SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT: SELF-EFFICACY, ANXIETY, AGGRESSION AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION 1

Franz Riffert, Andreas Paschon & Jörg Sams: Schooldevelopment

57

SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT: SELF-EFFICACY, ANXIETY, AGGRESSION AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION1

Franz Riffert2, Andreas Paschon & Jörg Sams3

After providing an outline of the educational policy in Austria (1.) in the first major part of the paper an overview is given about the basic concept of the MSS (Module approach to Self-evaluation of School developmental projects) (2.). The MSS approach was developed as a situation-specific evaluation tool which en-ables it to adapt evaluation projects to situation-specific demands while at the same time adhering to the standards of scientific research. The nine major steps for conducting an MSS project properly are outlined in the next section (3.). In the forth chapter (4.) the value of this approach is exemplified by showing its capacity for making a possible scientifically reliable assessment of psychological health aspects within school-development projects. To do so, the theoretical concept of self-efficacy is selected and its relation to psycho-social health con-cepts such as anxiety, aggression and social integration are explored on the basis of the data derived from one of the schools which had implemented an MSS evaluation. It is shown that in conformity with theoretical expectation, there are negative correlations between self-efficacy on the one side and anxiety and ag-gression on the other; social integration and self-efficacy correlate positively.

1. Increased Possibilities for School Development and the Necessity for Evaluation In most OECD countries it has been realized that the influence of fast socio-political changes in society and the rapid innovative process in the technological field on the school system cannot adequately be managed effectively by a central school authority. Such traditional, input orientated management of the school system is not only too slow but also not sensitive enough for the special challenges individual schools have to face in an increasingly diversified and accelerated socio-cultural environment. To overcome this problem in Austria, for instance, legal steps have been taken to increase the possibilities for each school to develop their own statement of mission and corresponding school program. In doing so the Austrian Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs allows each school to develop their own mission statement according to their own unique situation. The schools, i.e. according to the Austrian law: the so-called ‘school-partners’ i.e. school body, namely the teachers, parents and students, have been granted the option to change one third of the curriculum and adjust it to their own needs and potential. The other two third of the teaching contents are still prescribed by an obligatory curriculum in order to secure a basic standards in education. These so-called core contents aim at securing a common basic standard for all Austrian schools and thereby keeping open the possibility for students to change schools without major problems. Also the curriculum of each subject can be modified to a great extent and even new subjects, never taught before, can be introduced by the school partners. To some extent priority can be given to certain aspects of the curriculum and even new contents can be introduced, while others may be reduced or even abolished. The other two thirds of the

1 A shorter version of this paper will be published in: Astleitner Hermann (Ed.): (2005). School Development. Focusing on Emotional Factors and General Skills. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. 2 Department of Educational Research and Cultural Sociology, University of Salzburg, Akademiestraße 26, A-5020 Salzburg; For contacts: [email protected]; For more information on the MSS: www.sbg.ac.at/mss/ 3 Department of Teacher Training, University of Salzburg, Akademiestraße 26, A-5020 Salzburg.


58

contents taught are still prescribed by an obligatory curriculum in order to secure basic standards in education. These so-called core contents aim at securing a common basic standard for all Austrian schools and thereby keeping open the possibility for students to change schools without major problems.

This flexibility, of course, has to be counter-balanced by the necessity to make sure that the implemented changes indeed reach or at least approach the underlying aims and to identify possible negative side effects, not foreseen when the implementation was planned and introduced. In order to meet this requirement, evaluation has to be conducted with assessment techniques which meet the scientific measurement standards such as objectivity, validity and reliability. Currently teachers are not – neither in Austria, nor to our knowledge elsewhere in the world – trained to develop their own evaluation techniques according to these scientific standards, nor do they have the time to do so. The great majority of them also lack the theoretical and statistical background knowledge necessary for such developmental work. Also, they usually do not have a comprehensive knowledge of already existing assessment methods, nor do they have the necessary expertise to judge reliably whether the available instruments fit their purpose. It cannot be assumed that they would have been taught the skills required to conduct such tests according to scientific standards. In addition, most of them would not be able to reliably interpret the results obtained.

So we seem to arrive at a basic dilemma: on the one side external standardized testing does not do justice to the unique situation of schools which have developed their own profiles; this means that, although it provides objective, valid and reliable data, this data is to a large extent irrelevant to the unique challenges the single school faces. On the other hand those who know their school – the teachers, but also the parents and the students – are not able to design adequate measurement tools for their own school; so their ‘self-made’ measurement tools, if developed at all, would provide relevant information but not reliable data. Any attempt to change our environment, and certainly the environments of our children i.e. our schools, on questionable or even unreliable data has to be ruled out on ethical grounds: “The moral is that practical wants – such as personell training and selection – should not be allowed to force the construction of ‘technologies’ without an underlying science.” (Bunge 1967, 145)

The MSS-concept was developed to overcome this dilemma between scientific reliability and practical relevance. In what follows we shall first give a very brief outline of the basic concept of the MSS and then will indicate how this concept can be used – among many other possibilities - for preventive psychological health management in schools. 2. The MSS Concept The MSS takes seriously Whitehead’s point that the school is the essential educational unit: „When I say that school is the educational unit, I mean exactly what I say, no larger unit, no smaller unit. Each school must have the claim to be considered in relation to its special circumstances. The classifying of schools for some purposes is necessary. But no absolutely rigid curriculum, not modified by its stuff, should be permissible.“ (Whitehead, 1929/1967, 14) Klieme, Baumert and Schwippert have put similarly: “The single school is the focus and the action unit of the quality development in the educational system.” (E. Klieme, J. Baumert & K. Schwippert, 2000, 387 our translation) Conforming to these demands the MSS was designed to be flexible enough to do justice to the different circumstances in each school (i.e. their statements of mission and their school programs). Even further, the MSS is based on an intimate cooperation between the school-based experts (the teachers, parents and students) on the one side and the scientific experts on the other. So far the MSS has been applied in ten


59

Austrian schools and its concept has been developed further on the basis of the feedback from the expert-practitioners of the schools involved.4

In what follows, I will explain step by step the major elements of the MSS-concept which are presented in Table 1.

