13.7%
8.1%
31.1%
2
5
9
11
27
% within Q14
7.4%
18.5%
33.3%
40.7%
100.0%
% within Q16
12.5%
22.7%
12.9%
20.8%
16.8%
1.2%
3.1%
5.6%
6.8%
16.8%
Count
Count
Count
% of Total
Total
Total
5
% of Total
4.00
12.00
3
% of Total
3.00
11.00
1
% of Total
2.00
10.00
Count
16
22
70
53
161
% within Q14
9.9%
13.7%
43.5%
32.9%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
9.9%
13.7%
43.5%
32.9%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
6.413a
6.484
.187
161
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
9
9
1
a. 6 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.39.
.698
.691
.666
181
Appendix BB (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #14 (Gender analysis)
14. What is your current GPA?
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #14 and Gender of Student Participants
Q14
1.00
Q15
Male
Count
4.00
32
23
% within Q15
12.7%
45.1%
% within Q14
64.3%
45.7%
5.6%
Total
7
71
32.4%
9.9%
100.0%
46.0%
25.9%
44.1%
19.9%
14.3%
4.3%
44.1%
5
38
27
20
90
% within Q15
5.6%
42.2%
30.0%
22.2%
100.0%
% within Q14
35.7%
54.3%
54.0%
74.1%
55.9%
3.1%
23.6%
16.8%
12.4%
55.9%
14
70
50
27
161
Count
% of Total
Total
3.00
9
% of Total
Female
2.00
Count
% within Q15
8.7%
43.5%
31.1%
16.8%
100.0%
% within Q14
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
8.7%
43.5%
31.1%
16.8%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
6.079a
6.274
4.527
161
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
.108
.099
.033
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 6.17.
182
Appendix CC
Statistical Results for Survey Question #15
15. What is your gender? Male___ Female___
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #15 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q15
Male
Count
12.00
Total
9
35
21
75
% within Q15
13.3%
12.0%
46.7%
28.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
58.8%
39.1%
47.9%
38.2%
44.6%
6.0%
5.4%
20.8%
12.5%
44.6%
7
14
38
34
93
% within Q15
7.5%
15.1%
40.9%
36.6%
100.0%
% within Q16
41.2%
60.9%
52.1%
61.8%
55.4%
4.2%
8.3%
22.6%
20.2%
55.4%
17
23
73
55
168
Count
% of Total
Total
11.00
10
% of Total
Female
10.00
Count
% within Q15
10.1%
13.7%
43.5%
32.7%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.1%
13.7%
43.5%
32.7%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
2.917a
2.921
1.392
168
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
.405
.404
.238
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 7.59.
183
Appendix DD
Statistical Results for Survey Question #16
16. What grade are you in? 9th___ 10th___ 11th___ 12th___
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #16 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q15
Male
Count
12.00
Total
9
35
21
75
% within Q15
13.3%
12.0%
46.7%
28.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
58.8%
39.1%
47.9%
38.2%
44.6%
6.0%
5.4%
20.8%
12.5%
44.6%
7
14
38
34
93
% within Q15
7.5%
15.1%
40.9%
36.6%
100.0%
% within Q16
41.2%
60.9%
52.1%
61.8%
55.4%
4.2%
8.3%
22.6%
20.2%
55.4%
17
23
73
55
168
Count
% of Total
Total
11.00
10
% of Total
Female
10.00
Count
% within Q15
10.1%
13.7%
43.5%
32.7%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.1%
13.7%
43.5%
32.7%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
2.917a
2.921
1.392
168
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
.405
.404
.238
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 7.59.
