Nota editorial
En nuestro interés por preservar la integridad
histórica de la Revista Educación, todos los
artículos de la colección se presentan en su
estado original.
Por esto la calidad visual varía de un artículo a
otro y de acuerdo a su fecha de publicación.
ESTUDIOS
93
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CLASSROOM COPING BEHAVIOR
IN THE ENGLISH AND SPANISH CLASSES OF RETURN MIGRANT
AND NON-MIGRANT PUERTO RICAN STUDENTS
Isidra Albino Serrano
Introduction
Puerto Rican migrants accompanied by their children and grandchildren
have been returning to Puerto Rico in substantial numbers during the past
two decades (1970’s and 1980’s). This return migration has been part of a
continuous circular flow between Puerto Rico and the United States (Ashton,
1980; Prewitt and Díaz, 1982). The influx of return migrants to the island was
estimated at 34,000 per year in the late 1970’s (Junta de Planificación de P.R.,
1984).
The impact of return migrants on Puerto Rican society was considered to
be highly controversial (Oyola, 1983; Underhill, 1981). The Department of
Education seems to be the institution which has received the greatest impact
from this return migration. Statistical figures from the Department indicate
that in 1984 there were 708,673 students in the public school system. Within
this population, 78,401 were return migrant students. This amounts to 11
percent of the total enrollment. According to Llabrés de Charneco (1984), they
were all in need of special language instruction and the majority had
problems of academic achievement and school desertion.
Iliana Baldoni, Director of the Bilingual Program of the Department of
Education (personal communication, January 12, 1990) said that even though
the last formal study conducted by the Junta de Planificación de Puerto Rico
dates from 1984, her office keeps a record of the return migrant students who
arrive from the United States every year. Between 1987 and 1988,
approximately 24,000 return migrant students enrolled in the public school
system of Puerto Rico. Baldoni explained that this figure does not include
many return migrants who registered in the private school system nor does it
include the many students who attended local public schools for no more
than two or three months at a time. During the winter, many Puerto Ricans
return to Puerto Rico with their families. The children attend local schools
during their stay and after a few months they return to the U.S. mainland.
These students find themselves in frequent transition between one school
environment and another, having to face the problems inherent to such
change.
By experimenting with coping behaviors, return migrant students attempt
adaptation. Their successful adjustment to the change in school environment
94
EDUCACIÓN
demands coping skills and behaviors which may or may not appropriately
develop during their brief periods of residence in Puerto Rico.
The return migrant students’ behavior in the Puerto Rico school system
has been the subject of several studies and publications. The findings of many
of these indicate problems in school adjustment. (Álvarez Domínguez, 1984;
Carrasquillo & Carrasquillo, 1983; Condon, et al., 1979; Curran, 1985;
Friedman, 1980 - 1982; Kaplan, 1983; Ramos Perea, 1972; Rivera Medina,
1984).
Ramos Perea (1972, p. 11) asserts that the return migrant students’
knowledge of English per se and their lack of knowledge of Spanish may be
one of the main causes of their problems of adjustment to the local school
environment.
Other studies deal specifically with the return migrant students’ problems
from the perspective of their observed behavior. For example, Kavetsky
(1978) reported:
‘‘Teachers and school officials, on the whole, tend to stereotype
the return migrant students as low achievers, trouble makers,
aggressive, indisciplined, disrespectful, lacking an identity and
not knowing either English or Spanish.’’ (p.13)
As to the return migrant students’ classroom problems, Lacot (1983), a
former Secretary of Education, indicated:
‘‘Puerto Rican students who migrate to the United States and
attend schools there often face language barriers due to lack of
English proficiency, particularly conversational English. They also
encounter cultural differences, social rejection, poverty, and
limited health services. This situation is not remedied upon their
return to Puerto Rico. On the contrary, they meet with similar
problems of social acceptance by their peers, cultural adjustment
difficulties and serious limitations in their ability to interact. The
lack of language ability in English while in the United States and
in Spanish while in Puerto Rico is a basic problem among migrant
students. This lack of communicative competence affects them in
coping with situations in the classroom.’’ (p. 3)
Kaplan (1983) also reported that return migrants faced linguistic
difficulties with English and Spanish as well as various problems with the the
public school curriculum of Puerto Rico. He added that teachers often feel
embarrassed because many return migrant students speak English better
than they do. He continued:
‘‘Their personal style and command of English tend to arouse
resentment and their skills in language are often considered a
source of difficulty rather than a strength. As a general rule their
command of Spanish is not nearly as strong as their non-
95
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
migratory peers in the classroom. They crack the homogeneity of
the typical Puerto Rican classroom.’’ (p. 4)
Recently, the Office of Bilingual Education conducted a survey with
teachers from the Papa Juan XXIII School in Bayamón, Puerto Rico. The
purpose of this survey was to examine the situation of return migrant
students in the classroom. Rivera (1987), a teacher in this school, observed
and reported the following:
‘‘Many teachers view these students with mixed feelings and
often stereotype them. In the United States they have been forced
to play the role of ‘Spicks’, and when they return to Puerto Rico,
they are called ‘gringos’, ‘americanos’, or the modern term,
‘Niuyoricans’. They have to face prejudice and misunderstanding
in both settings.’’ (p.23)
Straits (1987, p. 7) asserts that language is one of the difficulties that return
migrant students encounter; another is the social environment. Language
problems, cultural discrimination, and low self-concept were three factors
identified as possible causes for students’ problems of school adjustment.
Limitations in the use of Spanish in Puerto Rico or English in the United
States hinder the students’ general progress, their self-image and their sense
of achievement.
Curran (1985, p. 6) states that ‘‘the cyclical pattern of continuing migration
gives credence to the fact that return migrant students will not disappear
over the years as the students are assimilated into the Puerto Rican culture’’.
Given that the return migrant students’ situation in the schools has been
generally described as problematic, available studies in the classroom
scenario were analyzed (Furlong, 1976; Glicksman, 1982; Solomon & Kendall,
1979). Only a scant few were conducted in the Puerto Rico educational
system and none were conducted in the classroom. There is one study
involving direct observation, carried out during no more than three class
periods (Curran, 1985).
Other return migrant students studies report that these students
improvise ways of behaving in their attempts to adapt to the classroom
situation. Solomon and Kendall (1979) assert that coping and adaptation are
two reciprocal processes of classroom behavior.
These students’ experiences in American mainland schools has also been
negative. Méndez (1971, p. 9) states that: ‘‘Puerto Rican migrant students
have been impaired by their inability to adopt expected classroom behavior
on the mainland. As a result, many are placed in lower academic groups and
older students are referred to vocational areas.’’
In general, return migration of Puerto Ricans from the United States
mainland has produced a school population described by researchers as
broadly maladjusted. Even though many studies provide supportive
96
EDUCACIÓN
evidence for the existence of this situation (López Laguerre, 1982; Ramos
Perea, 1972; Rivera Medina, 1984), few of them have been performed at the
classroom level or have viewed the problem from the perspective of the
students themselves. In addition, some studies contain mere opinions about
these students’ problems (Friedman, 1980, 1982; Underhill, 1981). The author
found no studies based on the observation of students’ classroom coping
behavior as the main source of data.
Statement of the Problem
This study addresses the problems encountered by return migrant
students in facing change in their classroom environments from mainland
American schools to those of the public school system of Puerto Rico. Such
change requires new coping behaviors. The study focuses on language classes
because language is basic to the educational process and underlies all school
activities.
The problem analyzed in this descriptive study was the return migrant
students’ problems of adjustment in the language classrooms of Puerto Rican
schools as observed through their coping behavior. This behavior may be
classified as aggressive, inappropriate, integrative or uninvolved. The return
migrant students’ classroom coping behavior was compared to non-migrant
students in the same language classrooms. Classroom coping behavior was
the principal construct in this research and the main variable analyzed.1 The
return migrant students’ problem of maladjustment in the school may well
stem from their lack of communicative competence in Spanish and their
relative knowledge of English vis-a-vis other students who share their Puerto
Rican roots but whose linguistic competencies are opposite in relative fluency
and other significant characteristics. Non - migrant students exhibit
significantly higher communicative competence in Spanish. These students
know some English because they have experience formal schooling therein,
but they do not always possess the communicative competence necessary to
interact in English with their returning school companions.2
The Coping Analysis Schedule for Educational Settings (CASES)
developed by Spaulding (1983) was was the assessment instrument chosen
for the present study. This system codes students’ behavior including
negative, attention getting, passive aggression, self - directed activities,
cooperative behavior, and others. Behaviors were classified in four main
categories: aggressive, inappropriate, integrative, and uninvolved. This
facilitated the assessment of intergroup behavior by means of correlations.