Modul Approach to Self-Evaluationof School Development Projects© 2000 University Salzburg Riffert&Paschon

• Modul Approach (Modulpool – Items/Statements - Scales)

• Self-Evaluation (Motivation, STP-Consensus)

• School Development (Individuality/Schoolspecificity)• Multiperspectivity (Students, Teachers, Parents – School Partnership)• Anonymity (Individual Persons, Single Schools)• Comprehensive Data Collection (Everybody gets the Opportunity to

Contribute)• Analysis of Discrepances (Is[fact]-Ought[ideal]-Comparison, Strengths-

Weaknesses-Profile)• Aims (Definitions and Evaluation of Achievement (Interventions))• Quantitative & Qualitative Aspects (Closed and Open Questions)• Cross Section Analysis (Flashlight)• Longitudinal Analysis (Measurement of Changes)• Comparison between Schools, possible, but not intended (System Level)• Synergy (University – School - Family)

Table 1: Basic elements of the MSS-Concept

The core idea of the MSS-approach is to solve the dilemma, indicated above, by a module conception. At its heart there is a module-pool. This module-pool contains modules ranging from single statements up to elaborated inventories and validated, reliable scales as for instance on test anxiety, self-efficacy convictions, social and moral competencies, tasks of international achievement studies such as TIMSS and PISA, a leadership practice inventory, teacher-parents interaction, metaphor module, … At the moment the MSS consists of about 150 modules plus many more sub-modules.

The MSS is an instrument for self or internal evaluation and not for external evaluation (i.e. initiated and conducted from outside the school). This means: (1) the initiative for an evaluation must come from the individual school (without any external pressure); (2) The expert knowledge of the school-partners (teachers, parents, students) is highly valued and of primary importance. The school-partners are the experts concerning their own school and their knowledge has to be taken seriously! Also, since the schools are defined as the three groups of school partners it is obligatory for the MSS team that all three groups (teachers (T), students (S), parents (P)) must freely accept an MSS study; i.e. all three groups also must come to a freely reached conclusion concerning the modules selected.

An example may help to illustrate this point (see Picture 1): 1. The school-partners want to examine the field of educational aims. They in particular want to know how all three school-partner groups experience the aims which are in fact realized in their school and want to compare them with the ideal, i.e.

4 A more detailed presentation of the MSS-concept including many examples of application is given in: Riffert & Paschon 2004.


60

with the educational aims which they hope to achieve. That is they want to undertake an IS-OUGHT comparison on the specific aims of education of their school. 2. Furthermore some parents and the school psychologist report that there has been an accumulation of test anxiety during the last school year, while other parents and some teachers cannot confirm this impression. So the school partners discuss if they should select a scale, for instance the AFS (Wieczerkowski et al. 1980), to examine this issue of test-anxiety.

CreatingCreating a „a „SchoolspecificSchoolspecific“ “ MeasurementMeasurement--ToolTool

1.1.

AimsAims of of educationeducationISIS--OUGHT

OUGHT

2.2.

Test Test

anxietyanxiety

3. 3. Achievements

Achievements in in mathematics

mathematics((TIMSS/TIMSS/PISAPISA--tasks

tasks))

4.4.SelfSelf--Efficacy

Efficacy

9.9.

TeacherTeacher

FeedFeed--BackBack

5. 5.

Team Team workwork

6. 6. ParentalParental

Involvment

Involvment

8.8.

ReadingReadingLiteracyLiteracygrades 1&2grades 1&2(PISA)(PISA)

7.7.

HeadmasterHeadmaster: : LeadershipLeadership

Picture 1: Creating a ‘schoolspecific’ measurement tool – possible module selection for

school developmental purposes

3. The maths teachers have implemented a new method for teaching mathematics (for instance: Freudenthals method (1977, 1983)) and they now would like to know how their students are doing on PISA-tasks (which use Freudenthals theoretical concept of ‘realistic mathematics’). 4. Since it is known that self-efficacy is of major importance for achievement in the future, for physical, psychological and social health etc. (see: Bandura 1994) the school partners want to know how well developed these convictions are in their students and if there is any need to introduce steps in order to improve this area. 5. Social skills acquire increasing importance in business and at university. The school-partners decide to evaluate one aspect which is especially stressed in the statement of mission of their school, namely team-work. 6. The parents want to know how teachers and students evaluate their involvement in school activities. 7. The headmaster wants to improve his/her leadership skills and because he conceives himself as a moderator between the three groups he asks for a diagnosis from each of the three groups: colleagues, parents and students. 8. Since reading literacy belongs to the key competences and the school has a high percentage of non-native speakers, the schools-partners discuss the possibility to diagnose the situation in their school in order to be able to draw more reliable conclusions for future developments in this field.


61

9. The language teachers want to get individual feedback from their students about their teaching and on their project ‘Learning Abroad’. They insist that the results are reported only to the individual teachers but that they get the average percentage on each statement for (social but anonymous) comparison with their colleagues.

It is important at this point to note that within the MSS concept standardized testing of stu-dents` achievement, although possible, is only one aspect of the wide range of possibilities. The scope of the MSS is much broader: in principle all activities relevant the school develop-ment in its full complexity could be the subject of an MSS study. So pure concentration on student achievement (output) is avoided, and all aspects of the broad spectrum of school-life can be brought into focus by the MSS.

In principle, anyone of more than 150 modules (and even more sub-modules) could be chosen and combined to form a school-specific measurement tool. Usually the process of discussing which topic should be selected is in itself a very important activity within the school development process. The school partners at the beginning of this selection process often want to choose many topics and it is an important task of the MSS-team to warn the school not to select too many topics/modules but to focus on those contents highly relevant for their school at the time.

School-specificity: Normally school partners are not able to conduct standardized testing (i.e. scientific-technological evaluation) according to scientific and technological standards. So the MSS-team offers exactly this help: (1) The MSS-team provides a great number of different modules; each module concerns a special topic which might be of interest for a specific school and its school development program based on its statement of mission. The school-partners, on the basis of their expert knowledge of their own school, can select whatever module is relevant for their purposes; to a certain extent the MSS-team even offers the possibility to create new modules which do not yet exist but are relevant for this particular school and may later become relevant for other schools as well. So the module-pool is constantly expanding to new areas of interest. (2) The MSS-team provides help in selecting the modules from a methodological (technological) and theoretical (scientific) point of view: What does a certain scale measure? What are its limits? What further independent variables could be of interest if a certain scale has been chosen?

Multi-perspectivity: The MSS allows for multi-perspective data collection; the different perspectives of all three groups of the school partners are taken equally into account – teachers, parents and students. So the school – its strengths and deficits – can be looked at from different perspectives.

Anonymity is granted to each person taking part in the evaluation and to the school as a unit. This ensures that everybody (especially students, but also parents and teachers) can answer without any fear of meeting negative sanctions (for instance between students and teachers or teachers and colleagues). An exception is the headmaster since there is only one in each school. Furthermore, individual anonymity can be granted concerning the way the collected data is presented. Only aggregated data (mean and modal values) will be presented. If the teacher-feedback module was selected it is possible that each teacher would get only their own feedback; but of course there are more possibilities if required: so for instance the mean value of all teachers of the same subject can be calculated in order to give each teacher (teaching this subject) a social frame of reference for social comparison.