184
Appendix EE
Statistical Results for Survey Question #17 (Grade level analysis)
17. What language(s) do you speak? English only___ English & Spanish___ Spanish
only___
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #17 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q17
E
Count
E&S
12.00
Total
7
5
22
19
53
13.2%
9.4%
41.5%
35.8%
100.0%
% within Q16
41.2%
22.7%
30.1%
34.5%
31.7%
4.2%
3.0%
13.2%
11.4%
31.7%
0
0
3
1
4
% within Q17
.0%
.0%
75.0%
25.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
.0%
.0%
4.1%
1.8%
2.4%
% of Total
.0%
.0%
1.8%
.6%
2.4%
10
17
48
35
110
% within Q17
9.1%
15.5%
43.6%
31.8%
100.0%
% within Q16
58.8%
77.3%
65.8%
63.6%
65.9%
6.0%
10.2%
28.7%
21.0%
65.9%
17
22
73
55
167
% within Q17
10.2%
13.2%
43.7%
32.9%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.2%
13.2%
43.7%
32.9%
100.0%
Count
Count
% of Total
Total
11.00
% within Q17
% of Total
S
10.00
Count
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
3.746a
4.528
.022
167
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
6
6
1
a. 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .41.
.711
.606
.882
185
Appendix EE (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #17 (Gender analysis)
17. What language(s) do you speak? English only___ English & Spanish___ Spanish
only___
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #17 and Gender of Student Participants
Q17
E
Q15
Male
Female
Total
Count
S
E&S
Total
20
3
52
75
% within Q15
26.7%
4.0%
69.3%
100.0%
% within Q17
37.7%
75.0%
47.3%
44.9%
% of Total
12.0%
1.8%
31.1%
44.9%
33
1
58
92
% within Q15
35.9%
1.1%
63.0%
100.0%
% within Q17
62.3%
25.0%
52.7%
55.1%
% of Total
19.8%
.6%
34.7%
55.1%
53
4
110
167
Count
Count
% within Q15
31.7%
2.4%
65.9%
100.0%
% within Q17
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
31.7%
2.4%
65.9%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
2.815a
2.862
1.147
167
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
2
2
1
a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 1.80.
.245
.239
.284
186
Appendix FF
Statistical Results for Survey Question #18 (Grade level analysis)
18. Were you born in the U.S.? Yes___ No___
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #18 and Grade Level of Student Participants
Q16
9.00
Q18
No
Count
12.00
Total
1
12
5
21
% within Q18
14.3%
4.8%
57.1%
23.8%
100.0%
% within Q16
17.6%
4.3%
16.4%
9.1%
12.5%
1.8%
.6%
7.1%
3.0%
12.5%
14
22
61
50
147
% within Q18
9.5%
15.0%
41.5%
34.0%
100.0%
% within Q16
82.4%
95.7%
83.6%
90.9%
87.5%
8.3%
13.1%
36.3%
29.8%
87.5%
17
23
73
55
168
Count
% of Total
Total
11.00
3
% of Total
Yes
10.00
Count
% within Q18
10.1%
13.7%
43.5%
32.7%
100.0%
% within Q16
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
10.1%
13.7%
43.5%
32.7%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
3.429a
3.771
.191
168
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
3
3
1
a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 2.13.
