Comparison of Self-Concept between Rural & Urban School Going Adolescent

Dr. Sukhbir Singh

Assistant Professor,

Deptt. of Physical Education, A.I. J.H.M. College, Rohtak (Haryana)

pollution-in-delhi

Abstract: The purpose of the study, 50 subjects (25 rural and 25urban) were selected randomly from rural and urban area school going adolescent in Rohtak  District (Haryana). The age level of the subjects ranged from 13 to 14 years. The Self-concept variable was selected for the present study. Self-concept was assessed with the help of Swatva Bodh Parikshan (SBP) Self-Concept Questionnaire constructed and standardized by Dr. G. P. Sherry, Dr. R. P. Verma and Dr. P.K. Goswami. Swatva-Bodh Parikshan, is a forty-eight item test, yielding scores in eight different dimensions of the self-concept and on the total. Thus, the present test provides eight separate measures of self-concept. The data thus collected were put to statistical treatment computing independent t test to find out the differences, if any between the rural and urban. Further the level of significance was set at 0.05. The experiment carried out on twenty five rural and twenty five urban school going adolescent students to find out the comparison on self-concept. After applying standard questionnaire to obtained response and statistical treatment, the results come out were shows significant difference between rural and urban school going adolescent students.

 Keywords :  Self-Concept, Rural & Urban School, Adolescent, Random Method.

Introduction : Self-concept is a multi-dimensional construct that refers to an individual’s perception of “self” in relation to any number of characteristics, such as behavior, intellectual and school status, physical appearance and attributes, anxiety, popularity, happiness and satisfaction and many others. While closely related with self-concept clarity, it presupposes but is distinguishable from self-awareness, which is simply an individual’s awareness of their self. The self-concept is undergoing something of a renaissance in contemporary social psychology. It has, of course, been a central concept within symbolic interactionism since the seminal writings of Mead (1934), Cooley (1902), and James (1890). However, even within this sociological tradition there has been a revitalization of interest in the self-concept: with developments in role theory (Turner 1978; Gordon 1976), with the increasing focus on the concept of identity (McCall & Simmons 1978; Stryker 1980; Gordon 1968; Guiot 1977; Burke 1980), with the reemergence of interest in social structure and personality (House 1981; Turner 1976; Kohn 1969, 1981; Rosenberg 1979), and with the reconceptualization of small group experimental situations (Alexander and colleagues 1971, 1981; Webster & Sobieszek 1974). The reemergence of the self-concept is even more dramatic within psycho- logical social psychology. Much of this revitalization of interest in self- phenomena (e.g. self-awareness, self-esteem, self-image, self-evaluation) is due to the “cognitive revolution” in psychology (December 1974; Manis 1977), generally at the expense of behaviorism. As a result, the self concept has become conspicuous in areas and traditions that were previously considered alien terrain: within behaviorism via Bem’s (1972) theory of self-attribution; within social learning theory via Bandura’s (1977) focus on self-efficacy; and within cognitive dissonance theory via Aronson’s (1968) and Bramel’s (1968) reformulations. It is also increasingly evident in theories of attitude and value formation and change (Rokeach 1973, 1979), in attribution theory (Epstein 1973; Bowerman 1978), and in various other recent theories of cognitive processes (see Wegner & Vallacher 1980). Perhaps as important as these “intentional” theoretical developments in social psychology for the refocus on self-concept is what one reviewer calls “the inadvertent rediscovery of self” in experimental social psychology (Hales 1981a). This refers to the observation that experimental results frequently could be explained as well or better by the operation of self-processes within these settings [such as Alexander’s “situated identity theory” (1981)] than by the theoretical variables under investigation. This “inadvertent” discovery of self may have contributed to the socalled “crisis” in social psychology (Boutilier et al. 1980; Hales 1981a). In this review I focus on developments and trends in self-concept theory and research within social psychology.’ However, as Stryker (1977) and House (1977) point out, there are several social psychologies. The major distinction is between social psychology developed within the sociological tradition and that emerging from the psychological tradition. The self-concept is increasingly important within both disciplines; developments within both are reviewed. The two social psychologies differ in their focus. Sociology tends to focus on the antecedents of self conceptions, and typically looks for these within patterns of social interaction. Psychology, on the other hand, tends to focus on the consequences of self-conceptions, especially as these relate to behavior. The latter focus is more likely than the former to lead to questions of motivation (e.g. the self-esteem motive, consistency motive, efficacy motive). In a sense, sociology and psychology have complementary biases regarding the self-concept. If the “fundamental attribution bias” of psychologists is an overly “internal” view of the causes of behavior (Ross 1977), the attribution bias of sociologists is a tendency to look for the causes of behavior outside the individual-i.e. in culture, social structure, or social situation. Several aspects of the self-concept literature are not reviewed: I do not delve into the extensive literature on specific social identities, such as sexual and gender identities, various occupational identities, and specific deviant identities (e.g. delinquent, criminal, mental patient). Here I treat the social- psychological literature on self-concept, largely ignoring the clinical, humanistic, and philosophical traditions. (Gecas, 1982) [8]. indicates that a mean and standard deviation values with regard to self-concept variable in rural were 30.64 and 3.52 whereas in urban the mean and standard deviation were recorded as 34.28 and 2.851 respectively. There was significant difference between rural and urban school going adolescent students found as the calculated t-value (4.016) was more than tabulation t-value (2.01) at 0.5 level. As the results indicate researcher hypothesis is accepted.