Comprehensive data collection: In order to give each person the chance to contribute his/her opinion to the school development process, the collection/measurement is not based on a sample; this also offers a possibility to analyse the selected data down to single clas1sses! The detection of, for instance, sources of violence is possible and preventory initiatives can be placed with great accuracy.

Further, the MSS allows for analysis of so-called discrepancies: (1) Discrepancies between IS and OUGHT (existing fact and aimed at ideal) can be calculated; for instance


62

concerning the educational aims of a school; or (2) discrepancies between strengths and weaknesses of the school viewed from the perspective of each school-partner could become the subject of the measurement.

Thereby the MSS makes the formulation of the aims for school development process easier: all three perspectives of the school-partners are available on IS-OUGHT dimensions; no more guessing is necessary (of what others might want or how they could see the situation etc.); therefore many possible sources of frustration can be avoided. Furthermore, the analysis of discrepancies demonstrates, in which topics there are high agreements between the three groups and therefore which would lend themselves easily to change. It also shows, in which areas there are disagreements. More discussions are necessary before any steps towards changes in these fields are meaningful.

The MSS collects quantitative as well as qualitative data. In the context of the MSS, `quantitative´ means: answers to closed (pre-formulated) questions; ‘qualitative’ on the other hand means: answers to open questions which allow a free response. Both types of data are presented to the school partners.

Cross section analysis: By any single measurement - and the MSS here is no exception - one can only obtain a kind of ‘snap shot’ of the ‘measured’ situation at a certain point in time. This certainly is a disadvantage. The distortion to which such cross-sectional ‘snap shot’ data collections may give rise, however, can and must, in fact, be counter-balanced by the experts, that is of the school partners. To give but one example: a good and competent teacher has been given a ‘difficult’ class a few weeks before the MSS measurement takes place and now gets a ‘bad’ feed back from his ‘difficult’ class. The specific situation of this teacher is well known to his colleagues, to the headmaster and to the parents; and this knowledge must counter-balance the results obtained by a cross sectional measurement at a certain point in time.

A longitudinal analysis is possible with MSS; the MSS-questionnaire etc. only has to be conducted repeatedly to gather data along different points in time. Such repeated measure-ments also contribute to correction of the possible distortions of a single measurement (‘snap shots’).

The MSS further allows, in principle and to a certain extent, for a comparison between schools. However, such comparisons were not intended by the developers of the MSS and are by no means of any primary importance: the MSS never was, nor is aiming at school rankings of any kind; comparisons may, however, be of some value in particular cases. For instance: in order to locate one’s own school in respect to other schools concerning ‘aggressive behavior’ etc. (= social criterion) a comparison with the average mean (not with other individual schools) may be of some help. However, whether the MSS is used for a comparison, remains solely to the decision of the school-partners of each school. Comparisons between single schools are refused by the MSS team because of the inherent dangers in respect to a constructive school developmental process. A further problem of such comparisons concerns the fact, that the referent for comparison, i.e. the mean value of those schools which have chosen the same module, is not representative (based on a representative sample). On the contrary, the sample is biased by the fact that maybe those schools just selected, say the module on aggression, which found this module to be relevant to their situation because they experienced a high rate of aggression. So comparisons with aggregated average results are dangerous and have – if at all – to be conducted with great caution.

Finally, the MSS was developed in order to gain synergy effects by combining the advantages of two rivalling research paradigms: ‘analytico-empirical approach’ and ‘action research’ paradigm.5 While the strengths of the analytico-empirical approach lies in its objec-tive, valid and reliable instruments, action research stresses the importance of the knowledge

5 For a discussion of the MSS-concept with special emphasis on the underlying idea of combining two educa-tional paradigms, which so far have been conceived as competing see: Riffert & Paschon 2001.


63

of the practitioners in the field: teachers, parents and students. By developing the MSS con-cept an attempt was made to combine the advantages of both paradigms, together with an immense flexibility towards situation specific measurement. 3. Conducting an MSS-Study: The Major Steps Besides the basic elements of the MSS-concept the way a MSS-study is conducted is also of major importance. This is so because it is the essential aim of the MSS-concept to bring together the expert knowledge of the scientists and of the practitioners (teachers, parents and students). In order to achieve this goal the way an MSS-study is conducted plays an important role.

In the following sections the steps presented in Picture 2 will be briefly explained.

1.

First Contact

2.Modul Selection/Pool 3.

QuestionaireS+T+P+A

4.

DataCollection

5.

StatisticalAnalysis &

Interpretation

6.

Results

(Presentation)7.

Discussion

8.InterventionImplementation

9.

Measurement of Changes

© 2000Riffert & Paschon

Picture 2: Conducting an MSS-Study – major steps

First Contact: The MSS-team usually is contacted by a school (by the headmaster or the chair of the school-development group). Since the MSS is an approach for self-evaluation the first step normally has to come from the school. Exceptions can be research projects. Second, module selection: The MSS-team visits the school and presents the MSS-conception, its strengths and limitations, and the way the MSS is implemented before each group: teachers, students and parents. (This usually takes about two hours for each group.)

After a discussion of the concept, the process of module selection starts. This discursive process can be quite time consuming but is very important, since the school partners have to discuss the situation of their school in order to be able to select the relevant modules. At the end the final questionnaire will be produced. The next step consists of data collection. Usually teachers and parents have one week to complete the questionnaire; the students do this during one or two lessons, depending on the length of the questionnaire. The questionnaires are passed to the MSS-group at the university.

The statistical calculation of the data and an analysis as well as a first interpretation of the results takes place at the university.


64

Data presentation: The results are presented by the MSS-team separately to each group so that a free discussion and feedback can take place.

The next step consists of the discussion of the results and of the interpretation offered by the MSS-team. All three groups (school-partners) take part in this discussion. Sub-groups can be built in order to split the work. On the basis of these discussions changes are planned, initiated and realized. Finally another measurement concerning the implementations has to take place in order to ensure that the changes go in the intended direction and that no unforeseen side-effects occur.