.330
.287
.662
187
Appendix FF (continued)
Statistical Results for Survey Question #18 (Gender analysis)
18. Were you born in the U.S.? Yes___ No___
Cross Tabulation of Answers to Question #18 and Gender of Student
Participants
Q18
No
Q15
Male
Count
62
75
% within Q15
17.3%
82.7%
100.0%
% within Q18
61.9%
42.2%
44.6%
7.7%
36.9%
44.6%
Count
8
85
93
% within Q15
8.6%
91.4%
100.0%
% within Q18
38.1%
57.8%
55.4%
4.8%
50.6%
55.4%
% of Total
Total
Total
13
% of Total
Female
Yes
Count
21
147
168
% within Q15
12.5%
87.5%
100.0%
% within Q18
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
12.5%
87.5%
100.0%
% of Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Asymp. Sig. (2sided)
df
2.894a
1
.089
Continuity Correctionb
2.151
1
.143
Likelihood Ratio
2.883
1
.090
Pearson Chi-Square
Exact Sig. (2sided)
Fisher's Exact Test
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
.104
2.877
1
.090
168
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 9.38.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Exact Sig. (1sided)
.072
188
Appendix GG
GPA Data for All Students (All ethnicities combined)
Aggregated GPAs (All Students, All ethnicities, All Grade Levels [9th – 12th])
grade
N
Gender
ethnicity
language
Total GPA
Valid
2145
2145
2145
2145
1922
Missing
Mean
0
10.39
0
0
0
223
2.7795
Median
10.00
2.9100
9
4.00
Mode
Number of students in each grade level
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
9th
612
28.5
28.5
28.5
10th
563
26.2
26.2
54.8
11th
483
22.5
22.5
77.3
12th
487
22.7
22.7
100.0
Total
2145
100.0
100.0
Number of Students By Gender
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Female
1064
49.6
49.6
49.6
Male
1081
50.4
50.4
100.0
Total
2145
100.0
100.0
9th Grade GPAs
Statisticsa
grade
N
Gender
ethnicity
Total GPA
language
Valid
612
612
612
612
547
Missing
Mean
0
9.00
0
0
0
65
2.7921
Median
9.00
2.9100
9
4.00
Mode
a. grade = 9
189
10th Grade GPAs
Statisticsa
grade
N
Valid
Gender
ethnicity
language
Total GPA
563
563
563
563
462
Missing
Mean
0
10.00
0
0
0
101
2.7758
Median
10.00
3.0000
10
4.00
Mode
a. grade = 10
11th Grade GPAs
Statisticsa
grade
N
Valid
Gender
ethnicity
language
Total GPA
483
483
483
483
450
Missing
Mean
0
11.00
0
0
0
33
2.7177
Median
11.00
2.8550
11
4.00
Mode
a. grade = 11
12th Grade GPAs
Statisticsa
grade
N
Valid
Gender
ethnicity
language
Total GPA
487
487
487
487
463
Missing
Mean
0
12.00
0
0
0
24
2.8282
Median
12.00
2.8700
12
4.00
Mode
a. grade = 12
190
Appendix HH
GPA Data for Latino Students at this High School
Descriptive Statistics
9th
Grade*
N
Valid
10th
Grade
11th
Grade
12th
Grade
132
140
152
164
41
33
21
9
Mean
2.2925
2.2559
2.2934
2.4748
Median
2.3350
2.3300
2.2800
2.4300
1.93**
2.33
2.61
2.00
Missing
Mode
* At the time of the study (1st Semester), 9th graders
did not have a high school GPA yet. The 9th grade
GPAs shown here are from the 7th and 8th grade.
** Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
191
Appendix II
Comparison of Student Self-Reported and Actual GPAs
Student Random #
Self-Reported GPA
Actual GPA
Comparison
2.0-2.9
Below 2.0
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
3.5+
No Answer
No Answer
3.0 - 3.5
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
3.5+
3.0 - 3.5
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.0 – 3.5
3.0 – 3.5
2.0-2.9
2.49
1.28
2.19
2.72
3.11
3.53
1.15
2.92
2.66
3.56
0.00
3.34
2.04
2.08
3.10
2.67
2.59
1.67
Match
Match
Match
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
No Answer
No Answer
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Reported Lower
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Lower
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
3.5+
3.5+
3.0 - 3.5
3.0 - 3.5
3.0 - 3.5
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
3.5+
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
Below 2.0
Below 2.0
Below 2.0
No Answer
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
0.00
3.67
3.33
2.67
0.00
2.33
1.17
2.50
0.50
3.50
3.67
Unavailable
1.50
3.17
1.20
2.38
0.00
2.33
3.67
Reported Higher
Match
Match
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Lower
GPA Unavailable
Match
Reported Lower
Match
No Answer
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Lower
9th Grade
5
14
18
