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 (6th-8th 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.