4. Possible Use: Attaining and Improving Psychological Health The following chapters illustrate the benefit of the programme (MSS) for improving psychological health with the aid of one set of data collected from an Austrian grammar school (Gymnasium). All 632 pupils were questioned. The return rate of 95% allows detailed analysis even on classroom-level so that at this point teachers, school-psychologists, super-visors and psychotherapists are able to start working on a problem-analysis and start planning interventions. In this paper we give a few examples concerning self-efficacy convictions of pupils, and their relation to topics such as aggression, fear and social integration. 4.1 Convictions with regard to Self-Efficacy One of the aims of a school is without discussion to strive for psychological health of its pupils. This implies that changes that take place in the course of school-development-projects must fulfill that aim. Consequently all modifications have to be made subordinate to the objective of maintaining and/or improving psychological health. MSS offers several possible ways to verify whether those requirements are fulfilled. One of those methods and the results of the survey in a school is described in more detail in the following section. 4.1.1 The Concept of Self-Efficacy One of the available modules of the MSS is the so-called ‘self-efficacy module’. It consists of a set of different self-efficacy scales. Bandura’s self-efficacy concept was selected by the MSS-team out of a variety of interesting control concepts – Locus of Control (Rotter 1966), Attribution Approach (Heider 1958), Learned Helplessness (Seligman 1975), Behavior-Theoretical Approach (Skinner, Chapman & Baltes 1988) – because its theoretical basis has been reflected thoroughly and it has gained innumerable empirical support during the last decades.

The concept of self-efficacy was first introduced and thoroughly theoretically analysed as well as empirically tested in the seventies by Albert Bandura (1977, pp 208ff). He developed the concept of self-efficacy to explain the success psychotherapists had with the psychothera-peutic method of systematic desensitization (Fliegel et al. 1989, 152-181). Josef Wolpe who first developed this therapeutic method (1954, 1958) attributed its effect to the mechanism of counter-conditioning: The phobic patient, who was first put into a state of relaxation using techniques of muscle relaxation or imagination (induced for instance by hypnosis), was then gradually confronted with stimuli that caused his fear and were incompatible with his ‘re-laxed’ state. By this means, counter-conditioning should be achieved which was supposed to cause a decrease of anxiety. Although the results with this method were impressive it was found soon after that ‘systematic desensitization’ showed the same positive results even with-out the introduction of relaxation. Consequently the success of the therapy couldn’t be attri-buted solely to counter-conditioning anymore. With regard to this, Bandura tried to explain the success of the treatment with the concept of self-efficacy convictions: After each step the


65

patients made on the hierarchical ‘ladder of fear’ they found that they were not helpless in the face of set stimulus anymore. This method of gradual stimulus confrontation step by step built up the self-efficacy convictions of the clients in a very effective way. The higher the con-victions in a certain field, the lower the fear.

In the last two decades the concept of self-efficacy was - accompanied by many empirical studies - successfully applied to many other fields like social competence, pain-therapy, asthma research, withdrawal of smokers, sports, career planning, sales training, the rehabili-tation of heart attack patients, motivation research and education (Bandura,1986, 1988, 1993, 1994). Also it was shown that a high level of self-efficacy concerning achievements at school has positive effects on stamina concerning learning, the selection and use of better problem solving strategies and the selection of more demanding exercises. Those effects in the field of performance and achievement maybe not very surprising but they are in addition accom-panied by effects in the social and emotional field: people with higher self-efficacy show less aggressive behavior, are less likely outsiders, more pro-social orientated and according to this better socially integrated. They also show less fear and are less prone to depression compared to people with a low degree of self-efficacy convictions. (Bandura 1994, Schunk 1994)

Taking all this into account the gathering of statistics about what can be called ‘achievement-self-efficacy’ at school should be very well suited as a general measure of assessment of changes brought about by school developmental activities: If those changes contribute to an increase in self-efficacy convictions then it can be assumed that they also have positive effects on the emotional and social wellbeing of the pupils.

4.1.2 Scale of Self-Efficacy and the Context of Data Collection Statements If I try hard I do well in school. 1 2 3 4 5 Most of the time I can manage problems at school. 1 2 3 4 5 Most of the time I have a solution if I have difficulties at school. 1 2 3 4 5 If I have worked hard I can get good marks. 1 2 3 4 5 Even when I have learned something new in school I succeed in getting good marks.

1 2 3 4 5

If I try hard in school everything runs smoothly. 1 2 3 4 5 Efforts always pay off, even if success is not immediately obvious. 1 2 3 4 5 I have found that in school effort leads to success. 1 2 3 4 5 I have found that when I work particularly hard I get better marks. 1 2 3 4 5 If I study hard enough I always get good marks. 1 2 3 4 5 It is not hard for me to find a solution to difficult and unexpected problems. 1 2 3 4 5 No matter what may come I will get through school. 1 2 3 4 5 I know exactly what I have to do to achieve a good performance at school. 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 2: MSS-Module – Self-Efficacy Scale I/Petermann, (translation) In recent years a number of scales to measure self-efficacy were developed. The data pre-sented in the following section is gathered with a scale developed by Ulrike Petermann (1992, 225). Her scale was adapted by the authors for the use in schools (see: Figure 2). The Peter-mann-scale itself is a revision of the scale developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem for the measuring of generalized self-efficacy expectations (Schwarzer, 19933, 189). (See figure 1) The results of the calculation of the statistical values (Cronbach-Alpha, factor analysis) met all of the methodological requirements (see: Tarnai, Paschon, Riffert & Eckstein 2000) and were rather interesting. 4.1.3 Data Collection and Results


66

Using the thirteen statements (see Fig. 1) a total score for each pupil can be determined. Pupils with high self-efficacy reach scores near to 1.00, those with a low profile of self-efficacy are close to 5.00. The values in between represent the grades of the scale. Diagram 1 shows the mean of the grammar school where the survey was set (mean = 2.12). A high proportion of the pupils have high or relatively high self-efficacy convictions. This distribution may look completely different in other schools.

distribution of self-efficacy in the MSS-model-school

4,75 4,25 3,75 3,25 2,75 2,25 1,75 1,25

self-efficacy 200 students

100 students

0

Std. Dev = ,69

Mean = 2,12

N = 571,00

18

50

80

161

139

118

Diagram 1: Distribution of self-efficacy convictions in the MSS-model-school

(school due to contract is anonymized) Taking into consideration the central role of the self-efficacy convictions in the field of psy-chological health it becomes clear that the deployment of the self-efficacy scale (module) is a sound instrument for preventative diagnosis. Based on the results, preventative interventions in the area of psychological health can be introduced to schools. For data protection reasons the smallest unit for employing those interventions would be the form (class-level). Social competence trainings in forms (classes) with low self-efficacy, inner differentiation in lessons (Herber, 1983) or forms of open learning to improve convictions of self-efficacy in the field of performance are possible areas of application. Subsequently the frequency distribution is broken down into four equal groups. Those four quartiles each consist of 25% of pupils with the highest, second highest down to the lowest proportion of self-efficacy. The assignment of pupils to quartiles is necessary to compare the group with the highest values to the one with lowest. At this school no gender specific differences concerning self-efficacy convictions could be found. Concerning the comparison of the two extreme groups (high and low self-efficacy) it is interesting to note that the exa-mined school pupils with the lowest self-efficacy score (4th quartile) were still in the middle