21
45
47
53
66
75
83
87
110
117
119
139
149
161
164
10th Grade
173
176
193
197
206
215
218
219
234
236
238
239
242
264
266
272
286
294
299
192
302
309
320
330
3.5+
2.0-2.9
3.5+
3.0 - 3.5
3.83
2.33
3.50
2.33
Match
Match
Match
Reported Higher
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.5+
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.5+
3.5+
3.0 - 3.5
Below 2.0
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
Below 2.0
3.0 - 3.5
Below 2.0
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
3.5+
2.0-2.9
3.5+
Below 2.0
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.5+
3.0 - 3.5
3.0 - 3.5
No Answer
3.0 - 3.5
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
No Answer
0.80
2.61
2.84
1.71
2.61
2.17
1.74
3.45
2.75
2.55
1.35
4.00
3.73
3.30
1.55
2.62
2.62
1.50
3.68
1.10
2.30
1.63
3.40
3.30
2.00
2.30
1.00
3.30
1.55
2.62
2.16
3.40
Unavailable
3.10
2.48
2.14
2.00
3.50
1.60
2.85
2.89
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Match
Match
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Match
Match
Match
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Lower
Match
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Match
Reported Lower
GPA Unavailable
Match
Reported Higher
No Answer
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
No Answer
11th Grade
342
343
345
346
348
350
354
357
358
361
364
366
369
373
374
377
379
381
382
383
385
386
387
389
393
399
401
405
409
411
412
413
421
422
424
426
427
428
439
440
441
193
443
444
445
446
450
451
452
453
455
456
459
462
463
465
467
469
471
476
477
478
479
482
483
485
486
490
492
493
494
496
497
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
3.5+
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
No Answer
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.5+
2.0-2.9
3.5+
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
3.0 - 3.5
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
Below 2.0
2.0-2.9
3.11
1.74
1.15
2.70
2.62
2.50
1.80
1.05
2.21
2.22
3.00
2.03
1.62
3.60
2.65
2.14
2.14
2.37
2.61
3.41
2.12
1.82
1.65
2.25
0.68
2.95
2.05
1.61
2.70
1.85
2.16
Match
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Match
Match
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Match
Match
No Answer
Reported Higher
Reported Lower
Match
Match
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Match
Match
Match
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
No Answer
2.0-2.9
3.5+
2.0-2.9
3.5+
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
3.5+
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
2.91
1.10
2.18
2.07
3.70
2.83
2.00
3.53
2.26
3.32
3.81
2.81
2.82
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
No Answer
Match
Match
Match
Reported Higher
Reported Lower
Match
Match
Match
Match
Reported Higher
12th Grade
503
505
506
509
516
518
529
530
548
550
551
552
554
194
558
559
564
567
570
574
577
579
580
584
588
589
591
594
598
601
605
607
608
609
610
612
613
623
632
635
640
643
647
648
649
650
653
654
657
660
663
667
668
669
672
673
777
3.5+
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
No Answer
Below 2.0
3.5+
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
3.0 - 3.5
Below 2.0
2.0-2.9
3.5+
Below 2.0
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.5+
3.0 - 3.5
3.0 - 3.5
Below 2.0
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.5+
3.5+
3.5+
Below 2.0
3.5+
2.0-2.9
2.0-2.9
3.0 - 3.5
3.0 - 3.5
2.0-2.9
3.82
3.13
2.82
2.49
2.00
2.53
2.85
1.59
3.47
2.27
2.68
2.30
2.42
2.50
2.65
Unavailable
2.49
2.09
2.38
2.63
1.64
1.90
2.89
1.84
2.74
2.59
3.72
3.00
2.86
1.43
2.57
2.06
1.81
3.51
2.58
3.65
1.35
3.47
1.86
1.86
3.16
3.24
0.72
Match
Match
Match
Match
Reported Higher
Match
No Answer
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Match
Match
Match
Match
Match
GPA Unavailable
Reported Higher
Reported Lower
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Match
Match
Match
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Reported Higher
Match
Match
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Reported Higher
Match
Match
Reported Higher
195
REFERENCES
AfterSchool Alliance. (2005, November). High school reform and high school
afterschool: A common purpose (Issue Brief No. 23—An In Depth Look).
