A Study on the Peer-Helpers in Junior High Schools
in the lRepu blic of China
Huang Yu
Department of Civic Education College of Education
INTRODUCTION
The 1970's witnessed the emergence of nonprofessional peer counselors within the counseling realm. Many peer counseling programs have been stimulated by both an increasing demand for counseling services and the inability of pro-fessio~a11y trained personnel to provide a11 the needed counseling services (Brown,
1974). Studies have deinonstrated that peer counseling appe訂s to be effective 詛 the areas of academic adjustment (Brown, 1965; Zunker & Brown, 1966; Brown, Wehe, & Zunker, 1971; Upcraft, 1971), socia1, and personal problems (Coleman, 1959; McDill, 1966; Wolff, 1969; Kern & Kirby, 1971; Mosher & Sprintha11, 1971; Ettkin & Snyder, 197~; Sussman, 1973). School counselors have been encouraged to use peer counselors 扭曲也 work .(Frank, 1975; Pyle, 1977; Samuels & Fain, 1977; Varenhorst, 1973). They realize that a successful peer program represents an important potential resource.
The basic premise behind the peer counseling concept is simple. That in-dividuals tend to seek out similar inin-dividuals for basic human interaction comes as no surprise (Ha11, 1973). Since during adolescence the peer group becomes the
“
significant other" of whom approval is sought, there were, ideally, sensitive and empathetic peers with whom adolescents could relate about daily emotional crisis,and disruptive situations could be avoided or interdicted. In addition, peer counse1ing also provides youngsters with experiences that enhance self-awareness and increase problem solving and decision-making ski
!1
s. It helps them to better cope with rea1< life situations (Samuels & Samuels, 1975). Furthermore, peerBulletin óf Natio叫 Taiwan Nonna1 University Vo1. XXVII
counselors learn greater responsibility for themselves and others as they can develop meaningful relationsrups with their counselees. Counselees leam this through their interactions with their counselors and each other (Samuels &
Samuels
,
1975). So Vassos (1971,
p,
209) believedthat 可eerinfluence is one of the best methods of organizing and utilizing the resources of students an.d their ability to help other students become more successful in the school setting." A peer counseling program should be designed as a supportive program that should seek to reach that segment of a school population that might not go to an adult for help with a particular problem. It should be designed to complement and supplement the ex挖出gguidance program.In the .Republic of China (R.O.C.\guidance servÏces in the junior high school have been functioning for 14 years. Research (Shu Shi-ch間， Chiu Wei-cheng
,
& Chang Chun-Hsing,
1977) indicated that under the increasing and persistent reinforcement from the supervisor, more attention has been paid to the guidanee service and there is a tendency of greater progress. But at the present tiIne, due to the lack of wel1-trained and qualified school counselors the school administrators are not fully prep缸ed for this kind of program. Most of the guidance services have not been well promoted and consequently their effects are not realized. Peer counseling could be a good resource and provide new direction to iInprove the guidance service in R.O.c.
In planning to estab1ish a peer counseling program 卸 Taiwanjunior high schools, we have to give consideration to a wide range of problems and solutions. Students' needs and attitudes must be the first consideration. If the students choose their peers frequently as resources to whom they could go when faced with problems, then peer counselii1g wi1l be a valuable program and have much potential for development.Statement 01 the Problem
This study was designed to ascertain to whom students prefer to go to for help with problems common to the junior high school students in the Repub1ic of China in order令 to delineate the importance of the peer dynamics as a founda-tion for developing peer counseling programs in R.O.C.
AS個dyon the Peer-Helpers 泊 Junior 扭曲Schools in the Republic of China
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is (1) To compare the peers to other helpers as a potential source of help relative to junior high school students' problems in order to see the value and potential of developing peer counseling program in R.O.C.; and (2) To compare the difference relative to sex, grade, and geographical loca-tion to ascertain the direcloca-tions of developing peer counseling program in R.O.C.
Hypotheses
The hypotheses tested in this study and stated in the null form were as follows:
1. There is no significant difference in the students' choice of persons to help them with problems common to junior high school students.
2. There is no significant difference relative to sex in the students' choice of persons to help them with problems common to junior high school students.
3. There is no sígnificant dífference relative to grade in the students' choice of persons to help them with problems common to junior high school students. 4. There is no sígnificant difference relative to geographical10cation in the students' choice of persons to help them with problems common to junior high school students.