The return migrant students’ classroom coping behavior in their English or
1
2
According to Kelly (1963), constructs are ways of construing the world and thus enable the self-justification and
adoption of verbal and non-verbal behaviors. Coping behavior is the students’ way of dealing with situations in
the classroom.
Spanish is the principal medium of instruction all disciplines throughout the public school system of Puerto Rico.
97
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
Spanish classes was coded by way of behavior indicators subsequently
classified as aggressive, inappropriate, integrative, or uninvolved.
Purpose of the Study
The aim of this study was to describe classroom coping behavior as
defined in the four categories chosen for analysis and to formally compare
the behaviors observed. The classroom coping behaviors of four return
migrant students were observed and compared to that of four non-migrant
students in each of the aforementioned behavioral categories.
The study describes and compares student coping behavior in the
classroom environment. It does not analyze the factors inherent to said
environment, such as teacher and curriculum characteristics that may also
bear on the problems of return migrant students. Each category was
subdivided into specific indicators of behavior. The students’ behavior was
described from the viewpoint of persons coping with the immediate
environments of their language courses.
Research Questions
The following research questions were answered:
1. Aggressive behavior
a. Do return migrant students exhibit aggressive behavior in coping with
the language classroom environment?
b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and
non - migrant students with respect to aggressive behavior in the English
and Spanish classrooms?
2. Inappropriate behavior
a. Do return migrant students exhibit inappropriate behavior in coping
with the language classroom environment?
b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and
non - migrant students with respect to inappropriate behavior in the
English and Spanish classrooms?
3. Integrative behavior
a. Do return migrant students exhibit integrative behavior in coping with
the language classrooms environment?
b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and
non - migrant students with respect to integrative behavior in the English
and Spanish classrooms?
98
EDUCACIÓN
4. Uninvolved behavior
a. Do return migrant students exhibit uninvolved behavior in coping with
the language classrooms environment?
b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and nonmigrant students with respect to uninvolved behavior in their English
and Spanish classrooms?
Operational Definitions
The following operational definitions were adopted:
Return migrant students: Students who had studied in schools in the United
States mainland and were attending the Trina Padilla High School, the site of
the study, whose dominant language was English. Their knowledge of
English was one result of their migration experience. They had lived in the
United States mainland and returned to Puerto Rico during the last two
years. Their scores in the Language Assessment Battery (LAB) test identified
them as return migrant students.
Non - migrant Puerto Rican students: Students who had not studied in the
United States and whose dominant language was Spanish. They were in the
same English and Spanish classes as the return migrants. Their scores in the
LAB test identified them as non - migrant students.
Classroom coping behavior: The manifestation of students’ behavior in their
process of adjustment to the English and Spanish classroom environments as
measured by the Coping Analysis Schedule for Educational Settings (CASES)
used in this study. The coping behavior construct was categorized as
aggressive, inappropriate, integrative and uninvolved.
The Spanish class: In the Puerto Rico Public School System, this consists of a
fifty-minute daily class meeting, five days a week, for the teaching of Spanish
as a school subject. Spanish is taught as a first language even though Spanish
is in fact their second language as a result of early migration.
The English class: In the Puerto Rico Public School System, this consists of a
fifty-minute class meeting, five days a week, for the teaching of English as a
second language. This is based on the fact that English is a second language
throughout Puerto Rico.
These definitions apply to the regular public schools in Puerto Rico. There
are several bilingual schools in Puerto Rico where the programs of study are
different. For example, the Padre Rufo School located in Santurce, Puerto
Rico, offers a program which provides two hours of daily Spanish
instruction. Content classes are taught entirely in English.
99
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
Importance of the Study
Return migrant students have been generally identified as having
adjustment problems in the school environments of both mainland American
and Puerto Rican schools. In addition to research in the social and
psychosocial fields carried out by Condon (1979), Kaplan (1983), López
Laguerre (1982), Lucca, et. al. (1981) and Ramos Perea (1972), documents,
surveys and reports from teachers at the Department of Education provide
additional evidence of such problems. In examining and describing the
return migrant students’ classroom coping behavior, new alternatives may
arise to help along their process of adjustment to the typical Puerto Rican
classroom.
Review of the Literature
Although Vivó (1982, p. 1) indicates that return migration has been
studied extensively, there is little formal research to be found about Puerto
Rican migrant students in the school environment. Here in Puerto Rico, as
well as in the United States, research has been mostly done from the teachers’
perspective, based on their opinions about return migrant students. Most of
the papers found were socio-demographic in nature or else needs assessment
studies for federal grant programs. Empirical studies concerned with student
behavior in the classroom or in the schools in general were not available.
The studies examined in this review demonstrate how school adjustment
problems are transferred or carried over from the schools in the United States
to the schools In Puerto Rico and vice versa. The mere act of relocation
implies the carryover of such problems. A study of migrant Mexican
elementary students’ language background and academic achievement in the
California school system (Morris, et al, 1967) analyzed the effects of mobility.
They concluded that mobility is ‘‘ . . . one of the greatest dislocative factors in
the life of the students’’. (p.5)
Researchers at Rutgers University (Condon, Peters, & Ross, 1979)
developed a teacher training project in Bilingual Education and coordinated
educational services for Puerto Rican students in a joint effort with the State
of New Jersey Department of Education. Eighty five percent of the students
served were Puerto Ricans. The researchers performed extensive needs
assessments and investigated migrant students’ influx and departures,
evaluated the transfer record system, and corroborated academic needs. As a
result of their overall analysis Condon, et al. state the following:
‘‘One important issue in American education is the challenge of
providing an effective education for thousands of Spanish
speaking students who attend schools in the country. Many of
them do not possess the language skills needed to function in an
English speaking environment . . .’’ (p. 1)
100
EDUCACIÓN
In other words, the language barrier is a principal source of migrant
students’ problems of adjustment in American schools. With regard to
student behavior, the researchers concluded:
‘‘An unacceptably large number of Puerto Rican pupils have been
categorized as antisocial, aggressive, withdrawn, anxious, and
helpless. These pupils have been diagnosed as maladjusted or
behaviorally disordered and placed in special classes. The hidden
factor which causes many of these pupils to temporarily exhibit
such behaviors as withdrawal, poor academic achievement,
aggression, and helplessness is migration/re - migration. Most
schools do not have adequate programs to help the pupils in the
adjustment process, and the majority of the parents lack the skills
needed to help their children.’’ (p. 31)
Condon, et. al., also studied Anglo American teachers’ expectations of
Spanish speaking students and found that these did not coincide with
demonstrated behavior. All alternative behavior to the one expected in a
given situation was thought of as negative or deviant from the norm.
Other research on Puerto Rican return migrant students was conducted
by the School of Education of Pennsylvania State University. Nogueras and
Prewitt-Díaz (1980) and Seilhamer and Prewitt-Díaz (1982) studied the effect
of the return migration process on the students’ school adjustment. The first
problem they observed was that frequent re-migration created a new
generation of students with the same cultural roots but with different cultural
patterns (p. 8). Their findings pointed to a problem of school adjustment in
both the American and the Puerto Rican schools. In both cases, the problem
was closely related to the existing language barrier. These researchers
described the return migrant students as poorly adjusted in school, lacking in
confidence, fraught with feelings of inferiority and low self esteem. They
were often described by teachers as low achievers, trouble makers,
aggressive, and undisciplined.
Prewitt-Díaz (1979, p. 4) in his description of the typical Puerto Rican
student on the mainland lists several sources of conflict between home and
classroom behavior. These are:
1. Instability resulting from the migration process
2. Language problems
3. Different expectations in the areas of motor skills and manipulation of
educational materials
4. Different attitudes in relation to competitiveness and individualism
5. Different attitudes toward female authority
6. Different attitudes regarding obedience to adults
101
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
7. Physical modesty that tended to preclude participation in physical
education classes
8. Premature family responsibilities
Several descriptive studies have been conducted in Puerto Rico on the
return migrant students’ problems of adjustment. The studies of Álvarez
Medina (1984), Curran (1985), Hamilton (1987), López Laguerre (1982), Lladó
(1978), Ramos Perea (1972) and Schmidt (1984) are mostly sociodemographic
in content.
Ramos Perea (1972) compared the process of school adjustment of migrant
and non-migrant students by administering a questionnaire to members of
both groups. Previous migratory experience was expected to have a strong
effect on the students’ school adjustment. Several intervening factors such as
students’ length of residence in the United States, their social status and their
language ability in Spanish were studied. A standardized reading test,
Manuel’s Test of Reading, was administered to measure language proficiency.