Washington, D.C.: Afterschool Alliance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED498168)
Ainsworth-Darnell, J. & Downey, D. (1998). Assessing the oppositional culture
explanation for racial/ethnic differences in school performance. In the American
Sociological Review, 63, 536-553.
Bassett, C. (2002). Resilient at-risk adolescents. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.
Bejarano, C. L. (2005). Que Onda? Urban youth culture and border identity. Tucson:
The University of Arizona Press.
Belfield, C. & Levin, H. (2007, August). The Economic losses from high school
dropouts in California. A Policy Brief. Santa Barbara: California Dropout Research
Project. Retrieved November 4, 2008, from http://lmri.ucsb.edu/dropouts/pubs.htm
Bridgeland, J. D. (2006). The silent epidemic. Washington, DC: Civic.
California Department of Education (2010). Demographic data. Retrieved March 9,
2010, from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us
California Dropout Research Project. (2008, February 27). California dropout research
project issues blueprint to solve dropout crisis (press release). University of
California at Santa Barbara: Gevirtz Graduate School of Education. Retrieved
March 6, 2008, from http://lmri.ucsb.edu/dropouts/pubs.htm
Ceja, M. (2007, September 28). A new era of accountability. PowerPoint presentation
196
for university course EDD 604, California State University, Sacramento, CA.
Center for Mental Health in Schools. (2006, July). For consideration in reauthorizing
the No Child Left Behind Act…Promoting a systematic focus on learning supports to
address barriers to learning and teaching. A center policy brief. Los Angeles, CA:
Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED492241)
Clark, M.L. (1991). Social identity, peer relations and academic competence of AfricanAmerican adolescents. Education and urban society, 24(1), 41-52.
Conchas, G. Q. (2001). Structuring failure and success: Understanding the variability in
Latino School Engagement. Harvard Educational Review, 71 (3), 475-504.
Cook, P. & Ludwig, J. (1997). Weighing the “Burden of ‘Acting White’”: Are there
race differences toward education? In Journal of policy analysis and management,
16(2), 256-278.
Delgado-Gait an, C., & Trueba, H. (1991). Crossing cultural borders: Education for
immigrant families in America. Philadelphia: Flamer Press.
Farkas, G., Liras, C., & Macula, S. (2002). Does oppositional culture exist in minority
and poverty peer groups? American Sociological Review (Feb.) 67: 148-155.
Farkas, G. (2008). Quantitative studies of oppositional culture: Arguments and
evidence.” Pp. 312 - 347 in John Ogbu (ed.), Minority Status, Oppositional Culture,
and Schooling. New York: Routledge.
Farkas, G., Hibel, J. (2008). Being unready for school: Factors affecting risk and
resilience. Pp.3-30 in Alan Booth and Ann Crouter (eds.), Disparities in school
197
readiness: How families contribute to transitions into school. New York: Erlbaum.
Fennimore, T.F. (1988). The helping process booklet for mentors: dropout prevention
series. Ohio State University. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Research in
Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED298318)
Fields, G. (2005). Reinventing the 9th grade. Rexford, NY: International Center for
Leadership in Education.
Flores-Gonzalez, N. (2002). School kids, street kids: Identity and high school
completion among Latinos. New York: Teachers College Press.
Frey, S., Perry, M., Brazil, N., & Oregon, I. (2005). Spotlight on California high school
performance. EdSource. Mountain View, CA: EdSource, Inc. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED485660)
Fryer, R.G. (2006, Winter). Acting white. Education Next. Author’s calculations from
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health data. Harvard University.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Gándara, P. (2005). Fragile futures: Risk and vulnerability among Latino high
Achievers. Policy Brief. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Gándara, P. (2005). Latino achievement: Identifying models that foster success.
University of Connecticut: National Center for the Gifted and Talented.
Gandara, P. & Gibson, M. (2004). Peers and school performance: Implications for
research, policy, and practice. In M. Gibson, P. Gándara, & J. Koyama (Eds.),
School connections: U.S. Mexican youth, peers, and school achievement, pp. 173192. New York: Teachers College Press.
