Differentiation Within The Big Fish Little Pond Effect Education Essay

The Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect

The BFLPE theoretical account was specifically designed to understand the development of academic self-concept in school scenes ( Marsh et al. , 1985 ) . The BFLPE describes that every bit able pupils have a lower academic self-concept when go toing a school where the mean ability degree of other pupils is comparatively high than when go toing a school where the mean ability degree is comparatively low. It is this negative consequence of school-average accomplishment on persons ‘ self-concept that characterizes the BFLPE. Harmonizing to Marsh and co-workers ( 2008 ) , the minimum conditions needed to prove the BFLPE are ( 1 ) a multilevel design with many schools and a significant sample of pupils from each school ; ( 2 ) an nonsubjective step of accomplishment for each single pupil that is straight comparable across different schools and an appropriate step of academic self-concept ; ( 3 ) trials of the effects of school-average accomplishment on academic self-concept after commanding for the effects of single pupil accomplishment.

Social comparing processes through external frames of mention are assumed to underlie the BFLPE. The presupposition is that the same nonsubjective academic public presentation can take to different academic self-concepts for different persons depending on the external frame of mention used to judge their academic public presentation with ( Marsh et al. , 2008 ) . When an mean pupil in a high-ability school performs academically below the mean achievement degree of that school and he compares his academic ability with other pupils in that school ( i.e. , his frame of mention ) , this comparing will ensue in a lower academic self-concept. However, when the same pupil uses a low-ability school as a frame of mention, the pupil may good execute above the norm of that school, ensuing in a higher academic self-concept. Harmonizing to Marsh and Craven ( 2001 ) , in doing these societal comparings, pupils will utilize the frame of mention most available to them to measure their ability, viz. other pupils in their school. Mussweiler, Ruter, and Epstude ( 2004 ) assume that societal comparings influence self-evaluations in multiple ways. For illustration, Marsh and Craven ( 2001 ) found that a high-ability school has a counter-balancing positive consequence on an single pupils ‘ academic self-concept in add-on to the negative BFLPE. This positive consequence is besides called a reflected glorification consequence: One feels proud to belong to a high-achieving school and this glorification of the school is so reflected on the person ‘s academic self-concept. In short, sometimes self-evaluations are assimilated toward a given criterion ( positive association ) . At other times, they are contrasted off from the criterion ( negative association ) . Assuming those two effects to run in existent life, Marsh and Craven ( 2001 ) posit that the BFLPE comprises the net consequence of a stronger negative contrast consequence and a weaker positive assimilation consequence. This implicates that the negative consequence of school-average accomplishment on academic self-concept, frequently found in BFLPE research, may be the consequence of two underlying societal comparing procedures ( i.e. , contrast and assimilation ) operating together, but with a different magnitude.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Research support for the BFLPE

The BFLPE theoretical account has a solid empirical underpinning as shown in legion surveies with different analytical attacks bearing empirical grounds over the old ages ( Marsh & A ; Craven, 2001 ; Marsh et al. , 2008 ; Trautwein, Ludtke, Marsh, Koller, & A ; Baumert, 2006 ) . Additionally, the BFLPE seems a robust and general consequence, being present for pupils of different ages, with assorted ability degrees, from different types of instruction, etcetera ( e.g. , Marsh & A ; Craven, 2001 ; Preckel, Zeidner, Goetz, & A ; Schleyer, 2008 ) .