Perea’s findings, which apply directly to this study, indicate a significant
statistical difference in school adjustment of return migrant and non-migrant
students. After administering and analyzing his adjustment questionnaire, he
concluded that ability in the use of Spanish was the most influential variable
in conditioning the return migrant students’ school adjustment.
A study relating specifically to the return migrant students’ language
situation was that of Lladó (1978). She investigated students’ preference for
speakers of Spanish over Spanish accented English, near-native English and
native English. Students rated these speakers on various semantic factors.
Lladó also explored the attitudes of students concerning teaching methods,
materials, importance of learning English, frequency of usage of English, and
other related factors by means of a questionnaire. Results revealed that all the
students wanted to learn English. Among other hypotheses confirmed, she
found that the higher the students’ ability in the use of English, the more
willing they were to use it. Results also showed that Spanish speakers were
rated more positively than Spanish accented English speakers. In addition,
the near-native English and the native English speakers were not rated
positively. Lladó interpreted this as a reflection of the marked preference for
the use of Spanish in Puerto Rico, and a lingering resentment toward those
who interact mostly in English. This is the situation typically faced by the
return migrant students.
At a latter academic level, Van Trieste’s dissertation research (1985)
yielded contradictory results to Lladó’s findings. In his investigation of
university student attitudes toward speakers of American English and their
achievement in English as a Second Language, Van Trieste found that Puerto
Rican University students have positive attitudes toward American English
speakers. They rated English guises (voices) higher than Spanish guises.
102
EDUCACIÓN
López Laguerre (1982) studied the attitudes of Puerto Rican non-migrant
students and teachers toward the English class and that of the return
migrants and teachers toward the Spanish class. Her findings indicate that
the Puerto Rican non-migrant students felt comfortable in the Spanish class
but rather uncomfortable in the English class. Conversely, the return migrant
students who had been using English as their vehicle of communication felt
uncomfortable in the Spanish class and comfortable in the English class. One
of her conclusions was that return migrant students may tend to
overemphasize their strength in the English class. In this way, they may have
sought to ‘balance’ their lack of linguistic ability in the Spanish class. The
resulting inconsistency in emotional states may have led the return migrant
students to frustration and negative coping behavior not only in the language
classes but in other subjects as well, thereby contributing to maladjustment.
Rivera Medina (1984) explored the relationship between self-concept and
the level of aggressiveness in return migrant students. His sample consisted
of 150 students (75 females and 75 males) from schools in Levittown, Puerto
Rico. The findings resulting from the application of a specially developed
questionnaire attested to the fact of a significant inverse relationship between
the students’ self-concept and their aggressiveness.
Schmidt (1984) investigated two areas of concern with return migrant
students’ use of English: their professors’ perceptions and the differences
between the return migrants (code switching students) and the non-migrants
(monolingual students). The students’ perceptions of their teachers, their area
of study, and their self-image were also analyzed. Questionnaires and
dictation exercises in Spanish were administered. Schmidt’s findings
indicated that students’ language usage influences teachers’ perceptions, and
that code switching students were less proficient in Spanish. They had lower
grades, and they rated themselves lower than monolinguals in selfevaluations.
Curran’s research (1985) was twofold in purpose: to carry out interaction
analysis using the FOCUS system in three social studies classes and to
observe one class and interview its students. Her study involved high school
return migrant and non-migrant students and her findings indicated few
differences with respect to classroom participation. Differences were found in
how each group perceived the general school environment. Each group
tended to emphasize events outside the classroom.
Hamilton’s work (1987) was mostly concerned with analyzing return
migrants’ opinions about the school environment by documenting a profile of
various selected characteristics such as students’ social and educational
background, linguistic preference (English or Spanish), linguistic difficulties
(likewise), positive and negative statements about their cultural adaptation in
Puerto Rico and positive and negative statements about their self-concepts.
103
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
All of these studies point to the fact that a lack of communicative
competence in Spanish is a limitation in the return migrant students’ ability
to cope with the school environment in Puerto Rico. Other studies were
analyzed to examine further these students’ problems and teachers’ ideas on
the coping behavior of their students in the classroom.
Vidal (1975) reported that return migrant students’ limitations in the use
of Spanish was the reason why they clustered together in the schools while
tending to communicate mostly in English. He referred to the 60,000 pupils
who attended public schools at the time, who spoke mostly English, very
seldom in Spanish, and exhibited serious difficulties in reading and writing
in Spanish.
Kavetsky (1978) also portrayed the difficulties of Puerto Rican return
migrant students in adapting to school life. He investigated language needs
and the resulting stereotypes in language usage. His main conclusion was
that students’ lack of fluency in Spanish isolates them from their peers, given
their tendency to keep together and stay apart from non-migrant students.
Carrasquillo and Carrasquillo (1979) claimed Puerto Rican return migrant
students were aware of their linguistic deficiencies in Spanish, but looked
forward to acquiring fluency and becoming ‘‘real’’ Puerto Ricans. Their
Spanish was deemed strongly accented and prone to Spanglish — a mixture
of English and Spanish used in their communities in the United States. Such
use tended to be criticized and ridiculed in Puerto Rico. This led the return
migrant to feel unwelcome. They even felt out of place in their language
classes, especially in the English classes, where pronunciation drills were
constantly performed.
A study by Rivera Medina et. al. (1984) revealed that teachers’ thought of
return migrant students as providers of a new dimension to the classroom
serving to break the environmental homogeneity typical of the Puerto Rican
public school classroom. They generally held to the opinion that the existing
curriculum would not work for them, while their personal styles and relative
command of English tended to arouse resentment. Indeed, their knowledge
of English may have been a source of communicative difficulty rather than
strength.
Emotional, psychological and social problems are implicit to the return
migration experience due largely to the change in school setting. The
language barrier is another strong contributing element. Negative coping
behavior may have its principal roots in the misunderstandings spawned
among teachers and peers as return migrants attempt to express their ideas
and feelings on uncommon and unfamiliar linguistic grounds.
Lucca et al. (1981) analyzed the Puerto Rican return migrant adolescent
students’ problems of communication in the new school culture. They found
that students’ cognitive views of the new school depended on the relative
success or failure of their social interactions. It was readily perceived that
104
EDUCACIÓN
students faced innumerable handicaps due to the language barrier. The
researchers sought information about the nature of the migration transition,
the students’ coping strategies, lifestyles and other related areas. They
reported that return migrant adolescents experience drastic changes in their
self esteem and self identity, in their family relationships, and in broader
aspects of the new environment including its physical, interpersonal and
cultural dimensions.
Pacheco (1983) claimed that return migrant students go through gradual
stages of adaptation to their new environment. These range from
disorientation and lack of adaptation to differentiation of the various aspects
of the new environment and final adaptation. Making sense of the new
environment requires the involvement of their cognitive capacities as well as
their affective and emotional resources. Their feelings, actions and behavior
suffer alteration. Akin to Piagets’ conceptualization (1952), Pacheco’s
students were seen to assimilate and accommodate to their new classroom
environment by exhibiting and experimenting with new behaviors.
Studies on Classroom Observations
Given that students in the following study were above average in
language proficiency, as evidenced by their scores in the LAB test, it may be
inferred that their coping skills were not low and consequently, no aggressive
behavior would be expected.
Solomon and Kendall (1979) conducted a comprehensive study of student
behavior in the classroom. This investigation, though centered on the student
as a person, collected and analyzed data about teachers’ behaviors and
various classroom activities. Their goal was to observe ‘‘actual happenings in
the classroom.’’ (p. 41)
The present study uses methodological procedures from Solomon and
Kendall’s research on students’ behavior in the classrooms including the use
of cognitive measures, inquiry of student motivation and measures of
students’ language proficiency by means of the LAB test.
The return migrant students’ problems of school maladjustment described
by Condon, (1979); Kaplan, (1983); and Rivera Medina, (1984), confirmed to
some extent that the behavioral characteristics developed through previous
experience in the mainland American schools were at odds with the Puerto
Rican school environment. Solomon and Kendall (1979, p. 15) predicted that if
the match between person and environment is poor, the consequences will be
poor adjustment, personal strain and a tendency to apply inappropriate
coping behaviors.
Coping may be seen as either facilitative or defensive. It may also be
viewed as adaptive behavior, that is, as an attempt to establish and maintain
a relatively stable reciprocal relationship with the environment. Coping
behavior used successfully in mainland American schools may prove
105
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
maladaptive in its Puerto Rican counterpart, where it may be deemed
aggressive or otherwise inappropriate in spite of benign intent. For example,
the use of English to communicate formally or informally with others may be
caused by a lack of fluency in Spanish, yet it could be otherwise perceived as
unwillingness to conform with school regulations or common practice, or else
to be motivated by a desire to appear superior.