67

range of the scale. Therefore it can be expected that if the extreme groups were more polarized the findings would have been even clearer. 4.2. Anxiety Fear is a basic type of emotion which is triggered when a situation is cognitively labelled as threatening (Lazarus & Folkman 1984). Such cognitive labelling has to be conceived as an interactive process between person and environment: first the person evaluates her/his environment (primary appraisal). As a result stress is set off and the person focuses attention on the threatening aspects of the situation. On the basis of the information gained by this focused attention another, second evaluative act is conducted (secondary appraisal) by which the individuals` available coping resources in respect to alternative solutions are assessed. Finally an renewed evaluation (re-appraisal) of the situation on the basis of the available coping resources is undertaken. If this process culminates in a negative result i.e. that the problem cannot be solved or does not seem to be soluble with the persons` available skills and competences negative cognition concerning the future very likely may be the consequence: The individual may expect disastrous and shameful consequences. Especially in social situa-tion such as examination situations at school, i.e. in the presence of peers, such feedback cycles can easily take place. Instead of paying attention on situation aspects and resources which are relevant for solving the given tasks the attention either is focused on negative expectations or nervously fluctuates between the different threatening aspects of the task and the social situation.

There is an extensive amount of empirical evidence of the negative effects of test anxiety on academic performance. For example, in a meta-analysis of 562 studies that related test anxiety and academic achievement, Hembree (1988) found that test anxiety routinely causes poor performance (similar: Seipp 1991). Even worse: achievement anxiety is rarely detected and generally gets worse as children progress through school (Hill and Wigfield, 1984).

But not only because of these negative effects on student achievement anxiety is a central problem for schools. Anxiety of class mates and even of teachers in itself is a topic which in itself needs attention in the field of school development since it influences the well-being of students to a great extent and pupils cannot simply choose not to attend school because of their anxiety.

We know for more than two decades now of the lasting effects of achievement anxiety: “[P]upils from elementary schools with differently pronounced achievement anxiety can be differentiated even after one to three years by their achievements in school.” (Schwarzer 1993, 262) Further, strong empirical evidence was found that the level of reported test anxiety is consistent over time and over situations (test format) (Cassady 2001): students with a high level of test anxiety do not only tend towards failure when tested in school settings but also in take-home examinations. (Benjamin, McKeachie, Lin, Y., & Holinger 1981).

So students with a high level of achievement anxiety suffer considerable disadvantages concerning their school- and later life-careers.

All this shows that ‘anxiety’ - be it in the context of achievement or for itself – is a central issue for schools and for school development. The following question, for example, could be of interest to a school: ‘How high is the average level of achievement anxiety in the school?’, ‘Are there single classes which show a very high level of anxiety?’, ‘Are there single teachers who seem to trigger much more anxiety than others?’, ‘Do pupils experience verbal examina-tions as more threatening than written tests?’, ‘Is there an accumulation of outsiders in certain classes?’, ‘Are there classes in which pupils fear very much be laughed at or to become a vic-tim of aggression?’. An evaluation project using the MSS concept can disclose weaknesses in detail and thereby open possibilities for fine-tuned interventions.


68

In the following sections the conjunction of self-efficacy and fear is chosen for a more detailed examination. Diagram 2 shows how ‘fear of teachers’ and self-efficacy convictions are connected with each other. A rather small group of pupils who are afraid of their teachers can be found in all four groups (10%-16%) but whether pupils state that they are not afraid of their teachers varies depending on the self-efficacy score. 57% of pupils that scored high in self-efficacy say that they have no fear of teachers whereas just 23% of low self-efficacy students said they did. In this school the correlation between self-efficacy convictions and fear is negative and highly significant (corr = -.22 **). This is an indication that low self-efficacy is connected to an increase of feelings of fear as Bandura (1994) had predicted.

self-efficacy and fear

I am quite afraid of some teachers.

very high SE (1.Q)

high SE (2.Q)

medium SE (3.Q)

low SE (4.Q)

distribution of answers in each group equals 100%

100 80 60 40 20 0

Fear of teachers

not afraid

little afraid

partly afraid

rather afraid

afraid

23

32

39

57

23

19

22

14

21

21

17

13

16

15

11

16

12

Diagram 2: Self-Efficacy and fear

The connection between self-efficacy and fear can also be found when turning to questions that ask about ‘fear of other pupils’, ‘fear of A-level exams (Abitur/Matura)’ (sample = only students from the last two year groups before taking their final exams), and ‘fear of disgracing oneself’. A low self-efficacy conviction correlates generally with a higher psychological strain of those students. Just recently Kashdan and Roberst (2004, 130) for instance in their study also found a negative correlation (r = -.59) between self efficacy believes and perceived anxiety.

The fact that within all four groups about 10% of pupils are afraid of some teachers shows that there are other variables that have to be taken into account, opne can speculate here about certain more stable personality characteristics, stable conditions within the given situations, and rigidity concerning experiences with certain teachers.


69

4.3 Aggression Aggression in schools is a wide spread phenomenon which has negative effects on school climate, the students` academic achievements and their emotional well-being. (See for in-stance: Bosworth 1999; Olweus 1993)

Therefore recognising increased levels of aggression is important for preventive inter-ventions in order to avoid escalations or manifestation of this type of behavior. The MSS is capable of accomplishing this diagnostic task on school and form level. “The connection between displaying social behavioral problems in early childhood and aggression and be-coming a young offender was confirmed by many authors (Caspi & Moffit 1995; Dishion, French, & Patterson 1995; Patterson & Yoeger 1993)”. (Petermann, Jugert, Tänzer, & Vereek 1997, 14 our translation). The occurrence of inappropriate aggressive behavior during the first years of life, its high frequency and the wide range of forms of aggressive behavior are reliable indicators for someone becoming a young offender later on. (See: Hämöläinen & Pulkkinen 1996) For this reason it is important to discover as early as possible any excessive aggressive behavior in order to apply preventive measurements in time. In this study a set of items developed by Krumm and Haider (1994) was used to compare passive forms of aggres-sion (i.e. suffering from aggression towards oneself) with active ones (being aggressive towards someone else). Table 2 compares the percentage between victims and offenders. Boys and girls are listed separately. Students who claimed that they were attacked by another student or group of pupils within the last month were defined as victims. 27% of the boys and 6% of the girls unfortunately had this experience whereas 28% of the boys and 5% of the girls admitted that they had physically attacked at least once one of their class mates within the last month (offenders). 58% of the boys and 52% of the girls were insulted or offended; a small fraction (boys: 9%, girls: 3%) had even been threatened or blackmailed by other students. 45% of the boys and 39% of the girls had suffered with vandalism of their own property on school premises. It has to be noted that girls are significantly less often victims of physical aggression. Physical violence is mostly boy-related. Girls are also much less likely to start physical violence (and to a lesser degree verbal violence) then their male class mates. So our data, although not based on a broad sample, in general conform to findings by Constantine, Curry, Diaz, and Huh-Kim (2000) that males self-report more physical aggressive behavior, while verbal aggression is reported about similarly by females and males.

