Comparative Study of High School Stress for Indian and American Students

A Comparative Study of Middle School Stress for Indian and American Students

Abstract

This study compared the stress levels of 289 Indian and American middle school students.  Physiological and social symptoms of stress were examined.  Results showed that over eighty percent of both groups of students reported moderate to high levels of stress.  Indian students had the most variation among their results.  Whereas most American students were in the moderate level of stress, the Indian students were more than twice as likely to report high levels of stress as compared to their American counterparts.  However, twice as many Indian students reported low levels of stress when compared to their American counterparts.  After the results were collected, the teachers of these students had discussions about possible reasons for the results.  Their conclusions suggested that the larger number of students in India reporting high levels of stress was most likely the result of limited academic supports in regular classrooms for children with special learning needs.  The rationale given for why more American students report moderate level of stress than Indian students was attributed to unreasonable expectations placed on American students in regard to academic instruction time and limited emphasis on non-academic areas such as art, music, physical fitness, and recess.   

Introduction

The changes that take place in early adolescence are observed in every domain of the adolescents’ life - physical, social, educational, and familial.  Most of these changes are gradual and have different timetables and magnitudes for different adolescents.  This change brings with it increasing academic demands and social challenges that can lead to stress and adjustment problems for some adolescents (Martinez & Semrud-Clikeman, 2004; Eccles, Midgley, Wigfield, Buchanan, Reuman, Flanagan, & Maclver, 1993; Elias, Ubriaco, Reese, Gara, Rothbaum, & Haviland, 1992).  Researchers believe that middle school students are at particular risk for stress and adjustment problems (Bear, Minke, & Manning, 2002; Wenz-Gross, M & Siperstein, G. 1997). 

Students come to the middle school period with academic and social histories (Kuhne & Wiener, 2000; La Creca & Stone, 1990; Center & Wascom, 1986; Wigle, White, & Parish, 1988).  These pre-existing histories may cause tension in middle school because, in comparison to elementary school, middle school generally presents a more complex learning environment.  The complexity of the new learning environment increases both academically, in terms of grading practices and the amount of material that the student must organize and master, and socially, in terms of negotiating larger and more fluctuating peers groups and more conflictual student-teacher relationships (Margalit, 2003; Eccles et al., 1993; Ellias, Gara, & Ubriaco, 1985).  Further, while the difficulties that students experience with academics and peers may not be new, these difficulties likely become more stressful as students seek to develop greater autonomy, more intimate peer relationships, and a sense of identity. 

While students may experience more stress in middle school, they may also experience less social support.  Social support from family, friends, and adults outside the home has been found to be a critical aspect of how students deal with stress and adjust to their expanding environment (Compas,. Slavin, Wagner, & Vannatta, 1986; Hirsh & DuBois, 1992).  Research also suggests that adolescents experience less social support from peers and others in their network (Geisthardt & Munsch, 1996; Park, Tappe, Cameto, & Gaylord-Ross, 1990). 

            The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in stress levels between American and Indian middle school students and what we might learn about how to deal with stress in middle school students.   Understanding stress and social support and their relationship to adjustment in middle school students may give us insight on these students and the areas for which intervention may be of greatest benefit.   Comparing middle school stress between Indian and the American students allows for comparison and discussion about different educational philosophies and social and academic supports in schools.  The goal was to build on the previously cited research and explore, in greater depth how different educational pedagogy and supports impact stress levels in middle school students.

Method

            Participants:  Participants were drawn from three middle schools in rural Missouri and three middle schools in the city of Vishakapatnam, India.  Schools were chosen based on grade structure (6^th-8^th grade structure), size (approximately 200-250 students per grade, and use of a middle school model (team/clustering approaches).  Participants in the present study included 198 students from India and 91 students from the United States.

Measures:  To assess students’ school stress, students were given the  Stress Test Questionnaire (Bezuh, 2004).  The Stress Test Questionnaire is a 15-item criteria referenced measure developed in India that assess physiological and social symptoms of stress. For each item, the student decides if the stressor occurred within the school year.  If the stressor did occur, the student decides  how upset he/she was when it occurred using a 4-point scale (ranging from 1 = not upset, through 4 = very upset). 

Procedures:  Surveys were administered on the project webpage during the spring of the 2006 school year.  Students were told there were no right or wrong answers to the survey items.  They were also informed that their answers would be kept confidential and that completing the survey was completely voluntary.  Teachers were available to answer any questions and help students who needed assistance with the survey.  After the results were obtained, the participating teachers and faculty from the M.J.P.R. University, Bareilly had on-line and video conferencing to analyze the results and discuss implications. 

