Self-concept of Primary Two and Four Chinese Students Participating in

Different Modes of Remedial Classes in Hong Kong

Chong Shuk Tuen, Winnie

Student ID: Supervisor: Dr. Betty Eng Date: 28 May 2007

i

Acknowledgement

My deepest gratitude goes out to Jesus and my parents. I am thankful to my

husband’s persistent support and encouragement. I greatly appreciate the guidance

and encouragement of my supervisor, Dr. Betty Eng with lots of precious feedback

and support throughout the dissertation. I am Finally, I am grateful for the patience

my colleagues and family exhibited throughout the entire study.

ii

Abstract

Objectives. The primary aim of the study was to examine the self-concept of primary

two and primary four Chinese Hong Kong students in remedial classes, and to

compare the conceptions of participants under different mode of remedial teaching. In

addition, the study also examined the effects of age and gender. This study also

investigated the reliability and validity of Chinese version of SDQ-I for primary two

and four students studying in remedial class in Hong Kong context.

Methods. To conduct the research, the Chinese version of the Self Description

Questionnaire I (SDQ-I) was administered to 245 students from one primary school in

Hong Kong. Seven of them were invited to follow-up interviews to explore what they

thought about selected items in the questionnaire.

Results. Findings revealed that (i) students participating in remedial class had lower

self-concept in the areas of non-academic, academic and global than students in

regular class; (ii) primary two remedial class students scored higher in all domains of

self-concept than primary four remedial class students; (iii) male remedial class

students did better in physical ability and mathematics self-concept scores but lower

reading self-concept score than female remedial class students. Data analysis

iii

employing t-tests was used, significant difference was not found. And, Shavelson’s

framework was found to be highly correlated with Marsh’s SDQ-I.

Discussion. The results demonstrate the difference in self-concept scores for students

studying in remedial and normal classes. Grouping students with learning difficulty

into different class may generate labelling effect, which may in turn affect their

self-concept.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgement i

Abstract ii

Table of Contents iv

List of Tables viii

List of Figure ix

List of Appendices x

Chapter 1 : Introduction

1.1 Aims of study

1.2 Rationale and significance of the study

1.3 Overview of the study

1

1

6

Chapter 2 : Literature review

2.1 Self-concept

2.1.1 Definition of self-concept

2.1.2 Development of self-concept model

2.1.3 Self-concept and self-esteem

2.1.4 Self-concept research for young children

2.15 Relationships with personal factors

7

7

9

13

15

16

v

2.1.5a Gender

2.1.5b Age

2.1.6 Self-concept and academic achievement

2.1.7 Cultural differences in self-concept

2.2 Special class placement

2.2.1 Education reforms in Hong Kong

2.2.2 Definition of learning difficulties

2.2.3 Identification of students with leaning difficulties

2.2.4 Remedial teaching

2.3 Recent studies on self-concept and remedial teaching

2.4 Research Hypotheses

17

17

18

20

22

22

24

26

27

30

33

Chapter 3 : Methodology

3.1 Participants

3.2 Instrument

3.3 Data Collection

3.4 Data analysis

34

34

35

37

38

vi

Chapter 4 : Results

4.1 Demographic characteristics of the sample

4.2 Mean self-concept of remedial and normal classes

4.3 Comparison of P.2 and P.4 participants’ mean self-concept scores

4.4 Gender effect on mean self-concept score of participants

4.5 Internal Consistency Estimates for remedial class students

4.6 Correlations among the multi-dimensional facets of the

self-concept of remedial class students

38

38

39

41

44

45

47

Chapter 5 : Discussion

5.1 Reviewing the purpose and significance of the study

5.2 Summary of findings and implications

5.2.1 Construct validity of the SDQ-I for students in

remedial class

5.2.2 Differences in the self-concept of students in

regular and remedial class

5.2.3 Differences in the self-concept of P.2 and P.4 students in

remedial class

5.2.4 Gender effect on self-concept of P.2 and P.4 remedial class

49

49

50

50

55

56

59

vii

students

5.3 Limitations of the study and suggestions

5.4 Recommendations

5.5 Conclusion

60

62

64

References

Appendices

65

77

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Sex of participants 38

2 Age of participants 39

3 Class type of participants 39

4 Mean, SD of participants’ self-concept 40

5 Comparison of the self-concept score of Rc and Ec

participants in two primary levels

42

6 Comparison of sex differences of the self-concept score of

students in remedial and regular classes

46

7 Correlations among multi-dimensional facets of the

self-concept of remedial class students

47

8 Internal consistency of coefficients for Rc students and the

whole sample in the present study

48

9 Corrected item-total correlations for physical abilities scale

for Rc students

49

ix

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure Page

1. The Hierarchical Self-concept Model as proposed by Shavelson,

Hubner & Stanton (1976) with adaptation for the purpose of the

study

9

x

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

1. Parents’ consent form—English version 77

2. Parents’ consent form—Chinese version 78

3. Checklist for teachers to identify students with learning

difficulty

79

4. SDQ-I Instrument—The English version 83

5. Self-Description Questionnaire I Factors 87

6. Follow-up interview questions 89

7. SDQ-I Instrument—The Chinese version 90

8. Code book for data file 94

1

Chapter 1 : Introduction

1.1 Aims of the study

The primary aim of the study was to investigate the self-concepts of students

identified with learning difficulties participating in different mode of remedial classes.

One mode of remedial class grouped students according to academic subjects and the

other was ability-based. The self-concepts of these students were compared with their

classmates in regular classes in a primary school in Hong Kong. In addition, the study

also intends to compare the difference in self-concepts between Chinese male and

female students under different mode of remedial classes and regular classes. Age as a

factor on self-concept of this group of participants were also investigated. Lastly, the

study tested the reliability of the Chinese version Self Description Questionnaire I

(SDQ-I) on Chinese students aged from 7 to 11 with learning difficulties.

1.2 Rationale and significance of the study

Confucius is described as the centre of Chinese social behaviour (Bond & Hwang,

1986). In Confucianism, certain kinds of relationship represent important positions.

These are the so-called Five Cardinal Relations (wu lun), they are sovereign and

subject, father and son, elder brother and younger brother, husband and wife, and

friend and friend (The Book of Songs, shi jing). These relationships are constructed in

hierarchical patterns. The eldest members in the society have a wide range of

prerogatives and authority with respect to the younger members. In Confucian

tradition, education is considered significant for both personal development and

2

societal development (Lee, 1999). In The Great Learning (da xue), a person should

“cultivate himself, then regulate the family, then govern the state, and finally lead the

world into peace (The Great Learning, IV).” It seems that the final destination of

education in Confucianism is devotion to the group and society. Bond and Hwang

(1986) held that the self for Chinese people was often in relation to group. Markus

and Kitayama (1991) and Triandis (1989) also pointed out those cultures high in

collectivism tended to downplay the role of self in determining behaviours. According

to Leung (1996), collectivism refers to the belief that individuals from the same

in-group are interrelated, thus everyone’s effort make contributions to the well-being

of the group. Individualism, on the other habd, states that individuals assume

responsibility for themselves (Gudykunst, et al., 1996). Watkins et al. (2003)

suggested that intercultural understanding made some differences. For instance, in

countries which have individualistic cultures, the younger generation is becoming

more collectivistic; whereas, the younger generation in collectivism countries is

becoming more individualistic.

Hong Kong is a mixture of Chinese and Western culture, which implies existence

of collectivism and individualism. The influence of collectivism is still strong if one

reviews the present education situation. Achievement of personal potential has always

focused on academic results and achievements, and to a certain degree, represents the

reputation or “face” of the family or parents. Parents would feel embarrassed if their

child’s teacher writes down negative messages, about how the child behaves during

lessons. These messages are generally written in red ink, which further triggers alarm

and anxiety. Also, no parents wish for their child to be the last in the class.

Confucianism also influences their values but since it is not within the scope of the

present study, an in-depth investigation will not focus on this area.

3

Education is the corner stone of a society. Local educators and policy makers are

now paying more attention to issues related to fostering positive psychological state

students. In the Report on Review of Medium of Instruction for Secondary Schools

and Secondary School Places Allocation by Education Commission of Hong Kong

(2005) suggests the primary function of education

“is to help each and every student pursue all-round development so as to enhance

his/her qualities and nurture multifarious talents for the community…to cater

for the different abilities and aptitudes of students so that they can develop their

fullest potentials and attain all-round development” (p.1).