Marsh and Hau ( 2003 ) analyzed a big transnational database of 103,558 15-year old pupils from 26 states and found strong support for the BFLPE and its cross-cultural generalizability. Their survey was based on the Program of Student Assessment ( PISA ) database compiled by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Seaton, Marsh, and Craven ( 2009 ) besides tested the cross-cultural generalizability of the BFLPE in an even larger sample of 41 culturally and economically diverse states. In support of the BFLPE, the consequence of school-average accomplishment on academic self-concept was negative for the entire sample ( average consequence size = -.49 ) , negative for each of the 41 states individually and statistically important from nothing in 38 states. This big, culturally diverse sample of states has the added advantage to distinguish between collectivized and individualistic civilizations and economically developing and developed states. The BFLPE was found to be apparent in all four. These findings demonstrate that cultural differences such as Bolshevism versus individuality do non act upon the size nor the way of the BFLPE. The BFLPE besides appears to be relentless. Extended longitudinal surveies show that the BFLPE becomes stronger the longer pupils attend selective schools and is maintained even two and four old ages after graduation from high school ( Marsh et al. , 2007 ; Marsh et al. , 2008 ) . Therefore, the BFLPE findings appear to be robust, generalizable over a broad assortment of civilizations and samples, different single pupil and contextual degree features, scenes, states and long-run followups.

In add-on to the abovementioned importance of advancing a positive academic self-concept and given the empirical grounds sing the BFLPE, legion practical educational policy deductions can be derived from it, such as the manner in which schools are organized ( Wouters et al. , 2009 ) . Specifically, it has deductions for grouping patterns in secondary instruction and with respect to academically talented pupils and pupils with particular educational demands, but besides in regular primary and higher instruction ( Marsh et al. , 2008 ) . Therefore, the BFLPE is non merely theoretically of import, its practical deductions are deserving adverting every bit good.

Understudied subjects

The BFLPE theoretical account provinces that in doing comparings about their academic abilities, pupils will utilize the frame of mention most available to them to compare their ability with, viz. other pupils in their school ( Marsh, 1991 ) . As a consequence, past BFLPE research has chiefly focused on the school as being an of import frame of mention and has operationalized the school-average ability degree as the criterion of comparing. Nevertheless, pupils may utilize other frames as a mention, such as schoolmates and friends. Marsh and co-workers ( 2008 ) province that it is easy to generalise the BFLPE to categories and friends alternatively of schools, but this generalisation remains understudied. Furthermore, the BFLPE theoretical account makes no anticipations about the comparative importance of these different frames and how they will jointly impact the academic self-concept.

Because friendships become more complex, psychologically based and of import for development during in-between childhood ( Markovitz, Benenson, & A ; Dolensky, 2001 ; Rose, & A ; Asher, 1999 ) , it is to be expected that friendships organize an of import frame for societal comparing and that they are likely to act upon a pupils ‘ academic self-concept. Furthermore, there has been abundant grounds in the field of societal psychological science that friends are an of import frame for societal comparing and that friends influence a pupils ‘ self-pride ( Acitelli & A ; Steinberg, 2010 ; Altermatt, Broady, & A ; Bellgard, 2007 ; Payne, 2005 ) . For illustration, Lubbers, Kuyper, and Van Der Werf ( 2009 ) found that pupils in Grade 7 choose friends far more frequently to compare their classs with than would be expected based on opportunity. Mussweiler and Ruter ( 2003 ) besides demonstrated that during self-evaluation, pupils activate cognition about their best friend to compare themselves with.

Because school-aged kids in in-between childhood spend most of their clip in category, it is to be expected that their schoolmates besides form an of import frame for societal comparing and that they are likely to act upon a pupils ‘ academic self-concept.

Despite the significance of friends and categories as possible mention groups, in add-on to schools, the comparative importance of these multiple and at the same time happening mention groups has remained understudied in BFLP research. As an exclusion, Wu, Chang, and Huang ( 2006 ) did analyze the importance of friends as a frame of mention in add-on to category and school. They concluded that the academic accomplishment of friends has the strongest negative consequence on pupils ‘ self-pride in comparing with class- and school-average accomplishment: When controlled for the effects of friends ‘ mean academic accomplishment on pupils ‘ self-pride, class-average and school-average academic accomplishment were no longer associated with self-pride. However, Wu and his co-workers studied planetary self-pride as the dependant variable alternatively of academic self-concept. Consequently, these findings may non keep for academic self-concept ( Marsh et al. , 2008 ) .