But students can also be victims of (their) teachers. In this case no differences concerning experiences with aggression between male and female pupils could be found. About half of the students felt that they were treated unjustly by their teachers, about a third felt hurt and nearly every other student felt annoyed by them. On the other hand about 23% of the boys and 11% of the girls state that they had insulted their teacher(s) and every third student admitted that s/he deliberately annoyed them (boys: 38%; girls: 28%). Age plays a certain role considering frequency and type of aggressive behavior too (see: Table 3). Whereas physical violence clearly decreases with age the amount of verbal attacks stays stable up to the last years of grammar school. Younger students are most often victims, offenders are mostly male pupils from middle year groups (13-15 years). Taking develop-mental psychology into account this fact can be put down to puberty. In higher forms students feel victimized by their teachers while kids from middle school (13-15) behave badly towards their teachers themselves.

Results in % victim offender boys girls sign. Boys girls Sign.student vs. student attacked, beaten, kicked at 27 6 ** 28 5 **reviled, hurt 58 52 59 36 **threatened, blackmailed, forced 9 3 ** 7 1 **


70

vandalism, damage to property 45 39 10 4 **student vs. teacher student feels treated in an unfair way 53 47 student feels aggrieved 35 33 student feels vexed 48 41 student reviles, hurts teacher 23 11 **student annoys teacher in other ways 38 28 **

Table 2: Aggression a) between students and teachers and b) in respect to gender; **…p<.01

Results in % victim offender class level 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. student vs. student attacked, beaten, kicked at 2

316

19

15

10

2 4 9 16

14

23

18

14

2 4 9

reviled, hurt 55

60

66

56

55

36

33

40

40

55

59

47

55

24

26

23

threatened, blackmailed, forced 8 4 6 3 7 5 7 9 0 2 6 8 7 0 0 9vandalism, damage to property 3

738

53

45

50

24

37

40

5 6 10

8 5 5 0 9

student vs. teacher student feels treated in an unfair way 3

439

55

60

55

62

58

59

student feels aggrieved 19

36

33

34

40

45

42

38

student feels vexed 26

31

45

59

53

64

57

59

student reviles, hurts teacher 7 15

21

17

21

14

18

26

student annoys teacher in other ways 21

31

51

38

35

36

22

20

Table 3: Aggression in school – grades 1-8 (Age: 10-18) student vs. student; student vs. teacher; Age

Table 4 compares the group with high self-efficacy convictions to that with a low level. With victims as well as with offenders, low self-efficacy leads to a somewhat higher perception of aggression. This is show clearly when considering aggression towards students that originates from teachers. In the case of pupils it is the ones with low self-efficacy convictions that annoy their teachers. Similar results were reported by Finn and Frone (2003): they reported a weak but significant negative correlation (r = -.26) between self-efficacy and interpersonal aggression (2003, 46). Constantine, Curry, Diaz, and Huh-Kim (2000, table 8) too found a weak negative correlation of r = -.25 between situation specific self-efficacy believes (self-efficacy for non-violent strategies) and verbal aggression. Results in % victim offender relation between high/low self-efficacy and aggression

highSE

lowSE

sign. high SE

low SE

sign.

student vs. student attacked, beaten, kicked at 13 12 10 15 reviled, hurt 50 60 36 50 *threatened, blackmailed, forced 2 6 6 5 vandalism, damage to property 36 46 9 9 student vs. teacher student feels treated in an unfair way 39 59 ** student feels aggrieved 26 44 ** student feels vexed 36 56 **


71

student reviles, hurts teacher 15 19 student annoys teacher in other ways 26 43 **

Table 4: Aggression in School and Self-Efficacy; SE…Self-Efficacy; *…p<.05, **…p<.01

victims and offenders in relation to gender and self-efficacy

all boys girls high SE

low SE

attacked, beaten without aggression 77 60 91 81 77 victims only 9 13 5 9 8 offenders only 8 14 3 6 10 victims and

offenders 7 14 1 4 5

reviled, hurt without aggression 36 28 41 44 28 Victims only 19 13 23 21 22 offenders only 10 14 6 6 13 victims and

offenders 35 45 30 30 38

threatened, black-mailed, forced

without aggression 91 86 95 93 90

victims only 5 7 3 1 5 offenders only 3 6 1 5 4 victims and

offenders 1 2 0 1 1

vandalism, damage to property

without aggression 56 51 61 61 52

victims only 37 39 36 30 40 offenders only 2 3 1 3 3 victims and

offenders 5 7 3 6 6

Table 5: Are victims also offenders? SE…self-efficacy

The legitimate question arises whether we have to make a distinction between victims and offenders or whether the victims themselves become offenders (see: Table 5). In the examined school 77% of the students were neither actively nor passively affected by physical aggression. 9% were exclusively victims, 8% exclusively offenders and 7% had both roles. Here too 91% of the female pupils and just 60% of the boys in that school were never assaulted. Students with low self-efficacy convictions do run the risk of actively and/or passively being affected by aggression. It can be expected that this tendency would even be stronger if the overall distribution moved more towards low self-efficacy.