One study that was most revealing for the present effort was that of
Spaulding (1983), who examined students’ classroom coping behavior both
verbally and non-verbally by means of an observational instrument
developed in 1966: the Coping Analysis Schedule for Educational Settings
(CASES). The study centered on classroom observations based on behavioral
indicators grouped into coping styles. Several case studies of students’
behavior during classroom tasks were analyzed and grouped. In one case
group, students demonstrated behaviors classified as dominating, aggressive,
bothering and manipulative. Other case groups showed that students
developed sufficient self control, self management skills and motivation to
successfully perform their school work inside and outside the classroom.
Spaulding’s findings revealed typical circumstances in which given
coping styles may serve to strengthen and increase self motivation and
achievement. Overall, the study demonstrated that students in all kinds of
classroom settings can develop and sustain high levels of self-directed,
responsible behavior.
Furlong (1976), analyzed what to observe in the students’ classroom
behavior and what to expect, in a secondary school of a large British city. He
investigated the ways in which students influence each other, both in their
understanding of the school situation and experience, and in the types of
behavior they generally consider appropriate. At times, they interacted
individually but when seeking support, they tended to interact in groups,
each one aware of the others’ behavior. Interestingly, they often used ‘‘we’’
when asked about what they were doing or saying. At times they acted alone
without obvious communication between them, at other times the whole
class shared the same ideas. In one instance, the student whose behavior he
was describing — Carol — ran out of the classroom shouting an answer, but
there was evidence of group support when she realized they were all
laughing, that is, they were paying attention to Carol’s actions. They all
shared a common perception of the classroom situation and seemed to agree
with Carol’s behavior at that specific moment.
Furlong concluded that there was a great deal of variety in observable
classroom behavior, much of which could appear contradictory and erratic at
first blush. He also observed that students often center their behavior around
the teacher, around the subject matter or else around the methodology
applied in the classroom.
106
EDUCACIÓN
Gannaway (1976) investigated students’ definition of the classroom by
looking at the ways in which students make sense of school based on
previous experience. He divided his analysis into three areas: (a) how
students relate to the teachers in terms of order and discipline; (b) how the
students relate to the class based on their expectations and, (c) how the
students rate work and boredom in school. They perceived the method used
as good if it was conducive to work; bad if it was conducive to boredom. If
the teacher ‘‘made sense’’ in class, because they could see a point to the
lesson, he/she was to be taken seriously. Otherwise, they laughed and said
the teacher was wasting time (pp. 51-67). One limitation of this study was
that only verbal reactions were analyzed. Gannaway did not study the
students’ use of silence nor their non-verbal communication.
Glickman (1982) investigated the hypothesis that the reason integrative
motivation promotes second language acquisition is that students so inclined
will use the language classrooms as an opportunity to practice and perfect
their second language skills. Glicksman observed his subjects (9th, 10th and
11th graders) after being classified as integrative or non-integrative based on
their responses to an attitude and motivation measure. The principal
conclusion reached was that high achievement in second language
acquisition depended on the amount and nature of the students’ participation
in the formal classroom setting.
Overall, review of literature suggested that the Puerto Rican return
migrant students are viewed as maladjusted in both the American and Puerto
Rican schools. It also suggests that their behavior is generally viewed in a
negative light by their teachers and non-migrant peers and their language
usage becomes a barrier not only because their Spanish is not fluent, but also
because their knowledge of English may be perceived as a handicap. This
implies a need for research concerned with the return migrant students’
coping or adaptive behavior in the classrooms.
The present study is an example in kind. Classroom behavior was
observed and classified into four categories: (a) aggressive, (b) inappropriate,
(c) integrative and (d) uninvolved. The literature examined was instrumental
in making a choice of which classes to observe. As low proficiency in Spanish
may be a significant factor in explaining the behavior exhibited in the
classrooms (as well as the students’ use of English), these two language
classes were selected for the study. Moreover, the role of language as a
common factor in the educational process would be examined anew as a
source of facilitation or impediment resulting from the motives, attitudes and
assumptions of students and teachers.
Classroom interaction implies communication. If the student exhibits
communicative competence with teachers and peers, coping behavior in the
classroom environment can be successful as elements of common perception
bearing on goals and feelings emerge. This relates to the humanistic
107
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
educational approach as a two way street: feelings must be recognized in the
learning process as an essential means of support to the effective flow of
information. According to Moskowitz (1978, p. 14), ‘‘Affective education is
effective education. It is a special type of interaction consisting of sharing,
caring and acceptance of sensitivity.’’
In addition, Bernard and Huckins’ work (1974) on the humanistic
approach, focus on the student as a ‘‘person in the school environment’’.
(pp. 3-130) ‘‘Concerns about methods, techniques, materials, and organization
must give way to concerns about the learning atmosphere and the
interpersonal relationships which prevail in the classroom.’’ (p.23)
Newberg and Love (1982) reported that an affective education program in
Philadelphia had produced evidence of student gains in reading and writing
skills. Combs (1982, p. 494) has warned that any educational system that
ignores or rejects affective aspects of behavior runs the risk of making itself
ineffective. He also pointed out that feelings and emotions are indicators of
the degree to which things and events are personally relevant.
Methodology
This section describes and identifies: (a) study participants and the
methods applied to their selection, (b) raters who assisted in data collection,
(c) test instruments applied, (d) general data collection procedures and (e) the
statistical procedures employed in analyzing and supporting the
interpretation of data.
All study subjects were students in the Public Secondary School System of
Puerto Rico. This choice was based on two principal reasons: (a) previous
research on the effects of return migration on students’ cognitive and
affective skills reveals that adolescents are the most seriously affected (Lucca
et al., 1981), (b) The rate of flow and re-flow of students from the United
States is highest among these grades according to information obtained from
the Department of Education. (Census of the Bilingual education office and
the «Oficina de Migrantes», 1987-88). It was expected that the eight students
chosen would find successful ways of coping with their classroom situation.
The present study involved eight students (four return migrants and four
non-migrants). The rationale for using a sample of only eight subjects was,
first, that the unit of analysis was not the student but the instances of
behavior related to classroom adjustment observed per subject. It should be
noted that studies of this type have been carried out successfully on a single
subject. Simon and Boyer (1974) described 23 observation systems using only
one subject; another ten systems involved two subjects. Spaulding’s sample
(infra,1983) consisted of four students.
A second reason for using eight subjects was that study guidelines
required that all subjects be observed in the same classrooms. Any higher
108
EDUCACIÓN
number of subjects would have been difficult to obtain, especially among
return migrants of no more than two years since their return to Puerto Rico.
Subject selection was based on administration of the Language
Assessment Battery Test (LAB-level III, grades 7-12), in both the English and
Spanish to the entire class. Students scores (equivalent percentile ranks and
stanines) were the specific criterion for selection. Two groups were then
polarized, consisting of English Dominant return migrants (EDR) and
Spanish Dominant non-migrants (SDN) in matched pairs for comparative
analysis of return migrant vs non-migrant classroom coping behavior.
The test employed is the instrument of choice at the Department of
Education of Puerto Rico, Office of Bilingual Education, for determining
language proficiency in English and in Spanish. This is administered to all
return migrants as a criterion for placement in available bilingual programs.
The Office of Bilingual Education was helpful in orienting the author on the
use of the test and supplied the necessary printed materials.
The participating institution was the Trina Padilla de Sanz High School of
the Rio Piedras II School District. This was selected because the Director, Mr.
Víctor Morales, had expressed concern with the problems of adjustment
exhibited by return migrants as well as their high rate of turnover. Teachers
at this school confirmed a widespread lack of interest in school and high
absenteeism among return migrant students and expressed their willingness
to collaborate in this investigation.
Selection of the sample and subsequent data collection procedures
required more than thirty (30) visits to the school among meetings with the
director, teachers, test administration and the videotaping of fourteen class
sessions, (two for the training of raters and twelve for the study itself).
The Mathews student system (Simon and Boyer, 1974, p. 37) recommends
more than one observer in classrooms where the behavior of more than six
students is to be recorded. The present study included four observers to
assess consistency and improve the reliability of the observations coded.
Selection and Training of Raters
The author and three other professionals with teaching and research
experience in the field of education carried out the full schedule of
observations. Two raters came from the Research Center of the Faculty of
Education, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus: Mrs. Jennie
Rivera and Mrs. Isabel Vázquez; one rater came from the Bilingual Education
Multifunctional Service Center of Metropolitan University: Mrs. María Vega.