Refering the comparative importance of the three different frames of mention ( school, category, friends ) , we would speculate that categories are more plausible frames of mention for pupils to compare themselves with than schools, given the day-to-day physical and societal propinquity of schoolmates, the color and the handiness of information sing academic accomplishment ( e.g. , trials, tests, aˆ¦ ) ( Dai & A ; Rinn, 2008 ) . This premise is in line with what Zell and Alicke ( 2010 ) name “ the local laterality consequence ” : this consequence suggests that societal comparing with a few local vivid persons such as schoolmates have a greater influence on one ‘s self-assessments than comparings with larger general groups such as schools. We would besides speculate that friends are a more plausible frame of mention for pupils to compare themselves with than schools, given the abovementioned propinquity, color and local laterality consequence. Therefore, when controlled for the effects of friends-average academic accomplishment and class-average accomplishment on pupils ‘ academic-self-concept, we would anticipate school-average academic accomplishment to be no longer associated with academic self-concept.

Refering the comparing between friends and categories when analyzing the comparative importance of the three different frames of mention, we did non happen any bing theoretical background to do a sound hypothesis about their comparative importance. Therefore, the probe of the coincident consequence of these two frames of mention would be exploratory. However, we could state that friend groups consist of fewer and more local persons than category groups and hence we might anticipate friends to be a more of import frame for societal comparing. On the other manus, since pupils can intentionally take their friends, the false positive assimilation-effect underlying the BFLPE might be stronger than the negative contrast-effect, ensuing in a comparatively little net BFLPE consequence compared to the BFLPE with schoolmates as a frame of mention, with which pupils are forced to compare themselves.

The present survey

The purpose of the present survey is to analyse the consequence on academic self-concept of different frames of mention, including the consequence of school-average accomplishment ( as done in traditional BFLPE surveies ) every bit good as the consequence of class-average and friends-average accomplishment. Besides, we will see the comparative importance of those mention groups ( school, category and friends ) for pupils ‘ academic self-concept. Given the theoretical background, we hypothesized that ( H1 ) the consequence of single pupil accomplishment on academic self-concept would be positive, that ( H2 ) the consequence of school-average accomplishment on academic self-concept would be negative, that ( H3 ) the consequence of class-average accomplishment on academic self-concept would be negative and that ( H4 ) the consequence of friends-average accomplishment on academic self-concept would be negative as good. Additionally, we hypothesized that the negative consequence of school-average accomplishment on academic self-concept would go non important when including class-average accomplishment and friends-average accomplishment and we explored the comparative importance of friends and categories as frames of mention ( H5 ) .

Method

Participants and process

Our survey uses informations derived from the longitudinal SiBO-project ( Schoolloopbanen in heated Basis Onderwijs ; School flights in simple instruction ; Maes, Ghesquiere, Onghena, & A ; Van Damme, 2002 ) . This is a large-scale survey in Flanders – the Dutch-speaking portion of Belgium – that followed about 6000 five to six year-old students in approximately 200 Flemish primary schools throughout primary instruction ( Buyse, 2009 ) . These longitudinal informations were ab initio collected to derive penetration into the factors act uponing single differences in educational development and were collected by research workers under the authorization of the Flemish Government. In the current survey we merely used a subsample of the full longitudinal sample. More specifically we analyzed the informations collected from kids in 6th class ( N = 2987 ; Mage = 11,99 ; 1499 male childs and 1486 misss ) recruited from a representative sample of 174 categories in 112 schools. In Grade 6, extra variables and related instruments ( e.g. , academic self-concept step, sociometric appraisal ) were included with the specific purpose to prove and polish the BFLPE theoretical account ( in the context of the doctorial survey of Sofie Wouters ) .

Instruments and steps

Information was obtained sing kids ‘s sex, their age, their category, and their household SES ( Reynders, Nicaise, & A ; Van Damme, 2005 ) .