Limitations and Delimitations
1. Subjects for this study were limíted to four selected major geographical areas in R.O.C. and only one school was chosen from each area: Taípei Lung-shan Junior High School (North), Taichung Kuang-Ming Junìor Hìgh School (Central), Kaohsiung Ling-Ya Junior High School (South), and I-Lan Fu-Hsin Junìor High School (East). Two intact classes (one male, one female) were randomly selected from each grade level (7, 8, and 9) at each of the schools. It willlimit generaliza-bility to other populatíons.
2. Students may have responded different1y had the instrument been administered at a different time and by a different person. This study. was delimited not to test the reliability of the designed instrument.
Bulletin of National Taiwan Nonnal University Vo1. XXVII
3. Comparisons made were limited to the data drawn from the instrument used.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Adolescents' preference for helpers with their problems has not b~en explored widely in R.O.C. Only few studies have been conducted in this field.
Tsai Yie-Wei, Cheng Rei-der and Yu Der-Huey (1 979) studied the search of help from 152 Taipei junior high male students and compared the difference between regular students and delinquent students. The students' preference scores among family，企iends， teachers, social agencies, self, and others in six probleIíl
areas were:
1. Study problem: Regular students and delinquent students had significant difference in seeking. help from family, peers, and teachers; both of them most preferred to look for help from peers [Regular (R): 47%, Delinquent (D): 70%]. 2. Health problem: Two groups had significant difference in searching for help from family and self. Both of them niost preferred to search for help fro~ family (R: 92%, D: 83%).
3. Getting-along-with-others problem: Two groups had significant dif-ference in seeking help from family, friend, and se1f. The regular stu!Íents prefer to seek help from family (41 %) while the delinquent stud~nts prefer the peers (66%).
4. Money problem: Two groups had significant difference in seeking help from peers and both of them prefer to seek help 企om the fami1y (R: 87%, D: 67%).
5. Psychological problem: Two groups had significant difference in looking for help from family and peers. The regular students most preferred help from family (55%) while delinquent students preferred the peers.
6. Emergency problem: Two groups had significant difference in seeking help from family and friends and both of them most preferred to seek help from fami1y (R: 72%, D: 35%).
Teacher Chung-Y outh Counse1ing Center (1 980) conducted a primary study on adolescents' preference for help with their problems from Taipei junior and I
senior high Gchool students.
A Study on the Peer-Helpers in Junior High Schools in the Republic of China
The instrurnent consisted of 10 problern ~reas which were farniJy conflict, rnoney problern, study problern, school life problern, personal rclationship problern, health problern, ernotional problern, self-concept problern, sex and boyj girl relationship problern, and 1ife phi1osophy problern. Students responded by indicating the first, second, and third choices they would go to for help with the problerns frorn eight helper areas which included farnily, relative, teacher and counselor, peerfriends, doctor, rninister, self, and no one.
In ten problern areas the selected helpers in this study were for:
1. Farnily conflict: Both junior and senior high school students rnost prefer to look for help frorn self and rnother. In addition, the fernale ranked the third selection of sister for a helper while the rnale ranked father as the third selection for a helper.
2. Money problern: The helpers 1isted rnost frequent1y in this problern area were family, peer-friends, no one, relative, teacher in that order.
3. Study problern: Students chose self, peers and farnily over all other sources of help.
4. School life problern: Peer-friends were ranked first by the students. Farnily and teachers ranked second and third.
5. Personal relationship problern: Students chose self and peerfriends over all other sources of help. Farni1y ranked third.
6. Health problern: Farnily was ranked first by the students. Doctor and self ranked second.
7. Ernotional problern: Students preferred to resolve this problern by self first, then seeked help frorn peer-friends.
8. Self-concept problern: Students chose farnily, peer-friends, and self over all other sources of help. In addition, in farni1y rnother was chosen rnore often than father.
9. Sex and boyjgirl relationship problern: Farnily and self were accorded equal ratings by the students and were over all other sources of help. Peer-friends ranked third.
10. Life philosophy problern: Students preferred family, peer-friends and self rnost.
Teacher Chung concluded that students rnost preferred their farnily as 一 159 一
Bulletín of National Taiwan Nonnal University Vol. XXVII
sources of help with thèir problems while peer-friends ranked second. It is noted that since students placed 1itt1e confidence in their teachers and counselors for help, the guidance servìce in high schools needed to improve.