The raters were trained over the course of eight meetings in which the aims
and scope of the study were explored, the experimental design was presented
and the application of the research instruments was discussed. Two
50-minute videos of language classes were used for training in observation
and analysis using the CASES system.
109
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
Research Instruments
Four instruments were used in this research study: (a) The Language
Assessment Battery Test (Forms A and B), (b) The Coping Analysis Schedule
for Educational Settings (brief form), (c) The Coping Analysis Schedule for
Educational Settings, a coding unit form, and (d) a Synthesis of Raters’
Coding unit form.
The Language Assessment Battery Test (LAB) was the primary selection
criterion for the sample. This test was developed and standardized by the
New York City Board of Education and is used by the Department of
Education of Puerto Rico to assess language proficiency in English and in
Spanish for the placement of migrant students in special groups. Results are
reported as raw scores, percentiles, and stanines. The test uses an integrative
rather than a discrete point approach for the measurement of language
proficiency. It consists of four parts: (a) listening, (b) speaking, (c) reading,
and (d) writing.
Reliability of the individual subtests in the English version ranged from
.80 to .95, with 80% above .87. Subtest reliability in the Spanish version is
comparable. Total test reliability (both languages) ranged from .92 to .97.
Spaulding’s CASES system was the instrument of choice for data
collection for two reasons. First, it provides for the observation of the four
categories of classroom coping behavior included in this study. Second,
Spaulding extended the use of his system by way of classroom treatments for
changing negative or indifferent coping behavior (1983). He also applied this
extension to the treatment of discipline problems in the classroom.
Emmer and Peck (1971) were early users of the CASES system in their
study comparing observational systems for classroom behavior. The system
was evaluated by the Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education at the University of Texas in Austin together with three other
observation systems with two purposes in mind: first, to determine the
relationship among categories on each observation instrument, and second,
to determine the relationship among dimensions of classroom behavior
across systems. Twenty eight classrooms were observed in one hundred and
forty sessions. Data from twenty of the twenty eight classrooms where the
CASES system was applied resulted in agreement among the observers. The
reliability coefficients reported ranged from .98 for appropriate behavior, .81
for inappropriate behavior, to .35 for uninvolved.
In this study, reliability among the four raters in the use of the CASES
system was measured by utilizing two statistical tests of concordance and
correlation (Kendall’s W and Ave r coefficients), both of which produced
consistently high results. Validity was ensured by the diversity of behavior
observed (Emmer and Peck (1971). Over 75 indicators of behavior were
included in the four behavioral categories observed: (a) aggressive, (b)
inappropriate, (c) integrative, and (d) uninvolved. Other precautions taken to
110
EDUCACIÓN
ensure validity included the careful training of observers, the development of
operational definitions of each behavior to be observed, and periodic checks
of observer recording and control of observers’ biases according to Croll
(1986).
The third instrument employed was the Coping Analysis Schedule for
Educational Settings: a coding unit form. This consisted of a table prepared
by the author for the compilation of students’ coping behavior based on
Spaulding’s CASES system. Aggressive behavior was measured by nine
indicators, inappropriate behavior by 22, integrative behavior by 29 and
uninvolved by 17, for a total of 77 indicators among the four categories. The
training of raters in coding these on the two aforementioned videotapes was
taken as a pilot study. Ratings were carried out on a nominal basis:
0 = absence of, and 1 = presence of each behavior.
The fourth instrument applied was the Synthesis of Raters’ Coding Unit
form with the purpose of organizing and summarizing rater observations.
Data Collection Procedures
Data was collected by means of videotapes of twelve classroom sessions,
six each of the English class and the Spanish class. The probabilities of
observation were as follows: 8 students × 40 minutes of observation × 12
classes. There were 3,840 probabilities of observed behavior for each rater (8 ×
40 × 12 = 3,840), assuming a maximum of one recorded observation per
minute. Even though each class session lasted for 50 minutes, ten minutes
were allowed for entrance/settlement and departure from the classroom.
The technique applied for observation was that of time sampling, that is,
static sampling providing a snapshot of behavior. (Croll, 1986, p. 24). The time
slot was divided among the four raters so that each would observe every
student for five minutes for a total of twenty minutes per group of four.
Behavior was coded on the basis of what the student was doing at the specific
moment of observation, using the indicators of behavior provided in the
coding form.
Potential time of observation was computed as follows: 20 minutes × 12
classes × 4 raters × 8 students = 7,680 minutes, that is, a maximum total of 128
hours. The actual number of observations was affected by students absences;
it was also affected by the fact that in a number of instances, classes were
often reduced to approximately 30 minutes in duration. Special activities
sponsored by the Director ’s Office and different situations involving teachers
or students made this a rather changeable situation.
The videotape technique of observation was chosen because ‘‘ . . . it can
present a communicative transaction in its totality’’ (Finocchiaro, 1986,
p. 114). As a study of persons in classroom situations, the videotape permits
the rater to observe students behavior while involved in verbal and nonverbal communication with a minimum of interference. The appropriateness
111
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
of language used, the intent of the speaker, cultural aspects, linguistic
registers — all may be observed and classified.
The technician in charge of videotaping was instructed to record each
class broadly. He was never instructed to focus on any student in particular,
nor was he told who the real subjects were in any class. This helped to ensure
the capture of a natural classroom interaction. Similarly, the students selected
for the sample remained unaware. Students were led to believe that the
whole class was being observed.
Aggressive coping behavior was observed and classified by means of the
following indicators:
1. Direct attack
2. grabbing
3. pushing
4. hitting
5. pulling
6. kicking
7. name calling
8. destroying property
9. smashing, tearing and breaking
Inappropriate behavior was recorded by means of the following
indicators:
1. Negative (Inappropriate) Attention-Getting Behavior: Annoying, bothering,
whining, loud talking (when deemed unnecessary by the observer),
insistent claim for attention, aversive noise making, belittling, criticizing.
2. Manipulating. Controlling and Directing Others: Pushing around, bossing,
commanding, directing, enforcing rules, conniving, wheedling,
controlling.
3. Resisting: Opposing, delaying; passive aggressive behavior pretending to
conform, conforming to the letter but not the spirit; defensive checking.
The students’ integrative coping behavior was observed through the
following 29 indicators.
1. Self Directed Activity: Instances of productive work; reading, writing,
constructing with interest; self-directed dramatic play (with high
involvement).
2. Paying Close Attention; Thinking, Pondering: Listening attentively, watching
carefully; concentrating on a story being told, a film being watched or a
record played; thinking, pondering, reflecting.
112
EDUCACIÓN
3. Integrative Sharing and Helping: Contributing ideas, interests, materials;
helping, responding by showing feelings (laughing, smiling, etc.) in
audience situations; initiating conversation.
4. Integrative Social Interaction: Mutual give and take, cooperative behavior,
integrative social behavior; studying or working together where
participants are on a par.
5. Integrative Seeking and Receiving Support, Assistance and Information:
Bidding or asking teachers or significant peers for help, support,
sympathy, affection, etc., being helped; receiving assistance.
Uninvolved behavior was based on the following indicators:
1. Following Directions Passively and Submissively: Doing assigned work
without enthusiasm or great interest; submitting meekly to requests;
answering direct questions; waiting for instructions as directed.
2. Observing Passively: Visual wandering with short fixations; watching others
work; checking on noises or movements; checking on activities of adults or
peers.
3. Responding to Internal Stimuli: Daydreaming; sleeping; rocking or fidgeting
(not in transaction with external stimuli).
4. Physical Withdrawal or Passive Avoidance: Moving away, hiding, avoiding
transactions by moving away or around; physical wandering, avoiding
involvement in activities.
Statistical Procedures
After gathering the data and summarizing it for each rater in each
category of behavior, the category of aggressive behavior was eliminated from
further analysis because none of the four raters reported its presence. Thus,
our analysis continued among the inappropriate, integrative and uninvolved
behavior categories.
Non-parametric statistical measures were used for the analysis of the data
for the following reasons: (a) the sample was small (N = 8), (b) the classroom
behavior variable was classified by categories and (c) the experimental data,
that is, the scores, were ranked (transformed into ordinal measures),
following Siegel. (1988, p. 33)
Statistical analysis included three steps: (a) a test of concordance among
the raters in each behavior category, (b) two-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) by ranks to detect differences and similarities among the return
migrant and non-migrant students in the English and Spanish classes and (c)
Main Effect Pairs tests in each category. Each step was carried out for the six
situations, that is, for each behavior category in the English class and in the
Spanish class. Interrelations were disregarded as they were found to be
statistically non-significant.