The dramatic change in education system in Hong Kong also plays a role on

constructing the psychological state for Hong Kong students. At the present cultural

dynamics, it is worthwhile to explore the constructs for self of the next generation of

Hong Kong students.

Numerous studies focused on the self-concept of adolescence (Rosenberg, 1979),

however, not much research has been conducted with children younger than 10 years

of age (Marsh, Craven & Debus, 1991). Rosenberg observed that children’s

self-concept disturbance (at age 11) appeared to reach its peak; therefore, it is

important to develop a positive self-concept before early adolescence (at age 11).

Marsh et al. believed the period of middle childhood (7-10 years old) might be crucial

in forming a positive self-concept, especially in educational setting. In western

countries, studies focusing on the self-concept of young children is quite extensive

(for example, Marsh et al., 1991), but in Hong Kong there is limited published studies

for the local context for this age group (under 11). Professor David A. Watkins, who

is a professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Hong Kong, studies

self-concept and student learning as one of his main focus. In an inquiry by this

4

researcher about the available studies of young student, he stated: “I am not aware of

any research with the SDQ-1 on such young students” in Chinese society in an e-mail

message on 26th September 2006. In fact, most local research mainly emphasize on

the adolescent (such as, Cheng, 1992; Lo, 1989). As stated previously, development

and maintenance of a favourable self-concept before early adolescence is critical for

the later development, it is understandable that a positive self-concept would be even

more important to students with learning difficulty (LD).

A number of studies focusing on self-concept and students with LD but do not all

point in the same direction, some reported LD students experienced worse feelings

about themselves than normally achieving students (e.g. Lackaye & Margalit, 2006;

Leondari & Angeliki, 1993); some others indicated no difference in self-worth feeling

with normal class students (e.g. Allodi, 2000; Bear, Minke & Manning, 2002;

Chapman, 1988). Such inconsistent findings might be attributed to different

definitions of LD students and how self-concept or self-esteem was accessed across

studies (Silverman & Zigmond, 1983). For the present study, it would focus on the

difference in self-concept between students with and without learning difficulties

studying in primary two and four in Hong Kong.

Since the 2003-04 academic year, the Hong Kong government commenced a new

funding mode program as an alternative for primary schools other than the traditional

intensive remedial teaching program (old-mode). The new funding mode program

provides schools with extra financial resources instead of specially trained teachers.

Schools that adopted the new funding mode had to provide services for LD students

who were not served by the old-mode. The old-mode remedial class was a way of

5

grouping students with poor academic performance into a separate class with small

class size of approximately 8-15 students per class. They were asked to a special

classroom to have Chinese, English and Mathematics lessons taught by special trained

teachers; while the other classmates remained in their own classroom (take-away

mode). The old-mode was being doubted by parents and public about its effectiveness

in terms of raising students’ academic result and self-concept. In fact, even more

people concerned about the ability group would create labelling effect on LD

students’ and affected their self-perceptions (Ireson & Hallam, 2001). The new

funding mode allowed schools to deploy new-mode remedial classes for students with

LD. The new-mode remedial class in the present school groups the students with LD

according to the subjects. The new-mode classes are held after normal school

time-table. However, there was no study about the effectiveness about the new-mode

remedial services. Thus, the present study intended to compare and contrast the

students’ self-concept in old and new-mode of remedial classes; it was hoped that

more attention could be drawn to the needs of students studying in different modes of

remedial classes.

As a primary school social worker, my daily duty is to provide suitable services

for all students in primary school settings. These includes adaptation to primary

school for primary one students, personal growth curriculum, such as building up

students’ positive self-concept, parents’ workshops like upgrading the learning ability

6

of children, counselling services, developmental groups, voluntary groups and

suitable services for students with special education needs (SEN). The research has a

significant implication to the writer, as the writer is the chief co-ordinator for remedial

classes for primary two in the school. I need to discuss with the remedial teachers

about the contents of the remedial classes on how to motivate the learning interest of

SEN students. Besides, she is a facilitator between regular class and remedial class

teachers. She needs to hold case conferences so as to review the progress of the

students in remedial classes. Moreover, she is required to act as a bridge between

Education Manpower Bureau (Special Education Unit) and the school. Since primary

two remedial teaching is adopting the new-funding mode approach, it is significant to

compare the self-concept of students participating the old-mode and new-mode

remedial classes as a mean to see the effectiveness of different modes. As more

half-day schools and rural schools have closed, students with diverse learning abilities

are assigned to “high ability” schools like the target school of the study, providing

supportive groups and tutorials for these students seems to be a great challenge to

schools. The writer wanted to explore the self-concept of this specific group of

students.

In addition, the information from Professor David A. Watkins, and the writer’s

search of studies conducted in past 15 years, there is no similar published research

using the SDQ-I for middle childhood (7 to 9 years old) with learning difficulty in the

context of Hong Kong. The findings would uncover the self-concept of students with

learning difficulties at an earlier stage and suitable early intervention could be

provided to enhance their self-image. The score of self-concept may further develop

to become one of the indicators of the effectiveness of remedial teaching for learning

difficulties in future, which may offer some insights for policy makers in considering

7

services for SEN.

1.3 Overview of the study

The paper included five chapters. Chapter one was the introduction explaining

the rationale and significance of the study. Chapter two was the literature review. It

briefly described the development of self-concept research and some definitions. It

also contained an overview of the Hong Kong education system on the remedial

teaching. Then, it reviewed some relevant studies related to self-concept of young

children under 11 and the remedial teaching. Chapter three was the methodology,

which explained how to use SDQ-I and how it was executed in this study for young

children with learning difficulties. Chapter four analyzed the results. Findings and

statistical results were presented in detail and hypotheses were justified. Chapter five

was the discussion which interpreted the finding followed by some recommendations

and suggestions.

Chapter 2 : Literature Review

2.1 Self-concept

2.1.1 Definition of self-concept

Different researchers have different definition on self-concept. Rosenberg (1979)

believed self-concept is “the totality of the individual’s thoughts and feelings having

reference to himself as an object” (p.7). Hattie (1992) defined in terms of the

cognitive appraisal that individual makes of the expectations, descriptions, and

prescriptions that individual holds about self. Coppersmith and Feldman (1974)

described self-concepts consist of “beliefs, hypotheses, and assumptions that the

8

individual has about himself” (p.199).

The present research utilizes the definition developed by Shavelson, Hubner and

Stanton (1976). They suggested self-concept as a person’s self-perceptions formed

through experience with and interpretations of one’s environment. Self-concept is a

hypothetical construct which is useful in explaining and predicting a person’s

behaviors. The self-perception influences how a person acts and the acts in turn

affects the person’s self-perception. Shavelson et al. (1976) identified seven features

that are critical to their definition of self-concept construct (Marsh & Hattie, 1996):

1. It is organized or structured, people will categorize information they hold about

themselves and relate these categories to one another.

2. It is multifaceted, and the specific facets reflect a self-referent category system

adopted by a particular individual and/or shared by a group.

3. It is hierarchical, with perceptions of personal behaviour in specific situations at

the base of the hierarchy, inferences about self in broader areas, such as, social,

physical and academic, at the middle hierarchy. And a goal, global

self-concept at the apex.

4. The hierarchical global self-concept (at the apex of the hierarchy) is stable, as

descending the hierarchy, self-concept becomes more situation-specific and

less stable. Changes in global self-concept require changes in many

9

situation-specific instances.

5. An individual’s self-concept becomes increasingly multifaceted from infancy to

adulthood.

6. Self-concept has both descriptive and evaluative aspects.

7. Self-concept can be differentiated from other constructs that it is theoretically

related. For example, academic achievement is more highly correlated with

academic self-concept than physical self-concept or social self-concept.

According to Shavelson et al. (1976), multidimensionality implies that

self-concept facets can be interpreted as separate constructs. Take academic

self-concept (see Fig. 1) as an example, each subject-specific self-concept (i.e.

Chinese, English, Maths, Social Studies) operates as a separately interpretable entity.

For hierarchical structure, the strength of correlations between self-concept facets

varies in a systematic pattern, such that global self-concept correlates highest with

academic self-concept, next highest with subject-specific self-concept. And that

subject-specific self-concepts (e.g. Maths self-concept) correlate higher with their

matching academic achievement scores (e.g. Maths scores) that with non-matching

academic achievement scores (e.g. Chinese scores).