Results

Differences in School Stress:  The results of the comparative study are presented in Table 1.  For the first step, an analysis was conducted to assess differences between students in India and students in the U.S. in the level of stress they reported.  The expectation that most students would report low to moderate levels of stress was supported.  Eighty-three percent of U.S. students reported moderate levels of stress while sixty percent of Indian students reported moderate levels of stress.  When comparing the number of students reporting low and high levels of stress, chi-square analysis of the results indicated significant (p<.05) difference between the Indian and American students.  Over twice as many Indian students reported high levels of stress when compared to their American counterparts.  However, twice as many Indian students reported low levels of stress when compared to their American counterparts. 

Table 1.  Results of a comparison of reported stress in Indian and U.S. middle school students.

	Indian Students N=198	U.S. Students N=91
Low levels of stress *	18%	9%
Moderate levels of stress *	60%	83%
High levels of stress *	22%	8%

* chi square significant at p<.05

Discussion

            After collection and analysis of the data, faculty members from the M.J.P.R. University, Bareilly engaged the teachers of these students in discussions about the results.  The discussion sessions were conducted on-line and through video-conferencing.  The discussions focused on trying to answer two questions: 1. Why did twice as many Indian students report high levels of stress? and 2.  Why did so few American students report low levels of stress?

            Why did twice as many Indian students report high levels of stress?

            As Indian and American teachers began talking about stress in their students, it became evident that the Indian teachers found that the students with the highest levels of stress were students with special learning needs.  Unlike in American schools where there is an emphasis on inclusive practices and providing academic supports in the regular education setting, Indian teachers reported few or no academic supports for Indian students with special learning needs.  This lack of academic supports was identified as the primarily reason for stress for Indian students.  In contrast, the American teachers reported that students with high levels of stress in the U.S. were students with peer issues (i.e. bullying).

Why did so few American students report low levels of stress?

            American teaches were alarmed by the fact that less than ten percent of their students reported low levels of stress.  The American and Indian teachers discussed possibilities for this and concluded that a primary reason was associated with the structure of the school day in American middle schools.  Middle schools in the U.S. typically have instructional periods ranging from 60-90 minutes followed by 5 minute breaks between classes.  Indian middle schools have instructional periods for 40-45 minutes followed by a 15-20 minute break.  During the breaks, Indian students are encouraged to engage in physical activities.  Indian teachers felt that the length of class periods in the U.S. was unreasonable and physiologically difficult for students.  This expectation was seen as a source of stress for students since they do not have time to “rest, relax, and regroup”.  In Indian schools, there is a greater emphasis on art, music, and leisure activities.  These are often limited in American schools.  Indian teachers reported that their more balanced curriculum provides a less stressful environment than curriculums that focus primarily on academics.   Indian teachers estimated that between thirty to forty percent of the school day was not focused on academics while American teachers estimated that between ten to twenty percent of the school day was not focused on academics.

Implication

            The findings from this study suggest that Indian schools need to identify ways to provide academic supports to students with special learning needs in the regular education environment.  Much research suggests that providing academic support to students who are struggling in the regular education setting has positive effects in academic performance (Friend & Bursuck, 1996; Gore, 2003) and increases in self-esteem (Frymeir, 1992; McGlaughlin, 2000) along with a reductions in stress (Crawford, 2004; Sousa, D, 1995).  American schools need to identify ways to implement a school day structure that is physiologically reasonable for students and to increase the value placed on art, music, physical education, and recess.  Nichols (2005) and Arnold (2002) have shown that shorter class periods at the middle school level can result in improved academic achievement.  Researchers have found that allowing students to have recess has an impact on academic achievement (Blachford & Sumpner, 1998; Rowe & Rowe, 1992; Vygotsky, 1967; Waite-Stupiansky & Findlay, 2001) and student behavior (Jarrett, Maxwell, Dickerson, Hoge, Davies, & Yetley, 1998;  Skrupskelis, 2000; Ridway, Northup, Pellegrin, & Tightshoe, 2003; Pellegrini, 2005 ).  Studies have shown that stress in students is reduced when school days include art (Rabkin & Redmond, 2006; Boyes, Reid, 2005), music (Schmidt, 2005; Eady & Wilson, 2004) and physical education (Shephard, 1997; Rein, 1979; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). 

The results of this study show that comparative research between educational practices in different counties can lead to new insights on what are best practices for educating students.

REFERENCES

            Arnold, D. (2002).  Block schedule and traditional schedule achievement: A comparison.  NASSP Bulletin, 86, 42-53.

            Bear, G.G., Minke, K.M., & Manning, M.A. (2002). Self-concept of students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 31, 405-427.

Bezuh, K. (2004).  Stress Test Questionnaire: Vishakapatnam, India.

Blatchford, P. & Sumpner, C. (1998). What do we know about break time? Results from a national survey on break time and lunch time in primary and secondary schools.  British Educational Research Journal, 24, 79-94.

Boyes, L.C. & Reid, I. (2005).  What are the benefits for pupils participating in arts activities? The view from the research literature.  Research in Education, 73, 1-14.