113
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
The first analysis applied two tests of concordance: the Kendall W (Siegel
1988, pp. 262- 271) and the Spearman average ‘‘L’’ (Siegel 1988, pp. 235-244)
for determining the coefficient of correlation and concordance among the
raters. Both statistical measures showed agreement in the three behavioral
categories of each language class. These results support the facts insofar as
the four raters observed the same two groups of students (return migrants
and non-migrants) in the same classes (English and Spanish) using identical
instruments and comparable procedures.
Once the reliability between the raters was established, the next step was
to determine differences and/or similarities between the return migrant and
non-migrant students in the English and Spanish classes. The behavior
observed was duly recorded for each return migrant and non-migrant
student. Scores were computed for individual students and analyzed for
intergroup relationships. The Friedman two-way ANOVA by ranks was
applied for each category of behavior in each class. (Siegel 1988, pp. 174-180)
As this analysis showed significant differences between migrant and nonmigrant students, a third step was incorporated to determine whether these
were due to differences between subject groups (return migrant vs nonmigrant students) or to differences between the English and Spanish classes.
The Wilcoxon Pairs Test for main effect (Siegel, 1988) confirmed that the
significant differences were found between the return migrant and nonmigrant students.
Findings
This study sought to describe the problems of classroom maladjustment
among return migrant students as well as compare their coping behavior to
that of non-migrant students. Behavior observed and coded was that of
students whose scores, percentiles and stanines in the LAB test placed
showed them to be above average or at least average with respect to their
classmates in English and Spanish classrooms under the same teachers. All
eight subjects had returned from the United States during the previous two
years.
Classroom coping behavior was observed and coded in four categories:
(a) aggressive, (b) inappropriate, (c) integrative and (d) uninvolved.
Instances of the first category were not reported. The remaining three
categories were analyzed according to their respective research questions.
Inappropriate Behavior
a. Do return migrant students exhibit inappropriate behavior in their
attempts to cope with the language classroom environment?
b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and non-migrant
students with respect to inappropriate behavior as exhibited by each group
in their respective English and Spanish classrooms?
114
EDUCACIÓN
In general, return migrant students pretended to conform with teachers
expectations, but most of the time they engaged in behavior unrelated to class
activities or in belittling whatever the teacher was saying. They often tried to
manipulate the class environment by trying to impose their own terms of
participation and seeking to control the rest of the class. Fidgetting and
conniving were common occurrences.
Inappropriate behavior on the part of non-migrant students’ tended
toward delay and passive resistance but never aimed at taking charge or
enforcing rules.
The Friedman ANOVA statistical test yielded significant differences
between the two groups: return migrant and non-migrant students in both
the English and Spanish classrooms. The Wilcoxon Main Effects test
confirmed these results. Overall, the behavior or return migrant students
was consistently less appropriate than that of non-migrants.
Knowledge of English may be related to the higher level of inappropriate
behavior on the part of return migrant students. As noted in the literature,
return migrant students may have a tendency to flaunt their knowledge of
English (Laguerre, 1982) by speaking out of turn or laughing at others for not
answering correctly or for misspelling English words.
In the Spanish classroom, return migrant students exhibited fewer
instances of inappropriate behavior. Yet, in comparison with non-migrants,
their inappropriate behavior was more frequent. This may be due to a
relative lack of Spanish language skills, even when doing their best to learn.
The Spanish classes seemed to arouse more interest among return
migrants though not enough to motivate consistent attention or steady work.
The return migrant students’ language barrier in Spanish probably imposed
limitations on their ability to develop and apply coping behaviors. This
possibility is supported by other research interpretations as well as by teacher
opinion. (Laguerre, 1982; Ramos Perea, 1972; Rivera Medina, 1984; and
others). In spite of recurrent inappropriate behavior, there were a fair
number of instances where return migrants were able to participate in class
and relate positively with their grade peers.
Integrative Behavior
As the students selected for this study were above average or at least
average according to their scores, percentiles, and stanines in the LAB test, it
was expected that integrative behavior would be substantially in evidence
among them. This expectation was confirmed. Both student groups exhibited
behaviors that were more often integrative than either inappropriate or
uninvolved.
Furthermore, return migrant and non-migrant students exhibited more
integrative behaviors in their English than in their Spanish classrooms. Both
groups engaged readily in self-directed activities such as answering exercises
115
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
in their notebooks. They tended to share information and often helped each
in completing written work. There was considerable integrative social
interaction, that is, mutual give and take among return migrants and nonmigrant students in both the English and the Spanish classes. Within their
own group, students obtained significant peer help, support and empathy,
especially so in the case of the return migrant group.
Computation of the Friedman ANOVA test produced significant
differences between classes, though not between groups. Results of the
Wilcoxon main effect pairs test confirmed significant differences between the
Spanish and English classes.
Return migrant and non-migrant students behaved similarly in terms of
integrative behavior.
Uninvolved Behavior
In general, return migrant students were more uninvolved than
inappropriate in their behavior. Though both the return migrant and nonmigrant students seemed to follow directions passively and submissively
while doing their work with little enthusiasm, the non-migrants submitted
more frequently to requests and to answering questions. Daydreaming was
frequently observed among return migrant students along with noninvolvement in class activities. There was considerable physical wandering in
the classroom as well as fidgeting and conniving among the return migrants.
Physical withdrawal and passive avoidance were also in evidence.
Passiveness was more often observed among non-migrants. Return migrants
were more active in their coping behavior while integrating as well as when
acting inappropriately.
With respect to overall uninvolvement, the Friedman ANOVA statistical
measure showed significant differences between the English and Spanish
classes. Likewise, the Wilcoxon Main Effect Pairs Test produced in significant
differences between the English and Spanish classes only.
The differences observed pertaining to uninvolved behavior, as well as
those associated with integrative behavior, were due to the classes and not to
the condition of being a return migrant or non-migrant.
Interpretation
One possible interpretation for these study findings is that classes seemed
to be teacher centered and focused on the content. They were not student
centered, that is, person oriented as postulated by the humanistic educational
approach. There was little individualization; the two groups of students,
return migrants and non-migrants, were engaged in the same activities with
the same duration, using the same resources. There were no special projects
nor anything planned according to a person-oriented curriculum. This may
116
EDUCACIÓN
explain why students behaved negatively and remained uninvolved on
occasion.
In general, significant differences were found between return migrant and
non-migrant students in measures of inappropriate behavior. School
maladjustment among return migrants, reported by numerous researchers,
was found to exist in the language classroom.
Return migrant and non-migrant students of relatively high linguistic
proficiency were more integrative in their behavior during English and
Spanish class periods than their immediate peers. Relative proficiency was
higher in English for return migrants. Non-migrants exhibited higher
language skills in Spanish. Overall, above average or at least average
proficiency in one or the other language may explain the fact that the least
exhibited behavior among study subjects was that classified as inappropriate
in this study. As observed, inappropriate behavior was more frequent among
return migrants but comparable to that of non-migrants with respect to
integrative and uninvolved behaviors.
The literature examined and analyzed for this study indicates that Puerto
Rican return migrant students exhibit problems of adjustment in mainland
American and local Puerto Rican schools (Carrasquillo and Carrasquillo,
1979; Nogueras and Prewitt Díaz, 1980; Ramos Perea, 1972; Rivera Medina,
1984; Vidal, 1975, and others). These studies are mostly socio-demographic in
nature. Other studies of a psychosocial nature also reveal maladjustment
among return migrant students in the course of transition from an American
school environment to the Puerto Rican school environment (Lucca et al.,
1981; Pacheco et al., 1983; Pacheco, 1984). Some studies carried out in the
classroom environment reported the teachers’ point of view while in others
the data was collected from students’ answers to questionnaires (Laguerre,
1982; Lladó, 1978; Schmidt, 1984).
The present study cannot support definite statements about the entire
population of return migrant students. It is rather an attempt to describe the
observed behavior of above average and average return migrant students
and to compare their behavior with that of non-migrant students in typical
English and Spanish course subject classes of the public school system of
Puerto Rico.
Conclusions
1. Aggressive behavior
Neither the return migrant students nor the non-migrant students
exhibited aggressive behavior in the English and Spanish classrooms. The
four raters who observed and coded behavior did not report a single
instance of such behavior.
It was concluded that return migrant students of average and higher
language skills in one or the other language were not aggressive in their
117
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
coping attempts within the respective classroom environments of either
language as the course subject. While several studies report that teachers in
both mainland American and Puerto Rican schools perceive return migrant
students as aggressive (Condon et al., 1979; Kavetsky, 1978; Prewitt-Díaz,
1980; Rivera Medina, 1984), the results of this study strongly suggest that
be that as it may in other, perhaps less structured school situations, the
language class behavior of average and above average students in Puerto
Rican public schools is not overtly aggressive.