198
Gandara, P., O’Hara, S., & Gutierrez, D. (2004). The Changing shape of aspirations:
Peer influence on achievement behavior. In M. Gibson, P. Gándara, & J. Koyama
(Eds.), School connections: U.S. Mexican youth, peers, and school achievement ,
pp. 39-62. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gibson, M., Bejinez, L., Hidalgo, N., & Rolon, C. (2004). Belonging and school
participation: Lessons from a migrant student club. In M. Gibson, P. Gándara, & J.
Koyama (Eds.), School connections: U.S. Mexican youth, peers, and school
achievement, pp. 129-149. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gibson, M., Gándara, P., & Koyama, J. (2004). School connections: U.S. Mexican
youth, peers, and school achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gibson, M., Gándara, P., & Koyama, J. (2004). The role of peers in the schooling of
U.S. Mexican youth. In M. Gibson, P. Gándara, & J. Koyama (Eds.), School
connections: U.S. Mexican youth, peers, and school achievement, pp.1-17. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Huber, L.P., Huidor, O., Malagon, M.C., Sanchez, G., & Solorzano, D.G. (2006, March).
Falling through the cracks: critical transitions in the Latina/o educational pipeline
(CSRC Research Report No. 7). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Chicano Studies
Research Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED493397)
Hurd, C.A. (2004). “Acting out” and being a “schoolboy”: Performance in an ELD
Classroom. In M. Gibson, P. Gándara, & J. Koyama (Eds.), School connections:
U.S. Mexican youth, peers, and school achievement pp.63-86. New York:
Teachers College Press.
199
Jankowski, M.S. (1991). Islands in the street: Gangs and American urban society.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kirsch, I., Braun, H., Yamamoto, K., & Sum, A. (2007). America’s perfect storm:
Three forces changing our nation’s future. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED496620)
Kirst, M. (2004). First to worst: Can California schools make a comeback? A Stanford
University report and video.
Kohl, H. (1994). I won’t learn from you and other thoughts on creative maladjustment.
New York: New Press.
Lee, V.E. & Burkam, D.T. (2001). Dropping out of high school: The role of school
organization and structure. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED458694)
Lewis-Charp, H., Yu, H.C., & Friedlaender, D. (2004). The Influence of Intergroup
Relations on School Engagement: Two Cases. In M. Gibson, P. Gándara, & J.
Koyama (Eds.), School connections: U.S. Mexican youth, peers, and school
achievement, pp. 39-62. New York: Teachers College Press.
Moll, L.C. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis: Some recent
trends. Educational Researcher, Vol. 21, No. 2, 20-24.
Monreal, T. (2007, November). Zero dropouts for California: information, analysis,
recommendations, and compendium of resources on the dropout issue and
educational practices in California. Presentation by the California Department of
Education, Educational Options Office (Secondary, Postsecondary, and Adult
200
Leadership Division) at the Achievement Gap Summit in Sacramento, CA.
Muijs, D. (2007). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
National Center for Education Statistics (2005b). Dropout rates in the United States.
Washington, DC: Author.
Newhouse, C. (2007). Children in immigrant families: A California data brief.
Children Now, August 2007, 1-26. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED498316)
Nieto, S. (Spring 2005). Public education in the twentieth century and beyond: High
hopes, broken promises, and an uncertain future. In Harvard educational Review,
Vol 75/1. Harvard: President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Oaks, J. (2004). In Foreword of Gibson, M., Gándara, P., & Koyama, J. (2004). School
Connections: U.S. Mexican Youth, Peers, and School Achievement. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Ogbu, J. & Fordham, S. (1986). “Black Students’ School Success: Coping with the
Burden of ‘Acting white’,” The Urban Review, 18:3 (1986), 176-206.
Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Immigrant and involuntary minorities in comparative perspective.