This diagnostic differentiation into active and passive forms of aggression gives valuable clues for possible points of intervention. Forms with a relatively high level of ‘victims’ might employ training for assertiveness whereas forms with a high level of active aggression (many offenders) might want to take measures against this by behavior-extinction in combination with programmes to build up socially acceptable ways of dealing with conflicts. Several appropriate training-programmes for children and juveniles in the field of ‘social compe-tence’, ‘lacking social assurance’ and ‘aggression’ were developed by Hinsch and Pfingsten (2002), Humpert and Dann (2001), Petermann, Jugert, Rehder, Tänzer and Verbeek (1999), Hinsch and Ueberschär (1998), Weissberg, Barton, & Shriver (1997), Katz, McClellan, Fuller, & Walz (1995), and Ullrich and Ullrich de Muynck (1990). Examples of how such programms can be evaluated and integrated into traditional subjects are given by Riffert (2000 & 2001). Of course MSS only delivers clues to the user about where and to what extent ag-gression can be found. Further steps like entering a discussion process to explore the pro-blems or employing training programmes must be taken by the teachers, parents and students involved. MSS delivers a reliable and sound basis to continue working on problems – it does


72

not present the user with ready-made solutions. Those must be elaborated and put into practise by the school partners themselves.

aggression in school

percentage com parison of victim s and offenders

... physically attacked in the last m onth by a pupil or a group of pupils .

8b 8a

7b 7a

6b 6a

5b 5a

4d 4c

4b 4a

3d 3c

3b 3a

2e 2d

2c 2b

2a 1e

1d 1c

1b 1a

40 %

30 %

20 %

10 %

activ (offenders)

passiv (v ic tim s)

Diagram 3: Aggression in relation to form-level; 1a – 8b … different forms Above such general descriptive statements the MSS helps to localize aggressions. It is neces-sary for a school to react specifically to the occurrence of aggressive behavior. As can be seen in diagram 3 not only sex, self-efficacy and age are of importance for violence at the school but also the amount and type of aggression varies immensely between forms. Grey bars show the percentage of victims within a form, the dots show the percentage of pupils who physic-ally attacked someone (offenders). On form-level the following results were found: In the forms 6a, 7a and 8a physical violence is not an issue at all. In some forms active and passive forms of violence balance out each other. There are forms (e.g. 1a) where about a third of the students experienced being a victim whereas the proportion of offenders is comparatively low (16%). On the other hand there are some forms like 3c or 4d where quite a few pupils exert physical and verbal pressure on other people but relatively few class mates feel victims of this aggression. The size of this fluctuation is so big that age is secondary compared to the charac-teristics of specific forms.

4.4 Social Integration Another module of the MSS concerns the classroom-climate. A set of questions covers a wide range of topics: cooperation in the class, contacts with classmates, ability to manage conflicts, competition and envy, outsiders, well-being etc. Diagram 4 shows the overall results for the examined grammar school. All forms (classes) are included.


73

classroom-atmosphere and social integration

1a1b1c1d1e2a2b2c2d2e3a3b3c3d4a4b4c4d5a5b6a6b7a7b8a8b

mean of each form for each question

54321

1 showing

consideration

2 fear of being

laughed at

3 getting on well

4 feeling as an

outsider

feeling comfortable

in form

good classroom

atmosphere

Diagram 4: Classroom-atmosphere; 1a – 8b ... different forms Once again the results vary very much between the classes. Therefore data of each form should be analyzed first and only then one should look for trends on a higher (e.g. school, year group or gender/sex) level. The abscissa in diagram 4 reaches from 1 (high approval) to 5 (total rejection) of the statement. The grey bars represent the means of the classroom-climate of all students of a form. In this case the pupils of form 1d have the best and those of 1a the worst classroom-atmosphere. The dots mark the average value of ‘well-being in the class’. 6b and 1d are the two extreme examples concerning this area. A correlation between classroom-climate and well-being can be found in nearly every form. The continuous line (1) represents the assessment of the statement ‘In our form consideration for poorer/weaker pupils is shown.’ The tendency to agree to this item was generally not very high although the data shows that forms with a good climate (e.g. 1d) more likely have the tendency to confirm the statement. The sentence ‘Sometimes I am afraid to be laughed at.’ is represented by the dotted line (2). The closer to 5 the less the students are afraid. A good atmosphere in the class should correspond with being free from fear (see for example 8b). ‘I get on very well with my class mates.’ (dotted line 3) is confirmed by values close to 1 and should match the grey bars where the climate is ‘good’ (e.g. 1d). Finally the students had to assess the statement: ‘In my form I feel like an outsider.’ (dotted line 4). Most of the pupils should be able to answer the question about not being integrated with ‘5’. Forms with a poor atmosphere tend to have a high number of outsiders (see for example 4d). This can also be the case with relatively


74

compact classes with one large domineering group. In this case outsiders are students who are not integrated into this group.

Therefore a diagnostic value can be attributed to this data on form-level and like with the results of the other modules described the data can be used as a basis for intervention in some forms. Age and sex are of secondary importance in the dataset presented in diagram 4. But it is remarkable that aside from the variable ‘form’ the self-efficacy convictions seem to play a major role as predictors. Students with high self-efficacy assess the class-community more positively, feel significantly more comfortable in their form, have a lower fear of being laughed at, get on better with their class-mates, are more likely to think that consideration for weaker pupils is shown and tend less to feel like outsiders compared to pupils with low self-efficacy. This generally positive attitude towards the form and the field around it and the positive emotional experiences they gained in their form are connected with significantly higher psychological well being. Hence the collection of data concerning self-efficacy convictions in connection with school- and form-analysis plays a central role for diagnosis and intervention. Each group obviously experiences itself and the school (in a wider sense) differently which has far reaching consequences in the everyday school-life (performance, aggression, fear).

5. Conclusion The results portrayed in the last section concerning self-efficacy convictions, fear, aggres-sions, and social integration clearly showed that the MSS is an effective instrument for dia-gnosis in the field of psychological health. It allows in good time to realize undesirable trends and to set suitable interventions. Consequently some forms of negative behavior and emotions in classrooms can be avoided.

References Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84,

191-215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Eglewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1988). Self-Efficacy Conception and Anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1, 77-98. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning. Educational

Psychologist, 28, 117-148. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-Efficacy- The Exercise of Controle New York: Freeman. Benjamin, M., McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Y., & Holinger, D. P. (1981). Test anxiety: Deficits in information

processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 816-824. Bosworth, K. (1999). Factors Associated with Bullying Behavior in Middle School Students. Journal of Early

Adolescents, 19, 341-362. Bruner, J. (1971). The Relevance of Education New York: Norton. Bunge, M. (1967). Scientific Research II: The Search for Truth. New York: Springer. Cassady, J. C. (2001). The stability of undergraduate students’ cognitive test anxiety levels. Practical

Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(20). Retrieved June 21, 2004 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=20 .

Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (1995). The Continuity of Maladaptive Behavior: From Description to Understanding in the Study of Antisocial Behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Dohen (Eds.): Developmental Psychopathology. Vol. II, New York: Wiley.

Constantine; N., Curry; K., Diaz; M., & Huh-Kim; J. (2000): Factors Associated with Aggressive Behavior of Rural Middle School Students. Paper presented at the Eight Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence (Chicago, IL, 2000); URL: http://crahd.phi.org/papers/aggressive_behavior.pdf (access: 26.04.2004).