2.12 Development of Self-concept model

William James (1890) defined self in The Principle of Psychology as the sum

10

total of all that a person can call his or her own, which included three major

constituents, material self, social self and spiritual self. James imposed a hierarchical

structure on to the constituents, and in doing so, paved the way for future models in

which self is viewed as multidimensional and hierarchical. Cooley (1902), on the

other hand, viewed self in terms of individual’s social interactions with others, the

“looking-glass self” metaphor vividly illustrated the idea that individuals’ sense of

self is primarily formed as a result of their perceptions of how others perceive them.

Mead (1934) also agreed with Cooley’s perception that self was essentially a social

process. Appraisals from others provide information that individuals define

themselves, this conception of self brought to a critical consideration of the role of

affective process in self-concept development.

However, the progress of self-concept research was limited for the next 80 years.

Wylie (1974) pointed out the problem of self-concept studies. Before 1980s, it was

that the basic constructs defined has no clear empirical referents. A wide array of

operational definitions has been devised by different experimenters. Hattie (1992)

used the term “dustbowl empiricism” to describe that period’s self-concept research

that study designs was “throw it in and see what happens”. Shavelson, Hubner and

Stanton (1976) agreed the deficiencies in self-research, including dearth of

appropriate measuring instruments to assess self-concept, lack of rigorous tests of

11

counterinterpretations, methodological shortcomings, and a general lack of consistent

findings. They then reviewed self-concept theories and instruments, and suggested a

theoretical model of self-concept that has provided paramount significance. Shavelson

et al. (1976) presented a hierarchical model that global self-concept appears at the

apex and is divided into academic and non academic self-concepts at the next level.

Academic self-concept is then divided into particular subjects (e.g. mathematics,

reading). Non-academic self-concept is divided into three areas: social self-concept,

which subdivided into relations with peers and significant others; emotional

self-concept; and physical self-concept, which subdivided into physical ability and

physical appearance.

Their proposed model made a turning point and enriched the self-concept studies.

The model provided a blueprint for constructing self-concept instruments, for

designing within-network studies of the proposed structure of self-concept, and for

testing between-network hypotheses about relations with other constructs (Marsh &

Hattie, 1996). Shavelson et al. model has directly assessed the appropriateness and

showed that the approach is valid and defensible (Shavelson, Burstein & Keesling,

1977; Shavelson & Bolus, 1982; Marsh, Barnes, Cairns & Tidman, 1984; Marsh,

1986a). Review of these studies (Byrne, 1984; Marsh & Shavelson, 1985; Shavelson

& Marsh, 1986) supported the multifaceted structure of self-concept and indicated

12

that multidimensionality cannot be ignored in self-concept. The hierarchical

multifaceted model of self-concept proposed by Shavelson et al. (1976) was later

examined and operationalized through the construction of several questionnaires, the

best known is the Self-Description Questionniaire-I (Marsh, 1990a). Some other

researchers also developed self-concept instruments to measure specific facets based

on the model suggested by Shavelson et al. in 1976 (Boersma & Chapman, 1979;

Dusek & Flaherty, 1981; Fleming & Courtney, 1984, Harter, 1982).Watkins, Lam and

Regmi (1991) found strong support of cross-cultural validity of both the SDQ-1 and

the model proposed by Shavelson et al (1976). Lo (1989) demonstrated the reliability

and validity of the Chinese version of SDQ for Hong Kong students. Ting (1996) also

found the multi-dimensional facets of Shavelson et al. model’s conceptual framework

correlated positively and significantly with the design of SDQ-1 for preadolescents

(primary 5 to 6) in Hong Kong.

For this reason, Shavelson et al. model will be applied in the present study. In

order to adapt to the curriculum of Hong Kong primary students, some amendments

had been made on the lowest level of academic self-concept. It is necessary to change

the original proposed subjects, Science and History, into Social Studies and Chinese

science, since there is no Science and History in the curriculum of Hong Kong

primary schools. And the other two subjects, English and Maths, remain as shown in

13

Figure 1. The four subjects listed here are the main subjects in Hong Kong primary

schools. The marks of these four subjects are represented in the students’ school

reports which represents the students’ academic performance.

Figure 1 The Hierarchical Self-concept Model as proposed by Shavelson, Hubner & Stanton (1976) with adaptation for the purpose of the study.

Academic self-concept

Global self-concept

Non-academic self-concept

Emotional Social

Peers

Significant others

Physical Chinese

Physical abilities

Social studies

Maths English

Physical appearance

2.13 Self-concept and self-esteem

Theorists often argue for a separation of the constructs of self-concept and

self-esteem; some claimed that both are intertwined but not synonymous (Watkins &

Dhawan, 1989). James (1890) introduced the concept of global self-esteem, in

14

postulating that people possess a certain average tone of self-feeling. Cooley (1902)

suggested a similar opinion in postulating an overall sense of self-respect.

Coppersmith (1967) was a major proponent of the view that self-esteem is global in

nature and can be assessed by combining an individual’s self-evaluation across a

range of content. Rosenberg (1979) self-concept is composed of perceptions of the

self along ten specific dimensions, in which the evaluative aspects of self result in

high or low in individuals’ self-esteem. He suggested self-esteem as a general picture

of self-worth. Some other writers also held the point that self-esteem as jus one aspect

of self-concept (Harter, 1982; Markus & Wurf, 1987; McCombs, 1986).

Though theoretical reasons for distinguishing between self-concept and

self-esteem, the empirical justification for such a distinction has not emerged since

80s’. McGuire and Padawer-Singer (1976) found that children could distinguish

self-evaluation in their self-concepts when asking participants to respond

spontaneously nondirective questions. Bogan (1988) concluded over 43% of

American college students participants were able to express a significant difference

between descriptive and evaluative judgements across six dimensions using Rasch

Rating Scale Analysis (Wright & Masters, 1982). Some other studies also showed that

self-esteem (or they prefer to use self-evaluation) is persuasively involved with

self-concept (Greenwald, Bellezza & Banaji, 1988; Shepard, 1979). Some

15

cross-cultural research supported the difference between self-esteem and self-concept,

a much clearer distinguish of self-concept and self-esteem in participants of

non-Western societies than western societies. (Dhawan & Roseman, 1988; Watkins,

1988; Watkins, Alabster & Freemantle, 1988). However, various researchers have

concluded that descriptive and evaluative perceptions of self have not been

empirically separated in research studies and may not be empirically separable

(Shavelson & Bolus, 1982). Therefore, some researchers use the terms

interchangeably, whereas most of current authors prefer the term self-concept (Pajares

& Schunk, 2001). For the purpose of the present study, self-concept will be used.

2.1.4 Self-concept research for young children

Coppersmith (1967) believed that “preadolescent children make little distinction

about their worthiness in different areas of experience or, if such distinctions are made,

they are made within the context of the over-all, general appraisal or worthiness that

children have already made” (p.6). However, the proposed factor structure developed

by Coppersmith was not supported by study findings (Marsh & Smith, 1982). Hattie

(1992) held a similar perspective, he stated that “there appears to be no consistent

pattern relating the observed factors to the scales that the Coppersmith instrument was

designed to measure” (p.435).

Harter (1985a) reviewed previous research suggested that self-conceptions shift

16

from concrete descriptions of behaviour in early childhood, to trait-like psychological

constructs, such as, smart, popular, in middle childhood. Eccles et al. (1993) found

that grades 1, 2 and 4 children were able to differentiate Maths, Reading, Music, and

Sports self-concepts using self-perceived competency ratings. These results supported

the multidimensionality of self-concept responses for young children. Encouraging

empirical evidence had been found for multiple dimensions at young children and for

an increasing differentiation of self-concept dimensions with age, for example, Eder

(1990), Marsh, Craven and Debus (1991, 1998), Marsh & Hattie (1996), Measelle et.

al. (1998), Wigfield et al. (1997). Marsh et al. (1991, 1998) investigated 501

kindergartens, first grade and second grade students, they found that this group of

children apparently had well-defined global self-concept and concluded that children

before 8 were able to evolve global self-concept. Besides, the eight self-concept

factors in SDQ-1 were better defined and more distinct than previously assumed for

this age group. Van den Bergh and De Rycke (2003) found that young children (6 to 8

years old), were able to verbalize concepts of their global self-worth and could be

tapped by self-report measures. On the other side, some researchers assumed that

multidimensionality of self-concept was not well differentiated in young children,

before 8, (Harter, 1985b, 1998, 1999; Harter & Pike, 1984) but they were criticized of

offering limited empirical support (Van Den Bergh & De Rycke, 2003).