2. Inappropriate behavior
a. Do the return migrant students exhibit inappropriate behavior in seeking
to cope with the language classroom environment?
b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and nonmigrant students with respect to inappropriate behavior as exhibited by
both groups in the English and Spanish classrooms?
Return migrant students exhibited more attention getting behavior of a
negative sort by attempting to manipulate, control and direct others. At
times, they resisted authority or merely pretended to conform. In turn, the
negative behavior of non-migrant students was essentially passive in
nature. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant difference
between these two groups. Furthermore, return migrants behaved
inappropriately more frequently than non-migrants, particularly so in the
English language classroom.
The language classes did not seem to present a variety of activities
conducive to diminishing inappropriate behavior. In this regard, Bernard
and Huckins (1974) state:
‘‘Educators underestimate the potential that variety has for
holding interest and combating boredom.’’ (p. 249)
Innovative opportunities for participation and involvement are
worthwhile means of facilitating learning and should be encouraged in
throughout the school system.
Other research consulted points to language usage as one of the reasons
for the return migrant students’ school maladjustment (Carrasquillo and
Carrasquillo, 1979; Laguerre, 1982; Ramos Perea, 1972; Vidal, 1975). The
present study supports the idea that the language used affects the
classroom experience. The return migrant students’ knowledge of English
became a handicap, rather than a competitive strength, whenever they
tended to flaunt their knowledge of English and thus rendered their
behavior inappropriate. This adds weight to Laguerre’s claim (1982) that
return migrant students tend to overemphasize their knowledge of
English, thus affecting their relationships with teachers and peers.
118
EDUCACIÓN
3. Integrative behavior
a. Do return migrant students exhibit integrative behavior in their attempts
at coping with the language classroom environment?
b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and nonmigrant students with respect to integrative behavior as observed in the
English and Spanish classrooms?
• Both student groups behaved similarly in terms of integrative
behavior such as self-initiated activities, paying attention, integrated
and shared, and sought and received support.
• Both groups behaved in a manner altogether consistent with their
mental capacity as implied by their LAB test scores.
• Return migrant students tended to interact individually, but when
seeking support, they resorted to interaction in groups. Generally, their
behavior toward teachers was respectful.
• Statistical assessment by two principal methods (Friedman ANOVA,
Wilcoxon Main Effect Pairs Test) confirmed a significant difference
between the two classes, that is, The English and Spanish course
instructional environments, respectively. The class per se made a
difference as far as integrative behavior was concerned and not the
condition of being a return migrant or non-migrant student.
• Return migrant students exhibited different behaviors in each class. In
the English class, their behavior was more integrative than in the
Spanish class. This may involve their relatively higher language
proficiency in English.
In a study based on classroom observations, Furlong (1976) found that
students’ behavior was significantly motivated by external factors
unrelated to self-motivation. These other factors, which certainly deserve
study, include the teachers themselves, their teaching styles and the ways
in which the subject matter is presented.
4. Uninvolved behavior
a. Do return migrant students exhibit uninvolved behavior in their
attempts at coping with their language classroom environment?
b. Are there significant differences between return migrant and nonmigrant students with respect to uninvolved behaviors exhibited in the
English and Spanish classrooms?
Both groups of students tended to follow directions passively or
submissively while exhibiting various forms of passive avoidance and
physical withdrawal. Return migrant students were uninvolved mostly in
the English class, although the difference in total instances was only ten.
Non-migrants exhibited non-involvement less frequently in the English
class.
119
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
As found in the case of integrative behavior, there was a significant
difference between classes (English vs Spanish) with respect to both groups
of students, but not between student groups per se.
Uninvolvement may be sponsored by aspects of linguistic fluency, to
wit, the return migrant students’ lack of fluency in Spanish may have
sponsored a tendency to avoid interaction with teachers and peers. This
would be consistent with the findings of other studies (Lladó, 1978; Ramos
Perea, 1972; Rivera Medina, 1984; Vidal, 1975). For example, Vidal asserts
that return migrant students, because of their lack of Spanish fluency
clustered and did not participate in class. In extreme cases, a tendency
toward uninvolvement may underlie or partially underlie the relatively
high relative level of absenteeism noted among return migrants.
In general the negative reactions of students to the classroom
environment was more often uninvolved than inappropriate.
The language classes observed offered identical learning activities to all
students. There was no individualization responding to the needs of students
with different language backgrounds. This is not consistent with the
philosophy and mission of the English Program Curriculum of the
Department of Education with respect to the needs of the return migrant
students (1988 Revision, p. 4). This document postulates: ‘‘the design of the
curriculum ought to be such that these differing needs can be addressed
directly . . . ’’ In other words, it recognizes that the needs of return migrant
students are different from those of regular (non-migrant) students.
Other, more general observations and conclusions were:
1. Both groups, the return migrant and the non-migrant students, were not
always consistent in their classroom behavior. At times they exhibited
integrative behavior, while at other times they exhibited inappropriate or
uninvolved behavior. In classes of 50 minutes duration they were usually
integrative at the beginning, but later became bored and behaved
inappropriately or else adopted submissive attitudes. This sequence was
also observed in Gannaway’s study (1976) in the English and Mathematics
class meetings.
2. The participating return migrant students seemed to be more interested in
both classes than their opposite non-migrant peers. The first group paid
better attention and responded more eagerly. They sought to stand out,
specially in the English class. Aware of being perceived as ‘‘different’’ by
other students, they probably wanted to show that ‘‘different’’ was better
in terms of school work.
120
EDUCACIÓN
Recommendations
The following recommendations arise from our observations and
conclusions about coping behavior among return migrant students in the
public schools of Puerto Rico:
1. Other approaches should be applied to the observation and analysis of the
frequency and quality of formal and informal classroom activities or tasks.
Systems for classroom observation such as those used by Emmer and Peck
(1971), (CCS-Cognitive Component Systems; FAIR-Fuller Affective
Interaction Records) could be used.
2. It is also important to investigate in detail the effects of different teaching
strategies on the students’ classroom behavior. Teaching strategies could
usefully be modified toward a cognitive or humanistic approach.
(Finocchiaro, 1989, pp 1-18). This reorientation could result in a clearer
focus toward the development of the person in the return migrant as a
student (Moskowitz, 1978). The development of thinking skills and moral
values could then be emphasized on more fertile ground.
3. A supportive environment should be created in which a concerned and
caring attitude for the return migrant students is expressed. This may
encourage more integrative behavior among the students (Moskowitz,
1978).
4. It would also seem appropriate to complement this type of research with
complementary students information pertaining to socio-demographic
variables, and personal expectations and aspirations.
5. The services offered by the Department of Education of Puerto Rico to
return migrant students should be reinforced by way of tutoring. This may
help to reduce uninvolvement and inappropriate behavior among them. In
addition, teachers could share responsibilities with teacher aides, social
workers, tutors and other paraprofessionals. Bernard and Huckins (1974,
p. 241) claim that as time goes on, classrooms are less and less considered
the domain and sole responsibility of any one teacher. This sharing of
responsibilities could be instrumental in reducing student desertion.
6. The descriptive document on the Philosophy and Mission of the English
Program Curriculum of the Department of Education as recently revised
(1988), should be disseminated among the teachers of English in the public
schools. This revision brings together central aspects of the cognitive and
humanistic learning theories. Under the revised curriculum, return migrant
students would be strongly oriented toward developing their thinking
abilities, moral values and feelings of solidarity with others. The
curriculum clearly identifies the return migrant students as a special kind
of student warranting special treatment.
7. Data collection for this study was carried out during the months of April
and May. There are many interruptions in the schools at this time due to
121
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
holidays and extra-curricular activities. It is therefore recommended that
similar future studies should be performed at the beginning of the
semester.
This study encompassed a description and evaluation of coping behavior
among eight return migrant subjects and eight non-migrant control subjects
in each of two language classrooms, English and Spanish. Significant
differences were found between return migrant and non-migrant subject
groups in terms of integrative and uninvolved behaviors. Aggressive
behavior was not observed during any of the fourteen video-taped class
observation sessions evaluated. Statistically significant differences were
found between classrooms (English and Spanish) but not between students,
be they return migrants or non-migrants. Differences in each classroom
environment accounted for differences in student coping behaviors and the
consequent perceptions of teachers and peers about return migrants. Factors
inherent to the respective classroom environments were found to be the
dominant sources of variance among study variables.