            Center, D.B., & Wascom, A.M. (1986).  Teacher perceptions of social behavior in learning disabled and socially normal children and youth, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 420-425.

            Compas, B.E., Slavin, L.A., Wagner, B.M., & Vannatta, K. (1986).  Relationship to life events and social support with psychological dysfunction among adolescents.  Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15, 205-221.

            Crawford, G. (2004). Managing the adolescent classroom: Lessons from outstanding teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

            Daniels, E. (2005). On the minds of middle schoolers. Educational Leadership, 62(7), 52-54.

            Eady, I. & Wilson, J.D. (2004).  The influence of music on core learning. Education, 125(2), 243-248.

            Eccles, J.S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C.M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Maclver, D. (1993).  Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families.  American Psychologist, 48, 90-101.

            Elias, M.J., Gara, M., & Ubriaco, M. (1985). Sources of stress and support in children’s transition to middle school: An empirical analysis.  Journal of Clinical Psychology, 14, 112-118.

            Elias, M.J., Ubriaco, M., Reese, A.M., Gara, M., Rothbaum, P.A., & Haviland, M. (1992).  A measure of adaptation to problematic academic and interpersonal tasks of middle school.  Journal of School Psychology, 30, 41-57.

            Fein, G. (1979). Echoes from the nursery: Piaget, Vygotsky, and the relationship between language and plan.  In E. Winner & H. Gardner (Eds.), Fact, fiction, and fantasy in childhood (pp.1-17).  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

            Friend, M. & Bursuck, W. (1996). Including students with special needs. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

            Frymeir, J. (1992). Children who hurt, children who fail. Phi Delta Kappan. 74(3), 257-259.

            Geisthardt, C., & Munsch, J. (1996).  Coping with school stress: A comparison of adolescents with and without learning disabilities.  Journal of Leaning Disabilities, 29, 287-296.

            Gore, M. (2003). Successful inclusion strategies for secondary and middle school teachers: Keys to help struggling learners access the curriculum.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

            Hirsch, B.J., & DuBois, D.L. (1992).  The relation of peer social support and psychological symptomology during the transition to junior high school: A two-year longitudinal analysis.  American Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 333-347.

            Kuhne, M., & Wiener, J. (2000). Stability of social status of children with and without learning disabilities.  Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 64-75.

            La Greca, A.M., & Stone, W.L. (1990).  LD status and achievement: Confounding variables in the study of children’s social status, self-esteem, and behavioral functioning.  Journal of Leaning Disabilities, 23, 483.490. 

            Margalit, M. (2003). Resilience models among individuals with learning disabilities: Proximal and distal influences.  Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 82-87.

            Martinez, R.S. & Semrun-Clikeman, M. (2004). Emotional adjustment and school functioning of young adolescents with multiple versus single learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37 (5), 411-420.

            McLaughlin, M. (2000).  Reform for every learner: Teachers’ views on standards and students with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: Center for Policy Research.

            Nichols, J.D. (2005).  Block-scheduled high schools: Impact on achievement in English and Language Arts.  The Journal of Educational Research, 98(5), 299-309.

            Park, H.S., Tappe, P., Cameto, R., & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1990).  Social support and quality of life for learning disabled and mildly retarded youth in transition.  In R. Gaylord-Ross, S. Siegel, H.S. Parks, S. Sacks, & L. Goetz (Eds.), Readings in ecosocial development (pp. 293-328). San Francisco: San Francisco State University, Department of Special Education. 

            Pellegrini, A.D. (2005). Recess: Its role in education and development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

            Pellegrini, A.D. & Smith, P.K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Development, 69. 577-598.

            Perlstein, L. (2003).  Not much just chillin: The hidden lives of middle schoolers. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

            Rabkin, N. & Redmond, R. (2006).  The arts make a difference, Educational Leadership 63(5), 60-64.

            Ridgway, A., Northup, J., Pellegrin, A., & Hightshoe, A. (2003). Effects of recess on the classroom behavior of children with and without attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 253-268.

            Rowe, K.J. & Rowe, K.S. (1992). The relationships between inattentiveness in the classroom and reading achievement (Part B): An exploratory study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 357-368.

            Schmidt, C.P. (2005).  Relations among motivation performance achievement and music experience variables in secondary instructional music students, Journal of Research in Music Education 53(2), 134-137.

            Sousa, D. (1995). How the brain learns. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

            Vygotsky, L. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 12, 62-76.

            Wenz-Gross, M., Siperstein, G.N., Untch, A.S., & Widaman, K. (1997).  Stress, social support, and adjustment of adolescents in middle school.  Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 129-151.

            Wigle, S., White, W.J., & Parish, T.S. (1988).  A longitudinal comparison of high IQ and low IQ LD students.  Reading Improvement, 25, 282-285.