In M. A. Gibson & J. U. Ogbu (eds.), Minority status and schooling: A comparative
study of immigrant and involuntary minorities (pp. 3-33). New York: Garland.
Ogbu, J. & Davis, A. (2003). Black american students in an affluent suburb: A study of
academic disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review
201
of Educational Research, 70(3), 323-367.
Phelan, P., Davidson, A., & Yu, H. C. (1998). Adolescents’ worlds: Negotiating family,
peers, and schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Raley, J.D. (2004). Like family, you know?: School and the achievement of peer
relations. In M. Gibson, P. Gándara, & J. Koyama (Eds.), School connections: U.S.
Mexican youth, peers, and school achievement pp. 150-172. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Rotermund, S. (2008, February). Which California schools have the most dropouts?
Santa Barbara: California Dropout Research Project. Retrieved March 6, 2008,
from http://lmri.ucsb.edu/dropouts/pubs.htm
Rotermund, S. (2007, May). Why students drop out of high school: Comparisons from
three national surveys. Santa Barbara: California Dropout Research Project.
Retrieved January 8, 2008, from http://lmri.ucsb.edu/dropouts/pubs.htm
Rumberger, R.W. (2007, June). Early predictors of high school graduation and
dropout. Santa Barbara: California Dropout Research Project. Retrieved January 8,
2008, from http://lmri.ucsb.edu/dropouts/pubs.htm
Rumberger, R.W. & Arellano, B. (2007, December). Student and school predictors of
High school graduation in California. Santa Barbara: California Dropout Research
Project. Retrieved January 8, 2008, from http://lmri.ucsb.edu/dropouts/pubs.htm
Sanchez, G. J. (1993). Becoming Mexican American. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2004). Social capital among working-class minority students.
202
In M. Gibson, P. Gándara, & J. Koyama (Eds.), School connections: U.S. Mexican
youth, peers, and school achievement pp. 39-62. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Steele, C. (2004). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. In J.A. Banks & C.A.M. Bands (Eds.), Handbook of research on
multicultural education (pp. 682-698). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Steele, S. & Aronson, J. (1998). Stereotype Threat and the Test Performance of
Academically Sucessful African Americans,” in C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.), The
black-white test score gap (pp. 401-430). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Stephens, R.T. (1990). Educational histories of incarcerated male felons with an
emphasis on perceptions of school, causes of dropping out, and participation in
prison educational programs. Dissertation Abstract of study conducted at New
York’s Sing Sing Correctional Facility. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED323358)
Taylor-Powell, E. (1998). Questionnaire design: Asking questions with a purpose.
Madison, Wisconsin: Cooperative Extension Publications.
The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. (2005). Confronting the graduation rate
crisis in California. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED498647)
Topete, H. (1999). Under Representation of Hispanic-Americans in the U.S. Army’s
Officer Corps: A Study of an Inverse Dynamic. Military fellow research report.
Washington, D.C.: The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
203
Trueba, E. T. (1998). The education of Mexican immigrant children. In M. M. SuarezOrozco (ed.), Crossings: Mexican immigration in interdisciplinary perspectives (pp.
253-275). Cambridge, MA: David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies,
Harvard University.
U.S. Census Bureau (2008). American Community Survey.
Valencia, R. & Black, M. (2002). “Mexican Americans don’t value education!”—On the
basis of the myth, mythmaking, and debunking. In Journal of Latinos and Education,
1(2), 81-103. University of Texas at Austin: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. .
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of
caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Vigil, J.D. (2004). Gangs and group membership: Implications for schooling. In M.
Gibson, P. Gándara, & J. Koyama (Eds.), School connections: U.S. Mexican youth,
peers, and school achievement pp. 87-106. New York: Teachers College Press.
Vila, P. (2000). Crossing borders, reinforcing borders. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Wasonga, T., Christman, D., & Kilmer, L. (2003). Ethnicity, gender, and age:
Predicting resilience and academic achievement among urban high school students.
American Secondary Education, 32, 62-74.