Bibliography
Álvarez Domínguez, L. (1984). Adolescentes nacidos en Estados Unidos de padres
puertorriqueños que regresan: relación entre su autoconcepto y nivel de agresividad.
Unpublished master’s thesis, Universidad de Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, P.R.
Ashton, G.T. (1980, Spring). The return and rereturn of long term Puerto Rican migrants:
A selective rural-urban sample. Revista/Review Interamericana (x), No. 1, pp. 27-45.
Baldoni, I. (1990, January 12). Interview with Ileana Baldoni, Bilingual Education
Program Director, Department of Education, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.
Bernard, H. W. and Huckins, W. C. (1974). Humanism in the classroom: An eclectic
approach to teaching and learning. Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Carrasquillo, A. and Carrasquillo, C. (1979). The neorican: Unwelcome in two worlds.
New York: Ediciones Puerto Rico de autores nuevos.
Combs, Arthur W. (1982, April). Affective education or none at all. Educational
leadership. Journal of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Condon, E. C., Peters, J. Y. and Sueiro-Ross, C. (1979). Special education and the
hispanic child. Teacher Corps Midatlantic Network. Philadelphia, PA, Temple
University.
Croll, P. (1986). Systematic classroom observation. Philadelphia, The Folmes Press.
Curran, M.E. (1985). Toward understanding interactions in high school classes containing
return migrants in Puerto Rico. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teacher College,
Columbia University, New York.
122
EDUCACIÓN
Department of Education. (1978). Estudio sobre estudiantes procedentes de Estados Unidos
(Migrant student profile) Centro de Información y Desarrollo Educativo. Hato
Rey, Puerto Rico.
Department of Education. (1984). (Information provided by a spokesperson of the
Division of Statistics) Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.
Department of Education. (1988). New curriculum guide for the teaching of English in the
public schools of Puerto Rico (Grades one to twelve) Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.
Emmer, E.T.; Peck, R. (1971, February). Dimensions of classroom behavior. Paper
presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association in New York.
Finnochiaro, M. (1989). English as a second language: From theory to practice. (4th ed.)
Regents Publishing Inc.: New York.
Friedman, R. (1980, August 24). Students back from the states find a cold shoulder.
The San Juan Star, pp. 1, 16.
Friedman, R. (1982, April 26). Neoricans in program to adjust to island life. The San
Juan Star, p. 11.
Furlong, V. (1976). Interaction sets in the classroom: Toward a study of pupils’
knowledge. In S. Delamont and M. Stubbs (Eds.) Explorations in classroom
observation, (pp. 23-44); New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Gannaway, H. (1976). Making sense of school. In S. Delamont and M. Stubbs (Eds.)
Explorations in classroom observation, (pp. 45-82); New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Glicksman, L., et. al. (1982). The role of the integrative motive on students’
participation in the french classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, (Toronto);
38, 4.
Hamilton, J. (1987). Return migrant students selected characteristics in first year of college
in Puerto Rico: A Profile. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Fordham University,
New York.
Junta de Planificación de Puerto Rico, Negociado de Análisis Social. (1984). La
población inmigrante en Puerto Rico. San Juan, P.R.
Kaplan, G. (1983, Oct.-Nov.). Spanish and the return migrant. Revista Caribeña de
Educación Bilingue/Caribbean Review of Bilingual Education; No. 1, pp. 2-10.
Kavetsky, J. (1978). The return migrant student: Questions and answers. Revista El Sol;
22. (2), 11-17.
Kelly. G.A. (1963). A Theory of personality/The psychology of personal constructs. Norton
and Company Inc., New York.
Lacot, M.S. (1983, November 29). The educational implications of migration. (Paper
presented at First Forum on the Human Rights of the Puerto Rican Family
sponsored by the Puerto Rican Family Institute, Inc., San Juan, Puerto Rico).
Llabrés de Charneco, A. (1984, January). Public hearings on bilingual education.
Revista Caribeña de Educación Bilingüe/Caribbean Review of Bilingual Education; No. 2,
pp. 8-10.
Lladó, N. (1982). English as a second language in Puerto Rico: Language attitude study and
its pedagogical implications. Ann Arbor, Michigan University. (University
Microfilms No. 82-218) (Abstract-Vita)
123
A Comparative Study of Classroom Coping Behavior in the English and Spanish Classes . . .
López Laguerre, M. (1982). Las actitudes sociolingüísticas del maestro puertorripueño hacia
el bilingüismo en Puerto Rico. Disertación Doctoral. Departamento de Filosofía y
Letras, Universidad de Puerto Rico.
Lucca, N., Wapner, S.& Pacheco, A.M. (1981). Self identity and bilingualism among
adolescent return migrants to Puerto Rico. Agenda: a Journal of Hispanic Issues; 11.
(33), 15-17.
Méndez Santos, C. (1971). Los inmigrantes puertorriqueños en los Estados Unidos (2nd
ed.) Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico, Ponce, P.R.
Morris, J.L., Pestover, M. and Nelson, A. (1967). Mobility and achievement. Journal of
Experimental Education; 35 (3), 74-79.
Moskowitz, G. (1978). Caring and sharing in the foreign language class. Newbury House
Publishers, Inc. Rowley, Mass.
Newberg, N.A. and Love, W.E. (1982, April). Affective education addresses the
basics. Education Leadership. Journal of the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development. No. 7, 39, pp 498-502.
New York Board of Education. (1976). The language assessment battery test (LAB)
(Forms A/B) Office of Bilingual Education. New York City, N. Y.
Nogueras, J.A. and Prewitt-Díaz, J.O. (1980). The emigration of the Puerto Rican student
as a factor in school adjustment. Report No. 022-534. Philadelphia: The
Pennsylvania State University. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED
221639)
Oyola, M. (1983, November 28). Contrawise migration from U.S. to P.R., a sociological
phenomenon. Reasons and implications on an island 100 × 35. Rio Piedras, Puerto
Rican Family Institute. Unpublished manuscript, 12 p.
Pacheco, A., et al. (1983). La migración: un estudio para la psicologia ambiental y
social. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología; 16 (2), 263-276.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International University Press,
New York.
Prewitt Díaz, J.O. (1979). The conflicts in in-school cultural behaviors of Puerto Rican
migrant children on the mainland. 26 pp. (Eric Document Reproduction Services no.
197 035) (UDO21 173)
Prewitt Díaz, J.O. (1982). The Puerto Rican migrant student and the home-school
conflict. El Sol (xxvi year) No. 1, pp. 6-11.
Ramos Perea, I. (1972). The school adjustment of return migrant students in Puerto Rican
junior high schools. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri at Columbia).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 34/04, 2045A.
Rivera, L. W. (1987). Special document for the bilingual program (unpublished), Puerto
Rico Department of Education.
Rivera Medina, E. (1984). Of Teachers, language and training: Needs of teachers of english
and of teachers of spanish to return migrants in Puerto Rico. (Report for National
Institute of Education) (NIE). Unpublished manuscript.
Schmidt, S.E. (1984). Attitudes of Puerto Rican professors towards code-switching students
and the students’ perceptions of these attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
124
EDUCACIÓN
Seilhamer, E.S. and Prewitt-Díaz, J.O. (1982). The return and circulatory migrant
student: A perception of teachers, school and self. Migration Today, 10 (22), 20-25.
Siegel, S. (1988). Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw Hill, New
York.
Simon, A., E. Boyer, and G. Gil, (Eds.) (1974). Mirrors for behavior III: An anthology of
observation
instruments.
Communications
Material
Center.
Wyncotte,
Pennsylvania. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED1070320)
Solomon, D. and Kendall, A. (1979). Children in the classroom: An investigation of
person-environment interactions. New York, Proeger Publishers.
Spaulding, R.L. (1983, October). A systematic approach to classroom discipline. Phi
Delta Kappa.
Straits, B.C. (1987, January). Residence, migration and school progress. Sociology of
Education. pp. 34-43.
Underhill, C. (1981, Sept. 20). Impact of the return migrant. The San Juan Star, pp. 2-3.
Van Trieste, R. (1985). The Correlation Between Puerto Rican University Students’
Attitudes Toward Speakers of American English and the Students’ Achievement in
English as a Second Language. Doctoral dissertation. University Microfilms
International, New York. New York University.
Vidal, D. (1975, October 5). The loneliness of the returning Newyorican. The San Juan
Star, p. 5.
Vivó, P. (1982). Puerto Rican migration: The return flow. (NIE-P-80-0112). National
Institute of Education, Washington, D.C. (Eric DRS No. ED 221635)