17

2.1.5 Relationships with personal factors

Marsh et al. (1984) investigated the age and gender effects in self-concept for

children from grades 2 to 5 using SDQ. MANOVA results indicated that there were

significant age and sex effects in self-concept. They also found that sex and age each

interacted significantly with the area of self-concept. Consequently, two-way

MANOVAs (4 grades x 2 sexes) were analysed, sex x grade interaction was not

significant in any of the analyses (all ps > .35). That meant sex differences did not

vary over the range of ages in their study, and the age effects were similar for both

sexes.

2.1.5a Gender

Wylie (1979) suggested that there were few gender differences in global

self-concept, however, many research using SDQ showed difference in specific

domain of self-concepts. Studies showed that boys had higher self-concept in physical

abilities, while girls had higher self-concept in reading, and smaller differences in

other SDQ factors in both sexes (Marsh, Relich, & Smith, 1983; Marsh, Smith, &

Barnes, 1983). Marsh et al. (1984) supported that boys had higher self-concepts in

physical abilities (eta = .32) and girls had higher self-concepts in reading (eta = .23).

The gender differences seem to be consistent with traditional gender stereotypes.

2.1.5b Age

18

Marsh et al. (1984) found out that grade 2 students had a higher total self-concept

than grade 3 students; grade 3 had a higher total self-concept than grade 4 children

and grade 4 participants had a higher total self-concept than grade 5 students. With

ascending age, the total self-concept scores declined. Marsh (1989) also reported a

consistent decline in self-concepts from young age to early adolescence, levelling out

and then increasing at least through early adulthood. (Marsh 1989; Marsh et al., 1991)

showed that correlations of self-concept with age decreased in size from kindergarten

to grade one, and from grades 1 to 2. Similarly, correlations decreased from grades 2

to 3, and also, in a lesser extent, from grades 3 to 4, grades 4 to 5. Chapman and

Tunmer (1995) found that reading self-concept declined with age based on a

cross-sectional study of very young children. Marsh and Craven (1997) argued the

above phenomenon, that young children had extremely high self-concepts comparable

to later periods of age, was related to life experiences as one grew up. As children

grew older and developed more realistic appraisals of their relative strengths and

weaknesses with age, their self-concepts in specific domains should become more

differentiated and accurately reflecting children’s relative strengths and weaknesses.

For the case of learning difficulties, it is widely accepted that their self-concept

would be accumulated to have a poorer self-concept (Alley & Deshler, 1979; Drake &

Cavanaugh, 1970; Gordon, 1970; Russell, 1974). These students came across

19

extensive learning problems and failures; moreover, Bryan and Bryan (1983)

suggested peer comparison and problems in establishing fruitful peer relationships

made them develop increasing negative overall self-concepts as they became older.

2.1.6 Self-concept and academic achievement

Morse (1964) believed that schools set up a system for generating negative

self-concepts that made children feel they were incapable As a result, there was a

regular and consistent decline in children’s self-esteem between second and seventh

school years. Burns (1982) stated that successful educational experiences was no firm

guarantee of a positive self-concept, however, unsuccessful school experiences would

be more likely to develop a negative academic self-concept and a general negative

self-concept. Burns pointed out that children’s major task was the school task, it

would be common for the children to use academic achievement as an important

index of self-worth.

Brookover et al. (1965) found correlations between academic achievement and

self-concept of ability ranging from 0.56 to 0.65 in a sample of 12 to 15 years old

students. Bachman (1970) found a significant correlation of r = 0.23 between

self-esteem score based on Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and self-reported grades in a

national sample of 2213 tenth-grade boys in 1966 attending American public high

school. Kifer (1973) studied the cumulative effect on academic self-concept. Kifer

20

found that the academic self-concept of students between 5 to 13 years old being

studied was influenced by the number of years in which the students had been judged

and graded by schools. And the result would be more obvious for those extreme

students, that was, top-up and bottom-down students. Ellerman (1980) found that

Australian primary-school children doing poor in school had a more negative view of

themselves. In a cross-sectional study involving 1500 participants from 5 to 14,

Larned and Muller (1979) revealed that academic self-concept declined with

increasing age, and they were able to show that academic self-concept had a closer

relationship to academic performance than other areas, such as, physical self.

2.1.7 Cultural differences in self-concept

Hattie (1992) emphasized that self-concept was culturally bound and most of the

development of self-concept comes from western culture. It is important to localize

the issue on self-concept.

Bond and Cheung (1983) investigated how the college students in Hong Kong,

Japan and United States, described themselves by using the unstructured Twenty

Statements Test (Kuhn and McPartland, 1954). They found that Chinese

undergraduates reported a less positive ratio of statements about the self than did the

American participants. Kemp (1994) reported that Hong Kong secondary school

students had a lower level of self-concept measured by self-description questionnaire

21

compared to Australians. Another similar result was obtained by Watkins and Dong

(1994), secondary school Chinese students in Beijing reported a lower general

self-concept than those of Australian counterparts. Leung (1996) explained the lower

level of self-concept appeared in Chinese might be due to the difference in attribution

of failures for Chinese and westerners. Chinese are more likely to attribute failure to

internal factors, whereas westerns usually explain failures in terms of external factors.

It appears that the less positive self-concept of the Chinese could be explained by their

greater tendency to attribute negative outcomes to internal factors. While Bond and

Hwang (1986) explained the lower level of self-concept among Chinese might be due

to the humility norm in Chinese societies, which lead to a less positive evaluation of

self compared to western students. Bond and Hwang also suggested that the

implications for social functioning of self conceptions of Chinese could not be

assumed to be the same as that in other cultures.

Some other researchers would describe the Chinese self-concept in terms of

collectivism. Triandis, McCusker, and Hui (1990) found that Chinese described

themselves in terms of collective self more than American participants in Twenty

Statements Test. A more recent study by Watkins et al. (2003) tried to demonstrate

individualism and collectivism cultural difference on the conception of self. About

3,000 college students completed the Twenty Statements Test and 7,000 from 24

22

countries completed the Adult Sources of Self-Esteem Inventory. The writers

concluded that it was uneasy to use their data to answer the relationship about culture,

gender and self-concept with a clear picture. Watkins et al. (2003) rose out the point

of intercultural understanding made some difference as what people conventionally

expected. For western individualistic countries, the younger generation was becoming

more collectivistic; whereas, the younger generation in collectivism countries was

becoming more individualistic.

In sum, the conception of self entails more collective elements and lower level

of self-concept among Chinese than westerners appears to be an over-simplification.

The complex issue should be examined systematically; however, the issue goes

beyond the scope of the present study. Nevertheless, the issue of cultural difference

should also be considered when applying western instruments and theoretical

framework to local studies.

2.2 Special class placement

2.2.1 Education reform in Hong Kong

Education was not a major concern of Hong Kong Government before 1950s

(Chan, 1988). Chan claimed that until 1970s, rapid economic growth required lots of

people with professional, technical, financial and managerial skills. And at about that

time, number of children, whose parents immigrant to Hong Kong during 1950s, rose

23

sharply. According to Chan, this resulted in reorientation of economic activities which

led to expansion in providing more places in primary and secondary schools. In 1978,

the nine-year free and compulsory education was introduced from primary one to

secondary three, which served children from 6 to 14 years old (Hong Kong

Government, 1978).

Hong Kong education system has undergone many waves of reform. The more

recent one was propelled by reports of the Education Commission on improving the

quality of education through developing a target-related curriculum and assessment,

strengthening guidance, counselling and remedial services to students, providing

special services to meet the needs of students at both ends of the ability spectrum and

improving teacher education (Education Commission, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1997).

For special education, early provision was based on welfare and humanitarian

orientation targeted at the special population with more visible or identifiable

handicaps or disabilities. With expansion of educational opportunities, more

additional resources were allocated to children identified with special needs. The

identification and segregated services created a stigmatization effect on students with

special needs. Recognizing the undesirable stigmatization effect, the Government

advocated a policy of integration as provided in the 1997 White Paper entitled

“Integrating the Disabled into the Community: A United Effort” (Hong Kong

24

Government, 1997). To implement the integration, the government aimed at

reinstating students with special needs back to the mainstream of schooling. In order

to support the integration, official and professional attention has been given to

students with learning difficulties in regular class. School-based resource and

remedial classes, together with support services were provided by Government

outside schools. For the purpose of development in special education, Education

Department (2002) lists out students who need special educational support due to

learning difficulties in one way or other. Children with one or more of the following

characteristics can be considered as children with special educations needs (SEN):

“Hearing impairment, visual impairment, physical handicap, mental handicap,

emotional and behavioural difficulties, attention deficit and hyperactivity

disorder, autism, communication difficulties in reading and writing and gifted.”