In order to mensurate kids ‘s academic self-concept we used a subscale from the adjusted Dutch interlingual rendition of Marsh ‘s ( 1992 ) Self Description Questionnaire I ( SDQ-I ; Simons, & A ; Fisette, 2001 ) . The SDQ-I is considered to be one of the best self-concept instruments available and captures multiple dimensions of self-concept ( Byrne, 1996 ) . Research supports the factorial construction, dependability, and criterion-related cogency of the SDQ-I ( Byrne, 1996 ) . The academic self-concept subscale used in the present survey contains 5 points and was scored a 5-point Likert-type evaluation graduated table runing from 1 ( “ strongly differ ” ) to 5 ( “ strongly hold ” ) . A sample point is “ I am good at all school topics ” . The Cronbach ‘s i?? of the academic self-concept subscale in Grade 6 was.81.

To mensurate pupils ‘ single academic accomplishment, standardised accomplishment trials in math and linguistic communications were used dwelling of multiple-choice points. To mensurate linguistic communication accomplishment, two subtests were used. The first subtest was an altered version of a reading comprehension trial from a standardized trial system, which is frequently used to supervise pupil advancement in Flanders and the Netherlands, developed by the Dutch Central Institute for Test Development ( CITO ) . In peculiar, a sawed-off trial developed specifically for Flanders ( Staphorsius & A ; Krom, 1998 ) was administered. The 2nd subtest was an adjusted standardised reading trial from the CITO system that measures pupils ‘ proficient reading abilities ( Rymenans, 2002 ) . Additionally, mathematics accomplishment was measured through a standardised math trial developed by Paul Dudal. The Cronbach ‘s i?? of this trial was.88 ( Cortois, Van Droogenbroeck, Verachtert, & A ; Van Damme, ( 2011 ) . The single pupil accomplishment tonss were calculated by averaging the pupils ‘ tonss on these three trials. There were two versions of the academic accomplishment trials. An easier and a more hard version. To do the consequences comparable across students, an equation scheme based on the Item Response Theory ( IRT ) was used ( Verachtert, Van Damme, Onghena, & A ; Ghesquiere, 2009 ) . In add-on, we besides created class-average and school-average academic accomplishment variables by averaging these single academic accomplishment tonss for each class/school.

Sociometric nominations were used to place kids ‘s friends ( Orobio de Castro, Goossens, & A ; Olthof, 2007 ) . More specifically, all pupils were given a list with their schoolmates ‘ names and they were asked to circle the names of their friends. Based on kids ‘s replies on these inquiries, we identified friends groups utilizing MAKEDYAD ( Thissen, & A ; Bendermacher, 2002 ) . These groups comprised all friends a respondent had nominated, and therefore included mutual friends ( both pupils nominate each other as friends ) every bit good as non-mutual friends ( referentie naar Gest? ) . We so created a friends-average academic accomplishment variable by averaging the single academic accomplishment tonss for each friends group.

Data analyses

In the present survey, single pupil academic self-concept is the result variable, whereas forecaster variables are sex, single pupil accomplishment, friends-average accomplishment, class-average accomplishment and school-average accomplishment. All steps of academic self-concept and single pupil accomplishment were standardized ( M = 0, SD = 1 ) . The intercorrelations of these variables are listed in Table 1. We used sex as a control variable because there is grounds that male childs have a higher academic self-concept than misss ( Hergovich, Sirsch, & A ; Felinger, 2004 ) .

We treated our informations as holding a hierarchically nested construction with pupils nested in categories and schools and we used multilevel analyses utilizing the plan Statistical Analyses Software ( SAS ) . More specifically, we used a three degree theoretical account to specify the fixed and random effects sing the variables listed above ( flat 1: pupil, degree 2: category, flat 3: school ) .