Dishion, T. J., French, D. C., & Paterson, F. R. (1995). The Development and Ecology of Antisocial Behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Dohen (Eds.): Developmental Psychopathology. Vol. II, New York: Wiley.

Finn, K. V., & Frone, M. R. (2003). Predictors of Aggression at School: The Effect of School-Related Alcohol Use. NASSP Bulletin 87/636, 38-54.


75

Fliegel, S., Groeger, W. M., Künzel, R., Schulte, D., & Sorgatz, H. (1989). Verhaltenstherapeutische Standard-methoden. München: Psychologie Verlags Union.

Freudenthal, H. (1977). Mathematik als pädagogische Aufgabe. (vol I & II) Stuttgart: Ernst Klett. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical Phenomenology of Mathematical Structures. Dordrecht: Reidel. Hämöläinen, M., & Pulkkinen L. (1996). Problem Behavior as a Precursor of Male Criminality. Developement

and Psychopathology, 8, 443-455. Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47-

77. Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley. Herber, H.-J. (1983). Innere Differenzierung im Unterricht. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Hill, K. T., & Wigfield, A. (1984). Test Anxiety: A Major Educational Problem and What Can Be Done About

It. The Elementary School Journal 85/1,105-126. Hinsch, R. & Pfingsten, U. (2002). Gruppentraining sozialer Kompetenzen (GSK): Grundlagen, Durchführung,

Materialien. Weinheim4: Psychologie Verlags Union. Hinsch, R., & Ueberschär, B. (1998). Gewalt in der Schule. Ein Trainingsprogramm für Lehrer und

Lehramtsstudenten (Potsdamer Berichte zur Bildungs- und Sozialisationsforschung, Bd. 3). Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.

Humpert, W., & Dann, H.-D. (2001). Konstanzer Trainingsmodell (KTM) kompakt: Basistraining zur Störungsreduktion, Konfliktlösung und Gewaltprävention. Bern: Hans Huber.

Kashdan, T. B., & Roberts, J. E. (2004). Social Anxiety`s Impact on Affect, Curiosity, and Social Threat Situation. In Cognitive Therapy and Research 28/1, 119-141.

Katz, L. G., McClellan, D. E., Fuller, J. O., & Walz, G. R. (1995). Building social competence in children: A practical handbook for counselors, psychologist, and teachers. ERIC Counseling & Student Services Clearinghouse and ERIC Elementary and Early Childhood Education Clearinghouse.

Klieme E., Baumert J. & Schwippert K. (2000): Schulbezogene Evaluation und Schulleistungsvergleiche – Eine Studie im Anschluss an TIMSS. In H.-G. Rolff, W. Bos, K. Klemm, K. Pfeiffer & R. Schulz-Zander (Hrsg.): Jahrbuch für Schulentwicklung: Daten, Beispiele und Perspektiven. Bd. 11, Weinheim: Juventa: 387-419.

Krumm, V., & Haider, G. (1994). Aggressionsfragebogen. Österreichische Option im Rahmen der IEA/TIMSS-Untersuchung. Unveröffentlichtes Arbeitspapier, Institut für Erziehungs-wissenschaften der Universität Salzburg.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Patterson, G. R., & Yoeger, K. (1993). Developmental Models for Delinquent Behavior. In S. Hodgins (Ed.):

Crime and Mental Disorders. Newburry park, CA.: Sage. Petermann, U. (1992). Sozialverhalten bei Grundschülern und Jugendlichen. Frankfurt a. M.: Lang. Petermann, F., Jugert, G., Tänzer, U., & Verbeek, D. (1997). Sozialtraining in der Schule. Weinheim:

Psychologie Verlags Union. Petermann, F., Jugert, G., Rehder, A., Tänzer, U., & Verbeek, D. (1999): Sozialtraining in der Schule.

Weinheim2: Psychologie Verlags Union. Riffert, F., & Paschon, A. (2004). Die Unterstützung von Schulentwicklung mittels „Modulansatz zur

Selbstevaluation von Schulentwicklungsprojekten“ (MSS). Vienna: Lang (in press: fall 2004). Riffert, F., & Paschon, A. (2001). Zur Kooperation zweier rivalisierender Paradigmen – der Modulansatz zur

Selbstevaluation von Schulenetwicklungsprojekten Pädagogische Rundschau, 55,335-356. Riffert, F. (2001). Sozialerziehung im Religionsunterricht. Ein Beitrag zur Schulentwicklung. Theologisch-

Praktische Quartalschrift, 149/3, 275-283. Riffert, F. (2000). Sozialtraining in der Schule – Evaluation eines verhaltenstherapeutisch orientierten

Präventionsprogramms. Verhaltenstherapie und Verhaltensmedizin, 21/1,51-64. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement.

Psychological Monographs, 80, (whole issue 609). Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-Regulation of Self-Efficacy and Attributions in Academic Settings. In D. Schunk

& B. J. Zimmermann (Eds.): Selfregulation of Learning and Performance. (pp. 75-99). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Schwarzer, R. (1993). Stress, Angst und Handlungsregulation. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Seipp, B. (1991). Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-analysis of findings. Anxiety Research, 4, 27-41. Skinner, E. A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P. B. (1988). Control, Means-Ends and Agency Beliefs: A New

Conceptualization and its Measurement during Childhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 117-133.

Tarnai, Ch., Paschon, A., Riffert, F., & Eckstein, K. (2000). Analyse von schulbezogenen Selbstwirksamkeitsüberzeugungen und Angst mit Modellen latenter Variablen. Hamburg: Kovac.

Ullrich de Muynck, R., & Ullrich, R. (1990). Das Asser- tiveness-Training-Programm (ATP). München5: Pfeiffer


76

Weissberg, R. P., Barton, H. A., & Shriver, T. P. (1997). The Social Competence Promotion Program for young adolescents. In G. W. Albee and T. P. Gullotta (eds.), Primary Prevention Works (pp. 268-290). Sage: Thousand Oaks.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929/1967). The Aims of Education. New York: Macmillan. Wieczerkowski, W., Nickel, H., Jankowski, A., Fittkau, B., & Rauer, W. (1980). Angstfragebogen für Schüler.

Braunschweig: Westermann. Wolpe, J. (1954). Reciprocal Inhibition as the Main Basis of Psychotherapeutic Effects. AMA Archive of

Neurology and Psychiatry, 72, 205-226. Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT: SELF-EFFICACY, ANXIETY, AGGRESSION AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION 1

Documents