(p.3)

2.2.2 Definition of learning difficulties

Warnock Report (1978) uses the term “children with learning difficulties” to

describe “those children who are currently categorized as educationally subnormal

and those with educational difficulties who are often at present the concern of

remedial services”. The Education Act (1981) used “learning difficulty” in a broader

way, a child is regard as learning difficulty if “he/she has an significantly greater

25

difficulty in learning than the majority of children of his/her age or he/she has a

disability which prevents or hinders the use of educational facilities generally

provided within the area of local education authority”.

Lee (2000) believes that there is no synonymous definition on the term “learning

difficulties”. Westwood (2003) states that there is a general consensus that students

with learning difficulty (LD) are not necessarily related to the problem on intelligence,

physical handicap or sensory disability. However, students who have been referred to

as ‘slow learners’, ‘low achievers, ‘or simply ‘the hard to teach’ can fall within the

category of ‘learning difficulties’. According to Education Department (2001),

students with LD could receive remedial support in ordinary. LD students are defined

as those having average to borderline intelligence (IQ ranges between 70 and 109);

and may have two or more years of backward academic attainment in at least two or

more basic subjects. Those slow learners and students with special difficulties in

certain learning areas, like English, Maths, are also regard as LD students.

There is another similar term, “learning disabilities” that may confuse people,

some would assume they are interchangeable. “Learning disability” was proposed by

Kirk (1962):

“A learning disability refers to a retardation, disorder, or delayed development

in one or more of the processes of speech, language, reading, spelling, writing

26

or arithmetic resulting from possible cerebral dysfunction and/or emotional or

behavioural disturbance and not from mental retardation, sensory deprivation,

or cultural or instructional factors.” (p.261)

The survey by Mercer et al. (1996) has identified definitions in current school practice

in operationalizing learning disability, 42% reported with the use of standard score

comparisons, standard deviations within the achievement test.

As learning disability includes learning difficulty, it would be assumed that

studies about learning disability also applicable to the present study. According to

Education Manpower Bureau’s definition, LD students are under the category of SEN.

2.2.3 Identification of students with leaning difficulties

The Hong Kong government developed a scientific checklist for teachers to

identify students with learning difficulty in primary one (Appendix 3). The checklist

was designed by educational psychologists (Education Manpower Bureau, 2004). The

Checklist’s Short Form includes 30 items covers the area of assessing the students’

Chinese, English, Mathematics and self-care abilities. The checklist was valid (p

< .001) and reliable (r > .70) in identifying primary one (P. 1) students with moderate

and severe learning difficulties. After accessing the students with the checklist, the

well-trained staffs from Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) would administer

Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (1980’s version) and criterion-referenced

27

attainment tests for Chinese and Mathematics to those students appeared to have

learning difficulties identified by the checklist. Except for accessing P.1 students,

Raven’ Progressive Matrices is also used to confirm those students who have

backward academic attainment but average intelligence and are intellectually fit to

follow ordinary school curriculum. Students who score poorly in the second

procedure would subsequently tested with Hong Kong Wechsler Intelligence Scale for

Children (1986’s version) by educational psychologists in order to check they are

dyslexia or not. All tests used by EMB staffs are standardized in Hong Kong with a

local norm (Lau, 1995).

Students showing moderate learning difficulties in the checklist would have the

opportunity to get remedial teaching in ordinary schools.

2.2.4 Remedial teaching

As stated by Golby and Gulliver (1985), there is an increase in numbers of

children with less marked or no clearly definable impediments but learning is a

difficulty in ordinary schools for them in British. Provision of education through

delegation to schools for these children is commonly regarded as “remedial

education”. Edwards (1985) believed the term “remedial education” was unclear to its

precise meaning, especially using “education” instead of “teaching”, it became more

vague and confuse.

28

Golby and Gulliver (1985) described different practice of remedial teaching.

Within schools, remedial teaching may be in full- or part-time classes, or to groups of

children extracted regularly from normal classes. For full-time classes, a whole

curriculum is normally offered; whereas in extraction groups, the focus is usually on

the basics. Teaching content of remedial class may be stem directly from the

curriculum, or having no relationship with the mainstream curriculum. Pupils may

ease to receive remedial education as they reach a certain standard level.

According to Hong Kong Board of Education Sub-committee on Special

Education (1996), remedial education or teaching has been offered in primary schools

since 1983 as a means to help LD students in mainstream schools. In 1995/96

academic year, there were 489 remedial classes (the following will refer this kind of

remedial teaching as “old-mode” to differentiate with the “new-mode”) operated in

304 schools but there was a significant shortfall in remedial classes due to schools’

reluctance to operate remedial classes even students had been identified in need.

Many schools preferred to weed off the weak students to other schools with remedial

classes, so that it would affect their reputation to attract P. 1 entrants (Hong Kong

Board of education Sub-committee on special education, 1996). Additional resources

was provided in the form of an enhancement of the teacher : class ratio (1.1:1 to 1.2:1).

Education Department reviewed remedial teaching in 1988 and believed the remedial

29

teaching could help students of lower ability to regain interest towards and build up

their confidence at the same time (Hong Kong Board of education Sub-committee on

special education, 1996). Government have provided a spectrum on intensive

remedial services to integrated LD students in regular schools, these included

remedial classes, resource classes, resource teaching centers, adjustment units and

peripatetic teaching service. However, the effectiveness of remedial teaching within

the school system received lots of critics (Education and Manpower Bureau, 2005,

December). From 2003/2004 onwards, the government initiated a new funding mode

scheme which involved whole-school approach to support for SEN students. Schools

under new-mode were offered a grant according to the number of SEN students. The

schools had a great autonomy to deploy and enhance suitable services for SEN

students. Practice of remedial teaching under new-mode varies among schools. There

is no updated information reflecting how schools provide new-mode services. To the

writer’s knowledge, school would usually prefer provide tutoring classes outside

normal school time-table for SEN students. In 2006/2007, there were 292 schools

using this new approach to provide remedial services for SEN students, within these

schools, some include both old-mode and new-mode (Education and Manpower

Bureau, 2006).

In operating the old-mode remedial classes, schools with 8 or more students in

30

need of intensive remedial services could operate remedial class, each class

accommodates 8 to 15 students. These students are withdrawn from various classes

for intensive remedial help for some or all lessons in one or more of the three basic

subjects but remain in their own classes for other subjects; some schools would

choose to operate remedial classes outside normal time-table hours. The remedial

class teachers would collaborate with ordinary teachers to review the remedial class

students’ learning progress. Students who can cope with ordinary class pace are

allowed to join their own classes (Hong Kong Board of education Sub-committee on

special education, 1996). For the purpose of the present study, the paper would focus

on the remedial teaching in primary school.

2.3 Recent studies on self-concept and remedial teaching

Studies about self-concept and learning disability children has begun since the

mid-1970s in western (Chapman, 1988) but not much focused on learning difficulties.

Research always found that students with learning disability often held low

self-concepts (Houck, 1984; Lerner, 1985; Mercer, 1987). Chapman (1988) reviewed

21 research relating to the self-concepts of learning disability children to see if there

was an empirical basis for claiming that learning disabled students had lower

self-concept than “normally” achieving students. Results showed that decrements

were apparent by Grade 3, the negative impact of low academic achievement of

31

self-concept was greater than the impact on general self-concept. The more recent

study investigating self-concept of LD adolescents by Núñez et al. (2005) supported

Champ’s conclusion. 173 LD and non-LD students aged 9 to 14 years old were

invited, their self-concepts were accessed using SDQ-1. Results showed that LD

students held a more negative general self-concept and specific self-concepts as

increase in age than those non-LD students.

One of the concerns about remedial class is grouping the bottom group students

has an adverse effect on pupils’ self-concept (Oakes, 1985). Oakes argued that

students in low ability group (remedial class for the present study) obtained a negative

self-concept as years go by and they tended to doubt about their ability. Studies found

that schools streaming pupils tended to labelled and stereotyped according to the

streaming (Metz, 1983; Page, 1992; Schwartz, 1981). Labelling, stigmatisation in

school have the potential to influence pupils’ self-perception (Ireson & Hallam, 2001).