First, we split up the discrepancy in academic self-concept per degree in order to cipher the intraclass correlativity ( ICC ) . Although more than 98 % of discrepancy in academic self-concept was explained on the pupil degree, we found that there were little but important differences between schools and categories sing academic self-concept ( ICCschool & lt ; .05, p & lt ; .01 ; ICCclass & lt ; .05, p & lt ; .01 ) . Therefore, we used multilevel methods to analyse our informations.

The fixed effects included the chief effects of sex, single pupil accomplishment, friends-average accomplishment, class-average accomplishment, school-average accomplishment and the interaction effects of sex with friends- , class- and school-average accomplishment and of single pupil accomplishment with friends- , class- and school-average accomplishment ( see Table 2 ) .

The random effects ( see Table 2 ) included intercept footings which represent how much discrepancy at each of the three degrees ( school, category and pupil ) remains unexplained. To find the fluctuation of the consequence of single pupil accomplishment on academic self-concept from school to school, we randomized the chief consequence of single pupil accomplishment at the school degree. To find the fluctuation of the consequence of friends-average and class-average accomplishment on academic self-concept from school to school, we besides let the effects of friends-average and class-average accomplishment to be random at the school degree. To find the fluctuation of the consequence of single pupil accomplishment on academic self-concept from category to category, we randomized the chief consequence of single pupil accomplishment at the category degree. To find the fluctuation of the consequence of friends-average accomplishment on academic self-concept from category to category, we besides let the effects of friends-average accomplishment to be random at the category degree.

Consequences

In our preliminary analyses we found class-average accomplishment and school-average accomplishment to correlate strongly ( R = .88 ) ( see Table 1 ) . This is apprehensible, sing 49.1 per centum of the schools in our informations merely consisted of one category.

Consistent with the BFLPE theoretical account and our anterior anticipations, we found that ( 1 ) male childs had a significantly higher academic self-concept than misss, ( 2 ) the consequence of single pupil accomplishment on academic self-concept was significantly positive, ( 3 ) the separate effects of school-average accomplishment, class-average accomplishment, and friends-average accomplishment on academic self-concept were significantly negative when commanding for the consequence of single accomplishment and sex ( see Table 2 ) . We so analyzed the comparative consequence of friends-average accomplishment, class-average accomplishment and school-average accomplishment by including all three forecasters together in the equation ( see Table 2 ) . Consistent with our anterior anticipations we found that school-average accomplishment on academic self-concept became non important. Surprisingly nevertheless, we besides found that the negative effects of class-average accomplishment and friends-average accomplishment on academic self-concept became non important. We did happen a important cross degree interaction consequence between single pupil academic accomplishment and class-average accomplishment ( see Appendix A ) . More specifically, we found that for higher achieving pupils who score one standard divergence ( South Dakota ) higher than the group mean of single academic accomplishment there was a stronger BFLPE: comparing with higher/lower accomplishing schoolmates lead to a decrease/increase of 0.50 South Dakota in academic self-concept. For lower achieving pupils ( hiting 1 South Dakota below the group mean of single accomplishment ) , nevertheless, there was a weaker BFLPE: comparing with higher/lower accomplishing schoolmates lead to a decrease/increase of merely 0.14 South Dakotas in academic self-concept.

The random effects stand foring school-to-school and class-to-class fluctuation in the effects of single pupil accomplishment, friends-average accomplishment and class-average accomplishment in Model 2, 3 and 4 were little and non statistically important. In Model 1 nevertheless, we found important school-to-school and class-to-class fluctuation in the consequence of friends-average accomplishment on academic self-concept.