Self-concept  : The self-concept as an organizer of behavior is of great importance. Self-concept refers to the experience of one’s own being. It includes what people come to know about themselves through experience, reflection and feedback from others. It is an organized cognitive structure comprised of a set of attitudes, beliefs, values, variety of habits, abilities, out looks, ideas and feelings of a person. Consistency of behavior and continuity of identity are two of the chief properties of the self concept. Self-concept is positively related with their school achievement. Self-concept is a factor which helps to study the human behavior and personality. There are several different components of self-concept: physical, academic, social, and transpersonal. The physical aspect of self-concept relates to that which is concrete: what we look like, our sex, height, weight, etc.; what kind of clothes we wear; what kind of car we drive; what kind of home we live in; and so forth. Our academic self-concept relates to how well we do in school or how well we learn. There are two levels: a general academic self-concept of how good we are overall and a set of specific content-related self-concepts that describe how good we are in math, science, language arts, social science, etc. The social self-concept describes how we relate ourselves to other people and the transpersonal self-concept describes how we relate to the supernatural or unknown.

Research Methodology :

  • Selection of Subjects : For the purpose of the study, fifty subjects (twenty five rural and twenty five urban) were selected randomly from rural and urban area school going adolescent in Rohtak District(Haryana)The age level of the subjects ranged from 13 to 14 years.
  • Criterion Measures : The Self-concept variable was selected for the present study. Self-concept was assessed with the help of Swatva Bodh Parikshan (SBP) Self-Concept Questionnaire constructed and standardized by Dr. G. P. Sherry, Dr. R. P. Verma and Dr. P.K. Goswami.
  • Description of the Test : Swatva-Bodh Parikshan, is a forty-eight item test, yielding scores in eight different dimensions of the self-concept and on the total. Thus, the present test provides eight separate measures of self-concept. The statements of the test are simple and declarative about self, see-king responses in “Yes” or “No”. Responses are obtained on an answer-sheet and the test booklet can be used again and again. There is no time for completing the test, but the respondent is advised to complete the test as quickly as possible. Generally it takes a respondent about 20 minute to complete the test. A high score on this test indicates a bright self-concept while a low score shows a poor self-concept.

 Analysis of the Data:

  • Result and Discussion : The data thus collected were put to statistical treatment computing independent t test to find out the differences, if any between the rural and urban. Further the level of significance was set at 0.05. The findings of the study have been presented in table- I Table 1: Showing comparison of self-concept between rural and urban school going Adolescent Variable