Ireson and Hallam executed a research to explore the rationale given to pupils due to

the ability grouping effect. They concluded that ability group had an impact on

students’ academic self-concept. When students’ academic self-concept was

considered, boys had a positive self-concept on mathematics and science while girls

were more confident in English.

There are few studies on the relationship of self-concept and remedial teaching.

32

Study by Leung, Wong and Lee (1999) using case study method to explore the

situation of remedial teaching in primary schools. They found the most bottomed

students needed to study the three basic subjects outside ordinary classes, however,

due to constraints in the arrangement of number of lessons, they usually could receive

only two main subjects for remedial classes. They still could not catch up with

ordinary class students. As stated previously, academic achievement affected

students’ self-concept, remedial class students would thus possess a lower

self-concept than normal class students.

Ting (1996) examined self-concepts of 280 primary 5 to 6 students in Hong Kong.

Within the sample, there were 44 pupils received old-mode remedial teaching. Ting

used SDQ-1 and Three-Statement-Test to access the self-concepts of the students. He

reported consistent finding with Marsh’s finding when applying SDQ-1 to Hong Kong

Primary 5 to 6 students. Ting (1996) found positive and significant correlation of

Shavelson’s (1976) conceptual framework with SDQ-1. Moreover, the study pointed

out that the self-concept of students with LD had a lower academic self-concept.

However, LD students showed no significant differences in the non-academic

self-concept and general self-concept scores when comparing with non-LD students.

LD males had a higher score than LD females in Physical and Mathematics

self-concept; while LD female scored higher on Reading and Global self-concept than

33

the male in remedial classes.

Generally speaking, as mentioned above self-concept plays a significant role in

children, especially LD students. The effects of grouping LD students together in

certain subjects on their self-concept are not well-documented; and the study on the

effects of new-mode to this group of students is still lacking.

2.4 Research Hypotheses

To facilitate this research study, the following hypotheses have been established:

(1) The global self-concept score of students in remedial classes should be

lower than their counterparts in regular classes.

(2) The total non-academic self-concept score of students in remedial classes

should be lower than students in regular classes.

(3) The total academic self-concept score of students in remedial classes

should be lower than students in regular classes.

(4) The global self-concept score of primary four students in remedial class

should be lower than primary two students in remedial classes.

(5) The Physical Abilities self-concept of male students in remedial classes

should be higher than female students in remedial classes.

(6) The Mathematics self-concept of male students in remedial classes should

be higher than female students in remedial classes.

34

(7) The Reading self-concept of female students in remedial classes should be

higher than male students in remedial classes.

(8) The multi-dimensions of self-concept of Shavelson’s (1976) framework

should correlate with the global self-concept and self-concept components

of Marsh’s (1990a) SDQ-I.

Chapter 3 : Methodology

3.1 Participants

There were 245 participants including 123 primary two (P.2) students and 122

primary four (P.4) students with 131 males and 114 females from a public primary

school in Hong Kong.. Of the P.2 students, 70 were male and_53 were female. There

were 61 P.4 males and 61 P.4 females. Within the sample, there are 34 P.2 students

identified as LD students and eight P.4 students identified as LD students who are

receiving different modes of remedial class. Their age ranges from 7 to 11 years old,

the average age is 8.3. P.2 and P.4 are chosen as the target sample in the present study,

it is because P.2 LD students are receiving new-mode remedial teaching whereas P.4

LD students are receiving old-mode remedial teaching.

The present study investigated one specific primary school in order to study

consistent mode of teaching. The participants came from similar socio-economic

background mainly from lower-class families. For P.2 LD students, they were

35

classified according to their ability to receive different remedial classes, including

Chinese wordings, Chinese languages communication and English phonetics, after

school everyday. Another characteristic of the sample was that P.4 was streamed

according to their academic performance, the P.4 LD students were at the lowest

streamed class; while P.2 was not streamed.

3.2 Instrument

Marsh (1990b) developed SDQ-I to test the Shavelson et al. (1976) model and was

employed for the present study. The Chinese version of SDQ-I which has been

translated by the Chinese Language Institute in Beijing would be adopted. The

Chinese version was translated into Chinese by the usual translation-back translation

method (Watkins and Dong, 1994). The internal consistency (median α =.84) and

reliability within-construct (factor) validity (all convergent validities were statistically

significant at .01 level) of SDQ-I and the underlying Shavelson’s model (using factor

analysis loadings, all 18 target loadings exceeded .49) was supported for the use of

Chinese version SDQ-I for Beijing grades 3 to 6 students (Watkins et al., 1995). Lo

(1989) and Chung and Watkins (1992) have also demonstrated the reliability and

factor validity of Chinese versions of the SDQ-I for Hong Kong secondary students. It

should be noted that SDQ-I has been used for Hong Kong primary students with LD

and proven to be valid and reliable in Ting’s (1996) study but it is the first time to

36

execute such young group (age 7 to 9) with learning difficulties in Hong Kong.

The SDQ-I consists of 76 items assessing academic and non-academic

self-concepts (Marsh, 1990b). The original version includes 12 negatively worded

items, Marsh (1986b) showed that children had trouble in responding these items.

Moreover, Watkins et al. (1995) concluded that there was little evidence for an

underlying confounding general factor such as social desirability in their study using

Chinese version SDQ-I. Thus, the 12 negatively worded items will not be included in

calculation but will retain to disrupt positive response biases. The students respond to

each of the items along a five-point scale: 1=false; 2=mostly false; 3=sometimes

false/sometimes true; 4=mostly true; 5=true. High scores indicate high self-concept.

The eight factors are described as follows (Marsh, n. d.):

(1) Physical abilities (AP): Student ratings of their skills and interest in sports,

games and physical activities.

(2) Physical appearance (PH): Student ratings of their physical attractiveness,

how their appearance compares with others, and how others think they look.

(3) Parent relations (PA): Student ratings of how well they get along with their

parents, whether they like their parents, and the quality of their interactions

with their parents.

(4) Peer relations (PE): Student ratings of their popularity with peers, how

37

easily they make friends, and whether others want them as a friend.

(5) Reading (RE): Student ratings of their skills, ability, enjoyment and interest

in reading.

(6) Mathematics (MA): Student ratings of their skills, ability, enjoyment and

interest in mathematics.

(7) General-school (SS): Student ratings of their skills, ability, enjoyment and

interest in school subjects in general.

(8) General-self (GE): Student ratings of themselves as effective, capable

individuals, who are proud and satisfied with the way they are.

The first four factors, AP, PH, PA and PE, are added together to obtain total

non-academic self-concept score (NASC) while RE, MA and SS scales can be added

up to acquire the total academic self-concept score (ASC). When adding all the seven

factor scores to GE, a global self-concept score (GSC) can be obtained. The score

contains positive items only.

3.3 Data Collection

Eight primary three students receiving old-mode remedial class in the target

school were invited to do the pilot questionnaire. Students were informed by the

writer about the use of the questionnaires verbally. The researcher read out every item

for them in classroom. The students finished within 25 minutes and showed no

38

difficulties in understanding and completing the questionnaire.

The writer distributed the questionnaires to P.2 and P.4 students during teachers’

lessons in mid-January 2007. Participants were being notified of the brief objective of

the study, and they were informed that their information was for statistical use only.

The writer read out every question and collected the questionnaires as soon as they

have finished.

3.4 Data analysis

Findings obtained was analysed with statistical programme SPSS. T-test was

employed in the present study to test the significance of the result.

Chapter 4 : Results

This chapter reported and summarized the findings of the study. It also justified

the hypotheses of the study.

4.1 Demographic characteristics of the sample

A total of 245 valid questionnaires were administered to P.2 and P.4 primary

school students in the same school with no missing data. The following tables

presented the distribution of participants’ sex, age, class type.

Table 1 Sex of participants Frequency Percentage (%) Male 131 53.5 Female 114 46.5 Total 245 100

39

Table 2 Age of participants Frequency Percentage (%) 7 84 34.3 8 34 13.9 9 100 40.8 10 23 9.4 11 4 1.6 Total 245 100 Table 3 Class type of participants Frequency Percentage (%) Cumulative percentage (%) P.2 remedial class (Rc) 34 13.9 13.9 P.2 regular class (Ec) 89 36.3 50.2 P.4 remedial class 8 3.3 53.5 P.4 Regular class 114 46.5 100 Total 245 100 100

4.2 Mean self-concept of remedial and normal classes

A comparison of means of specific scales and global self-concepts has been made

between the students of Rc and Ec (see Table 4).