Because of the high correlativity between class-average accomplishment and school-average accomplishment we repeated our analyses without school-average accomplishment as a forecaster. Table 3 represents our concluding and less restricted two-level theoretical account in which school-average accomplishment was dropped. In Model 3 we analyzed the comparative consequence of friends-average accomplishment and class-average accomplishment and this clip we did happen a important negative consequence of class-average accomplishment on academic self-concept. The negative consequence of friends-average accomplishment on academic self-concept became non important, when including class-average accomplishment. We found one marginally important interaction consequence between friends-average accomplishment and single pupil accomplishment ( see Appendix B ) . More specifically, we found that for higher achieving pupils who score one standard divergence ( South Dakota ) higher than the group mean of single academic accomplishment there was a weaker BFLPE: comparing with higher/lower accomplishing friends lead to a decrease/increase of 0.01 South Dakota in academic self-concept. For lower achieving pupils ( hiting 1 South Dakota below the group mean of single accomplishment ) , nevertheless, there was a stronger BFLPE: comparing with higher/lower accomplishing friends lead to a decrease/increase of 0.13 South Dakota in academic self-concept. We can reason that when we do non command for school-average accomplishment, lower achieving pupils are non merely influenced by their class-average accomplishment, but besides to some extent by their friends ‘ mean accomplishment. For higher achieving pupils, friends do non look an of import frame of mention to compare their academic accomplishment.

The random effects stand foring class-to-class fluctuation in the effects of single pupil accomplishment and friends-average accomplishment were little and non statistically important.

Table 1

Intercorrelations of all Variables

Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. Sexual activity

2. Individual accomplishment

.03a

3. Friends-average accomplishment

.04**a

.23**

4. Class-average accomplishment

.02a

.40**

.70**

5. School-average accomplishment

.03a

.35**

.62**

.88**

6. Academic self-concept

.09**a

.50**

.03

.07**

.05**

Nitrogen

2985

2987

2968

2987

2987

2978

Note. aPoint-biserial correlativity coefficients for the distinct dichotomous variable sex ( Field, 2005 ) .

* P & lt ; .05. ** P & lt ; .01. *** P & lt ; .001.

Tabel 2

The Effects of Sexual activity, Individual Student Achievement, Friends-Average Achievement, Class-Average Achievement, and School-Average Achievement on Academic Self-concept ( N=2957 )

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Bacillus

Selenium

Bacillus

Selenium

Bacillus

Selenium

Bacillus

Selenium

Fixed Effectss

Main Effectss

Changeless

-.27***

.05

-.25***

.05

-.26***

.05

-.26***

.05

Sexual activity

.18***

.03

.17***

.03

.17***

.03

.17***

.03

Individual pupil accomplishment

.52***

.02

.55***

.02

.54***

.02

.55***

.02

Friends-average accomplishment

-.20*

.09

-.04

.12

Class-average accomplishment

-.54***

.13

-.32

.28

School-average accomplishment

-.58***

.15

-.25

.29

Interaction Effectss

Friends-average accomplishment x sex

.07

.06

.06

.08

Friends-average accomplishment x single pupil accomplishment

.03

.03

.07

.04

Class-average accomplishment x sex

.11

.08

-.05

.18

Class-average accomplishment x single pupil accomplishment

.01

.04

-.18*

.08

School-average accomplishment x sex

.12

.09

.11

.19

School-average accomplishment x single pupil accomplishment

.06

.05

.17

.09

Random Effectss

Degree 2 school intercept

.03***

.01

.02**

.01

.03***

.01

.02**

.01

Flat 2 class-average accomplishment

.04

.03

.01

.04

Flat 2 friends-average accomplishment

.03*

.02

.01

.02

Degree 2 single pupil accomplishment

.01

.00

.00

.00

.01

.00

.01

.00

Level 2 category intercept

.03***

.01

.03***

.01

.03***

.01

.02

.01

Flat 2 friends-average accomplishment

.05**

.02

.03

.02

Degree 2 single mean accomplishment

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

Degree 1 pupil intercept

.70***

.02

.69***

.02

.70***

.02

.70***

.02

Aberrance

7449.1

7464.1

7475.1

7403.1

Note. * P & lt ; .05. ** P & lt ; .01. *** P & lt ; .001. All steps of academic self-concept and single pupil accomplishment were standardized ( M = 0, SD = 1 ) . Sexual activity: Female=1, Male=2