Variable Group Mean SD SE MD Ot df Tt
Health and Physique Rural 3.68 1.52 0.38 1.20 3.176 48 2.01
Urban 2.48 1.12
Temperamental Qualities Rural 2.92 0.86 0.21 1.36 6.425 48 2.01
Urban 4.28 0.61
Academic Status Rural 4.76 1.48 0.39 1.12 2.905 48 2.01
Urban 5.88 1.24
Intellectual abilities Rural 4.68 1.22 0.32 0.64 2.009 48 2.01
Urban 5.32 1.03
Habits and Behaviour Rural 3.48 0.87 0.26 0.28 1.074 48 2.01
Urban 3.76 0.97
Emotional Tendencies Rural 2.64 1.08 0.26 0.96 3.639 48 2.01
Urban 3.60 0.76
Mental Health Rural 4.44 1.26 0.37 0.20 0.548 48 2.01
Urban 4.64 1.32
Socio-Economic Status Rural 4.04 0.68 0.19 0.28 1.449 48 2.01
Urban 4.34 0.69
Total Rural 30.64 3.52 0.91 3.64 4.016 48 2.01
Urban 34.28 2.85

*Significant at 0.05 level of confidence, t.05 (48) = 2.01.

Table-1 reveals that there is significant difference in health and physique of school going adolescent between pre and post test. The obtained t-value of 3.176 is more than the table value of 2.01. Table-1 shows that there is significant difference in temperamental qualities of school going adolescent between pre and post test. The obtained t-value of 6.425 is more than the table value of 2.01. Table-1 reveals that there is significant difference in academic status of school going adolescent between pre and post test. The obtained t-value of 2.905 is more than the table value of 2.01. Table-1 shows that there is insignificant difference in intellectual abilities of school going adolescent between pre and post test. The obtained t-value of 2.009 is less than the table value of 2.01. Table-1 reveals that there is insignificant difference in habits and behaviour of school going adolescent between pre and post test. The obtained t-value of 1.074 is less than the table value of 2.01. Table-1 shows that there is significant difference in emotional tendencies of school going adolescent between pre and post test. The obtained t-value of 3.639 is more than the table value of 2.01. Table-1 reveals that there is insignificant difference in mental health of school going adolescent between pre and post test. The obtained t-value of 0.548 is less than the table value of 2.01. Table-1 shows that there is insignificant difference in socioeconomic status of school going adolescent between pre and post test. The obtained t-value of 1.449 is less than the table value of 2.01. The table -1 indicates that a mean and standard deviation values with regard to self-concept variable in rural were 30.64 and 3.52 whereas in urban the mean and standard deviation were recorded as 34.28 and 2.851 respectively. There was significant difference between rural and urban school going adolescent students found as the calculated t-value (4.016) was more than tabulation t-value (2.01) at 0.5 level. As the results indicate researcher hypothesis is accepted. Graphical representation of above table is made in fig.1. Fig 1: Mean difference of self-concept between rural and urban school going Adolescent

Conclusion : The experiment carried out on twenty five rural and twenty five urban school going adolescent students to find out the comparison on self-concept. After applying standard questionnaire to obtained response and statistical treatment, the results come out were shows significant difference between rural and urban school going adolescent students.

 

References :

  1. 1. Uppal AK, Rajinder Singh. Changes in Self-Concept As A Result of Eight Mouth Regular Participation in Physical Education and Conditioning Programmes, SNIPES Journal. 1987; 8:2.
  2. Alderman RB. Psychological Behaviour in Sports, Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974.
  3. Best JW. Research in Education (New Delhi: Kalyani Publication, 2006.
  4. Bhalla SK. A comparative study of the self-concepts of disciplined and undisciplined students, Ph.D. Psy., Pan. U, 1970.
  5. Campbell Paul B. School and Self-Concept. Association for Supervision and Curriculum development, 1967.
  6. Cliffor Edward, Clifford Marrijum. Self –Concept Before and After Survival Training, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1967, 241-48.
  7. Floyd Conic Sturkie. Relationship between Physical Performance and Self-Concept Dissertation Abstracts International 1973; 12:6712.
  8. Gecas V. The Self-Concept. Annual Review of Sociology 1982; 8:1-33. http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp.
  9. Goswami PK. A study of self-concept of adolescents and its relationship to scholastic achievement and adjustment, Ph.D. Edu., Agra U, 1978.
  10. Huitt W. Self-Concept and Self –Esteem, 1998. http: //learningdomain.com
  11. Joseph Benjamin Johnson. A Comparison of Physical Fitness and Self-Concept between Junior High School Negro and White Male Students, Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 5180-A
  12. Kensal Devinder K. Applied Measurement Education and Sports Selection, New Delhi, Sports Publication, 2008.
Advertisements

Your views and comments are most welcome

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s