From Table 4, the mean score of global self-concept of Rc students was lower

than Ec students (M =186.02, SD = 41.45 & M = 190.06, SD = 37.78). Although the

difference did not reach significant level, (t (244) = -.62, p = .536, n. a.) it did show a

difference between self-concept score students in Rc and Ec, and confirmed

hypothesis 1 that global self-concept score of students in remedial classes was lower

than their classmates in regular class. Moreover, the non-academic self-concept score

40

Table 4 Mean, SD of participants’ self-concept

Rc students (N=42) Ec students (N=203) Overall (N=245) Self-concept component M SD M SD M SD Physical Appearance 25.10 8.27 24.81 7.56 24.86 7.67 Physical Abilities 29.19 6.42 28.23 6.61 28.39 6.58 Parent relations 29.67 7.26 30.78 6.65 30.59 6.75 Peer relations 24.00 8.87 26.30 8.12 25.90 8.28 General-school 23.48 7.33 25.80 7.46 25.40 7.47 Reading 25.69 7.98 25.90 7.91 25.87 7.90 Mathematics 28.05 8.35 28.25 9.05 28.21 8.92 General-self 24.33 7.87 25.80 7.03 25.55 7.19 Non-academic self-concept 107.95 24.71 110.11 21.37 109.74 21.84 Academic self-concept 78.07 19.91 79.95 18.99 79.62 19.12 Global self-concept 186.02 41.45 190.06 37.78 189.37 38.38

of Rc students was lower than Ec students (M = 107.95, SD =24.71 & M = 110.11, SD

= 21.37), hypothesis 2 was confirmed that the total non-academic self-concept score

of students in remedial class was lower than students in regular classes. Though the

difference was statistically non-significant (t (244) = -.58, p = .562, n. a.), it had a

difference in the mean score. In addition, the academic self-concept score of Rc

students was lower than Ec students (M = 78.07, SD = 19.91 & M = 79.62, SD =

19.12). The result was not significant (t (244) = -.578, p = .564, n. a.), the difference

in mean score could also support hypothesis 3, that the total academic self-concept

score of students in remedial class was lower than students in regular classes.

It should be noted that the self-concept score on each specific scale ranges from a

minimum of 8 to a maximum of 40, therefore, the specific mean self-concept scores

above the mid-point value of 24 indicates a higher self-concept whereas scores below

41

24 implies a lower self-concept within the sample. Besides, the mean score of Ec

students in each scale scored above 24 which meant a higher self-concept. While the

score of Rc was generally higher than 24 except general-school (mean = 23.48, SD =

7.33) which was the greatest difficulty for LD students to achieve in competitive

schooling.

In comparing the self-concept scores of Rc and Ec in specific scales, Ec students

had higher self-concept scores than students in Rc, except for physical appearance and

abilities. Both groups had the highest specific self-concept in parent relations; Rc

students scored the lowest in general-school whereas Ec students scored lowest in

physical appearance. In order to explore the difference in self-concept score at

different primary level, a comparison had been made in Table 5.

4.3 Comparison of P.2 and P.4 participants’ mean self-concept scores

From Table 5, the non-academic self-concept, academic self-concept and global

self-concept mean scores of P.2 students in Rc and Ec were higher than P.4 students in

Rc and Ec. This supported studies showing ageing effect in self-concept for students

(Marsh et al., 1984; Marsh & Craven, 1997). By comparing the score of Rc students,

P.2 Rc students had higher self-concept scores in all areas than P.4 Rc students

including global self-concept (M = 191.82, SD = 41.67 & M = 161.38, SD = 31.96),

hypothesis 4, stating that the global self-concept score of P.4 students in Rc was lower

42

than P.2 Rc, was justified (t (41) = 1.93, p = .061, n. a.).

The mean score of each subscales for P.2, either Rc or Ec had a value above 24,

which meant that all P.2 participants had a higher self-concept. And P.2 Ec had higher

scores in most of the subscale scores than Rc students, except for physical abilities. In

fact, Rc and Ec students had very close scores, under 1, in the physical appearance

Table 5 Comparison of the self-concept score of Rc and Ec participants in two primary levels

P.2 Rc (N=34) P.2 Ec (N=89) P.2 P.4Rc (N=8) P.4 Ec (N=114) P.4 Self-concept component

M (Mr2)

SD M (Me2)

SD Me2- Mr2

M (Mr4)

SD M (Me4)

SD Xe4- Mr4

Physical Appearance

26.24 7.89 27.22 7.44 .98 20.25 8.60 22.92 7.13 2.67

Physical Abilities

29.94 5.87 29.83 5.63 -0.11 26.00 8.04 26.97 7.06 .97

Parent relations

30.15 7.48 32.70 5.68 2.55 27.63 6.26 26.29 6.98 -1.34

Peer relations

24.91 9.15 27.45 8.28 2.54 20.13 6.73 25.39 7.92 5.26

General- school

24.41 7.36 28.62 7.18 4.21 19.50 6.09 23.60 6.93 4.1

Reading 27.00 8.12 29.19 7.58 2.19 20.13 4.32 23.33 7.22 3.2

Mathe- matics

28.41 8.69 31.08 8.36 2.67 26.50 7.00 26.04 8.98 -0.46

General-self 25.18 8.06 26.85 6.87 1.67 20.75 6.25 24.97 7.07 4.22

Non- academic self-concept

111.24 24.70 117.20 20.51 5.96 94.00 20.63 104.58 20.45 10.58

Academic self-concept

80.59 20.40 87.12 17.74 6.53 67.38 14.05 74.34 18.09 6.96

Global self-concept

191.82 41.67 204.33 35.91 12.51 161.38 31.96 178.92 35.52 17.54

43

and physical abilities, which reflected Rc students were comparable in this area. For

P.4 Rc students, they had lower self-concept scores in physical appearance, physical

abilities, peer relations, general-school, reading and general-self than P.4 Ec students.

Rc students had very close score with Ec students in the area of parent relations and

Mathematics, which showed that both groups had similar self-concept in these

domains.

Among the specific scales of P.2 and P.4 Rc students, the highest score was parent

relations (M = 30.15, SD = 7.48 & M = 27.63, SD = 6.26); which was similar to the

findings of Fung (1993), Kemp (1993) and Ting (1996). While for P.2 and P.4 Ec

students, the highest scores were parent relations (M = 32.7, SD = 5.68) and physical

abilities (M = 26.97, SD = 7.06) respectively. The lowest scores for P.2 and P.4 Rc

students was general-school (M = 24.41, SD = 7.36 & M = 19.5, SD = 6.09

respectively); whilst the lowest scores for P.2 and P.4 Ec students were general self (M

= 26.85, SD = 6.87) and reading (M = 23.33, SD = 7.22) respectively.

In addition, the mean differences between Rc and Ec students were also presented

to compare the discrepancy between Rc and Ec students in the two primary levels.

Results showed that the discrepancy became larger (the difference between the two

mean differences more than two points) in some domains (parent relations, peer

relations, Mathematics, general self, nonacademic self-concept and global

44

self-concept) as age increased. In these specific scales, P. 4 students had negative

values in parent relations (mean difference = -1.34) and Mathematics (mean

difference = -.46) showing that the P.4 Ec students had lower parent relation and

general-self self-concept scores than P.4 Rc students.

To examine the effects of gender on different components, mean scores of both

sexes were compared.

4.4 Gender effect on mean self-concept score of participants in remedial and normal classes

From Table 6, male Rc students tended to have higher mean self-concept score in

physical abilities than female Rc students (M = 30.32, SD = 5.65 & M = 26.93, SD =

7.44). Therefore, hypothesis 5, physical abilities self-concept of male student in Rc

was higher than female students in Rc, was justified (t (41) = 1.649, p = 1.07, n. a.).

Except physical abilities, male Rc students also scored higher in Mathematics than

female Rc students (M = 28.96 & M =26.21) and thus hypothesis 6, that mathematics

self-concept of male students in Rc was higher than female student in Rc, was also

justified (t (41) = 1.01, p = .32, n. a.). This phenomenon also occurred among students

in regular classes.