Tabel 3

The Effects of Sexual activity, Individual Student Achievement, Friends-Average Achievement, and Class-Average Achievement on Academic Self-concept ( N=2957 )

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Bacillus

Selenium

Bacillus

Selenium

Bacillus

Selenium

Fixed Effectss

Main Effectss

Changeless

-.28***

.05

-.26***

.05

-.26***

.05

Sexual activity

.18***

.03

.17***

.03

.17***

.03

Individual pupil accomplishment

.52***

.02

.55***

.02

.55***

.02

Friends-average accomplishment

-.21*

.09

-.06

.12

Class-average accomplishment

-.56***

.13

-.49**

.18

Interaction Effectss

Friends-average accomplishment x sex

.03

.03

.07

.08

Friends-average accomplishment x single pupil accomplishment

.08

.06

.07aˆ

.04

Class-average accomplishment x sex

.11

.08

.03

.11

Class-average accomplishment x single pupil accomplishment

.02

.04

-.06

.05

Random Effectss

Level 2 category intercept

.03***

.01

.02**

.01

.02**

.01

Flat 2 friends-average accomplishment

.03

.02

.03

.02

Degree 2 single mean accomplishment

.01

.01

.00

.01

.01

.00

Degree 1 pupil intercept

.69***

.02

.69***

.02

.68***

.02

Aberrance

7449.1

7464.1

7405.2

Note. * P & lt ; .05. ** P & lt ; .01. *** P & lt ; .001. aˆ p & lt ; .10. All steps of academic self-concept and single pupil accomplishment were standardized ( M = 0, SD = 1 ) . Sexual activity: Female=1, Male=2

Discussion

The present survey provides a farther trial of the BFLPE theoretical account by analyzing different frames of mention ( i.e. , schools, categories, and friends ) and their comparative importance. Previous BFLPE research has chiefly focused on the mean achievement degree of the school and its impact on pupils ‘ academic self-concept, whereas the mundane school context of pupils consists of multiple possible frames of mention ( e.g. , classmates, schoolmates, and friends ) . Therefore, the first purpose of this present survey was to look into the effects of school, category and friends mean accomplishment on the single pupils ‘ academic self-concept commanding for pupils ‘ sex and single academic accomplishment. Our findings were consistent with our hypotheses based on BFLPE research. More specifically, we found a positive consequence of single pupil accomplishment on academic self-concept and negative effects of each mention frame individually ( i.e. , school-average accomplishment, class-average accomplishment, and friends-average accomplishment ) when commanding for single accomplishment and sex. Besides, our consequences showed that misss had a lower academic self-concept than male childs.

Research on the comparative importance of these mention groups for pupils ‘ academic self-concept formation remains rare in BFLPE surveies and therefore the 2nd purpose of our survey was to make full this spread. We hypothesized that categories are more plausible frames of mention for pupils to compare themselves with than schools, given the day-to-day physical and societal propinquity of schoolmates, the local color, the handiness of information sing academic accomplishment ( e.g. , trials, tests, aˆ¦ ) and the fact that, because of this day-to-day physical and societal propinquity, pupils are forced to compare themselves with their schoolmates ( Dai & A ; Rinn, 2008 ; Zell & A ; Alicke, 2010 ) . We besides hypothesized that friends are a more plausible frame of mention to compare themselves with than schools, given the fact that during in-between childhood, equals and friendships go a more of import context for development and frame for societal comparing ( Acitelli, & A ; Steinberg, 2010 ; Altermatt, Broady, & A ; Bellgard, 2007 ; Markovitz, Benenson, & A ; Dolensky, 2001 ; Payne, 2005 ; Rose, & A ; Asher, 1999 ) . Refering the comparing between friends and categories as frames of mention, we did non happen any bing theoretical background to do a sound hypothesis about their comparative importance. Therefore, the probe of the coincident consequence of these two frames of mention in the three-level theoretical account was simply exploratory. Our findings were largely inconsistent with our theoretical hypotheses. More specifically, we found that when analyzing the coincident effects of the three frames of mention, none of the effects of friends-average accomplishment, class-average accomplishment nor school-average accomplishment remained important. We did happen an consequence of class-average accomplishment when we took into history the single pupil academic accomplishment. There seemed to be a strong BFLPE of class-average accomplishment on academic self-concept for high achieving pupils and a weak BFLPE of class-average accomplishment on academic self-concept for low accomplishing pupils. One possible account for this interaction consequence might be that higher achieving pupils are more concerned with the classs of their schoolmates or with societal comparing sing academic accomplishment in general. A possible account for non happening a chief consequence of class-average accomplishment in the three-level theoretical account, might be that class-average accomplishment and school-average accomplishment correlative strongly ( R = .88 ) . 49.1 per centum of the schools in our informations merely consisted of one category. Further probe of de comparative consequence of different frames of mention in a sample of schools with multiple categories, more frequently found in secondary schools than in simple schools, may take to different decisions.

We decided to reiterate our analyses without school-average accomplishment as forecaster. This clip, we did happen a important chief consequence of class-average accomplishment when analyzing the coincident effects of the two frames of mention. Friends-average accomplishment became non-significant in the equation. One possible account for non happening a chief consequence of friends-average accomplishment in the two-level and three-level theoretical account might be found in our sample of friends. We identified the friend groups by giving all pupils a list with their schoolmates ‘ names and inquiring them to circle the names of their friends. Possibly, if we had non limited the possible friends to schoolmates, but opened it up to the whole school, we might hold gotten more realistic friend-groups, therefore ensuing in different decisions sing the comparative importance of the three mention groups. Further survey sing this subject is needed to to the full understand the impact of friends on academic self-concept. Another possible account for the non-significance of friends-average accomplishment when including class-average accomplishment might be that since pupils can intentionally take their friends, the false positive assimilation-effect underlying the BFLPE might be stronger than the negative contrast-effect, ensuing in a comparatively little net BFLPE consequence. In contrast, pupils do non freely take their schoolmates and forced to compare themselves with them. Consequently, the false negative contrast-effect underlying the BFLPE might be stronger than the positive assimilation-effect, explicating the comparatively strong net BFLPE consequence of class-average accomplishment. However, we did happen one marginally important interaction consequence between friends-average accomplishment and single pupil accomplishment. It seemed that lower achieving pupils were non merely influenced by their class-average accomplishment, but besides to some extent by their friends ‘ mean accomplishment. For higher achieving pupils, friends did non look an of import frame of mention to compare their academic accomplishment.

Our findings provide strong empirical support for the importance of schoolmates in the formation of an single pupil ‘s academic self-concept and are of high practical concern, given the prognostic value of academic self-concept for a assortment of educational results ( e.g. , ref ) . High accomplishing pupils seem to utilize schoolmates more frequently as a frame of mention than low accomplishing pupils. The latter are besides influenced by the classs of their friends. Further survey to possible buffers for the consequence of class-average and friends-average accomplishment is necessary. Those consequences can so be used as an urge for intercessions. Possibly if our instruction would concentrate less on accomplishment, public presentation and competition and would alternatively concentrate more on attempt, dedication, concerted acquisition and peertutoring, pupils would be less likely to be negatively influenced by the classs of their equals. Besides, farther probe sing possible mediating factors on the person, friends, category and school degree is needed.

For illustration, refering grouping patterns, it raises inquiries about the manner in which schools dainty kids with particular larning demands. Children with larning disablements and mild mental deceleration are more often being placed in regular schoolrooms full clip increasing heterogeneousness in categories. Given the BFLPE theoretical account, it is to be expected that these pupils might develop a lower academic self-concept, which may hold negative effects for the academic accomplishment in the long tally.