For the score of reading, the female Rc students had higher mean score than male

Rc students (M = 27.29, SD = 6.15 & M =24.89, SD = 8.75), thus hypothesis 7, that

reading self-concept of female students in Rc was higher than male students in Rc,

45

was justified (t (41) = -.914, p =.366, n. a.). This effect was even more obvious in the

Ec group.

In general, male Rc had higher academic self-concept, non-academic self-concept

and global self-concept than female Rc participants; whereas male Ec students had

higher score in academic self-concept and global self-concept than female Ec

students.

4.5 Correlations among the multi-dimensional facets of the self-concept of

remedial class students

The multi-dimensional framework purported by Shavelson et al. (1976) correlated

significantly with components of Marsh’s (1990a) SDQ-I. Table 7 showed the

correlation for the remedial class students. Result suggested that physical appearance

(r = .892**), physical abilities (r = .625**), parent relations (r = .783**) and peer

relations (r = .861**) self-concepts of remedial students were all highly and

significantly correlated with nonacademic self-concept score. Besides, self-concept of

reading (r = .838**), Mathematics (r = .718**) and general-school (r = .861**) were

highly and significantly correlated with academic self-concept. For general-self, it

was correlated with both nonacademic (r = .755**) and academic self-concept (r

= .917**), with higher correlation to academic self-concept.

In sum, the self-concept component correlated highly and significantly with each

other, the multi-dimensionality of self-concept framework suggested by Shavelson et

46

Table 6 Comparison of sex differences of the self-concept score of students in remedial and regular classes

Rc Male (N=28) Rc Female (N=14) Ec Male (N=103) Ec Female (N=100) Self-concept component

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Physical Appearance

25.32 8.35 24.64 8.41 24.19 7.65 25.44 7.44

Physical Abilities

30.32 5.65 26.93 7.44 29.33 6.56 27.09 6.50

Parent relations

30.07 7.66 28.86 6.57 30.23 6.79 31.35 6.48

Peer relations

24.32 9.78 23.36 7.00 25.96 8.05 26.64 8.22

General- school

22.75 7.54 24.93 6.94 25.43 7.84 26.18 7.06

Reading 24.89 8.75 27.29 6.15 24.49 7.60 37.36 8.01

Mathe- matics

28.96 9.02 26.21 6.73 30.67 8.17 25.75 9.27

General-self 24.43 8.38 24.14 7.04 25.74 7.32 25.86 6.75

Non- academic self-concept

110.04 24.68 103.79 25.17 109.72 22.25 110.52 20.53

Academic self-concept

78.29 21.36 77.64 17.37 80.89 18.47 78.97 19.55

Global self-concept

188.32 42.59 181.43 40.22 190.61 38.32 189.49 37.40

al. (1976) was justified in applying to very young student receiving remedial services.

Therefore, hypothesis 8, stating that multi-dimensions of self-concept of Shavelson’s

(1976) framework correlated with the global self-concept and self-concept

components of Marsh’s (1990a) SDQ-I, was supported.

47

Table 7 Correlations among multi-dimensional facets of the self-concept of remedial class students

AP PH PA PE SS RE MA GE NASC ASC GSC AP 1 .478** .594** .721** .611** .634** .290 .751** .892** .673** .855** PH 1 .293 .331* .270 .329* .179 .391* .625** .362* .546** PA 1 .596** .398** .460** .287 .506** .783** .505** .709** PE 1 .505** .638** .371* .761** .861** .712** .855** SS 1 .796** .599** .735** .573** .861** .755** RE 1 .281 .808** .622** .838** .755** MA 1 .471** .361* .718** .797** GE 1 .755** .917** .560** NASC 1 .723** .943** ASC 1 .911** GSC 1

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2 tailed). * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2 tailed)

4.6 Internal Consistency Estimates for remedial class students

In this part, attempts were made to investigate the internal consistency

reliabilities of the eight SDQ-I self-concept components. Table 8 showed the internal

consistency coefficients for the Rc students and all participants in the present study.

The coefficient alphas for the eight scales of Rc students varied from .663 to .859

(median = .812), which was comparable to Malaysian sample, r = .81 (Kan, 1993).

And the coefficient alphas for the whole sample varied from .695 to .917 (median

= .86), which was the same as Australian sample (Kan, 1993). The global self-concept

was highly reliable for Rc students (r = .952).

Among the eight scales, the score of physical abilities was exceptionally low

48

either in Rc students (r = .663) and the whole sample (r = .695). To explore whether

there were any questionable items, item-total statistics were examined. Table 9

showed that there were few questionable items in this scale, that correlation was

Table 8 Internal consistency coefficients for Rc students and the whole sample in the present study

Self-concept component Crobach’s Alpha (Rc students) Crobach’s Alpha (all studnets) Physical Appearance .834 .852 Physical Abilities .663 .695 Parent relations .798 .803 Peer relations .859 .874 General-school .783 .859 Reading .730 .864 Mathematics .853 .917 General-self .826 .830 Global self-concept .952 .955

under .3, they were PH24, PH40, PH56 and PH64. If the first three items were

deleted, the value of Crobach’s alpha increased. To see if there was any effects if the

items were deleted, the above 4 items was deleted and processed again, significant

result was found for Rc students’ global self-concept (t (41) = -2.006, p = .047,

2-tailed).

In order to explore how the participants view on the four questionable items,

seven interviews were arranged. The interviews were structured and conducted by the

writer; details of the participants’ response would be presented in the discussion part

49

(see Appendix 4).

Table 9 Corrected item-total correlations for physical abilities scale for Rc students Corrected item-total correlation Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted PH03 .520 .605 PH10 .536 .580 PH24 .150 .674 PH32 .489 .596 PH40 .212 .664 PH48 .440 .609 PH56 .250 .660 PH64 .276 .655

Chapter 5 : Discussion

In this chapter, a review of the reasons of the research was presented followed by

summary of findings and implications.

5.1 Reviewing the purpose and significance of study

The Hong Kong government suggested a new funding mode program in 2003 so

as to provide another choice for primary schools to support students with LD. Schools

using the new funding mode required to provide support services for LD students who

were not served by the old-mode remedial classes. Parents and public concerned also

about the effectiveness of old-mode remedial classes in raising students’ academic

result and self-concept. Ireson & Hallam (2001) claimed that ability group would

create labelling effect on LD students, affecting their self-perceptions. The new

funding mode allowed schools to deploy new-mode remedial classes for students with

50

LD. However, there was no study about the effectiveness about the new-mode

remedial services. The present study was significant in exploring the effectiveness of

new-mode remedial classes, by comparing the self-concept of students in different

modes of remedial classes. It was hoped that more attention could be drawn to the

needs of students studying in remedial classes.

5.2 Summary of findings and implications

5.2.1 Construct validity of the SDQ-I for the use of students in remedial class

For the present study, it was believed to be the first time to employ SDQ-I to these

very young children (ages 7-11) with LD studying remedial class in Hong Kong

context. Therefore, it was important to explore the validity and reliability of SDQ-I in

the present study. Result showed that the self-concept component correlated highly

and significantly with each other, the multi-dimensionality of self-concept framework

suggested by Shavelson et al. (1976) was justified in this study. However, there were

some questionable items that needed further exploring.

The Chinese and English versions of the four questionable items, PH24, PH 40,

PH56, PH64, were reviewed. They were physical abilities self-concept. PH24 was “I

enjoy sports and games.” PH40 was “I am good at sports.” PH56 was “I am a good

athlete.” And PH64 was “I am good at throwing a ball.” The writer believed that

51

students might have different interpretations for the items due to their knowledge and

experience in sports, games and physical activities.

In a LegCo panel meeting on Education (1999), the members of Hong Kong

legislative council members discussed the issues on physical education in schools.

Hong Kong legislative council members questioned whether the Education

Department had considered provided more resources on physical education subject, to

plan and improve the inadequate space for Hong Kong schools or not. The

government officer replied that “because of constraints in land resources, it was

difficult to provide physical education facilities of international standards in schools”

(LegCo panel meeting on Education, 1999, para. 5, line2). Insufficient space in

primary schools creates problems, students are instructed not to run in the playground,

otherwise they would be punished by standing or sitting aside. Moreover, there are

only two 35-minutes Physical Education lessons per week in Hong Kong primary

schools. Under Hong Kong primary curriculum, Physical Education is perceived as a

minor subject. Yuen (1984) found that the low regard for physical education was one

of the main factors on that limited the physical education development in Hong Kong.

Moreov