DESIGNOF THE STUDY
Subjects
The sample for this study consisted of 1,155 junior high school students from Taipei Lung-Shan Junior HIgh School, Taichung Kuang-Ming Junior High School, Kaohsiung Ling-Ya Juruor High School, and I-Lan Fu-Hsin Juruor High School. Two (one male, one female) intact c1asses were randomly selected for each grade level (7, 8, and 9) at each of the participating schools.
Instrumentation
A questionnaire consisting of forty-seven (47) problems was developed on the basis of the review of the literature, discussion with school counselors in R.O.C., and from the top 75% of problems lísted by junior high school students on the 仿 ineseRevision 01 the Mooney Problem Check Lists (Junior High Form) (Huang Wen-Y恤， 1972). Chinese' Revision 01 the Mooney Problem Check Lists
is a standardized instrument and used widely 姐 juniorhigh schools in R.O.C. Hu Ping-α1Ung and Ho Fu-Tien (1977) pointed out that the test-retest reliability was. 97. The mean of. students' response was 42.90 and the agreement percentage between the result of test and the teache時，observation was 70.15%. In addition, the problems which. were 1isted inαinese Revision 01 the Mooney Problem
Check Lists are appropriate for peer counseling program. A pilot study was
administered in Taipei Ta-Li Junior High School on May 15, 1981 ，泊 order to see the availabi1ity of this questionnaire. The final instrument consisted of 47 problems to which students were asked to respond by indicating the first, second,
and third choices of helper they wou1d go to for help with their problems. Students cou1d select from twel閱(1 2) possible sources. For ten alternatives,
A Study on the Peer-Helpers in Junior 旭gh Schools in the . Republic of China
helpers included those selected pn the basis' of their accessibi!ity to students in the communities in which the study was conducted. Owing to the consideration of culture characteristics and previous studies, two additional alternatives were added: A
“
talk to no one" and an open四ended “other" .PROCEDURES
The final instrument was administèred to the selected subjects in the different cIasses in each school by 12 different teachurs from May 27, 1981 to June 11, 1981. Each conductor of the survey session followed the same guidelines for administering this survey.
Statistical Analysis
This study was designed to comp缸e the students' first choice of persons to help them with their problems. The students could select alternatives from 12 helpers regarding 7 different categories of problems. The following statistical procedure was used in analyzing the data:
1. Null hypothesis one is to test that there is no significant difference in the students' first choice of persons to help them with problems. A one-way cI assifica-tion chi-square test was used as a measure of discrepancy between observed and expected frequencies. The .05 level of significance was adhered for all tests made.
2. Null hypothesis two is to test that there is no significant difference relative to sex in the students' first choice of persons to help them with problems, null hypothesis three is to test that there is no significant difference relative to grade in the students' first choice of persons to help them with problems, and null hypothesis four is to tèst that there is no significant difference relative to geographical location in the students' first choice of persons to help them with problems. Two-way classification chi-square test was used to test the significance of a difference between two or more groups.
The .05 level of significance was selected. For the significant interaction,
graphs were used to demonstrate the significant relationship. 一 161 一
BulIetin of National Taiwan Nonnal University Vo1. XXVII
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Description of the Sample
Table 1 shows the total number of students by sex, grade, and geographìcal location from four selected schools for this study.
Table 1
Tota1 Samp1e Popu1ation
Males Females Schoo1s 7 8 9 7 8 9 Totals Lung-Shan 55 55 39 44 48 34 275 (Taipei) k(Tuaaizclhg-uMngin) g 52 50 54 50 48 42 296 Ling-Ya 58 45 34 56 52 55 300 (Kaohsiung) Fu-Hsin 45 48 50 49 42 50 284 (I-Lan) 210 198 177 199 190 181 N= 1155
In order to consider the limitation of time and finance in analyzing the data, subjects were randomly deleted by using the table of random number (Lin Chin-Shan, 1976). This procedure resulted in an n= 10 per ceU and a total N = 240.
Hypotheses Test Results
Null 均'pothesisOne
The important concern in hypothesis one was the helper categories. The X2 obtained for the helper categories was signifìcant beyond the .001 level. On
this basis, the null hypothesis was rejected and it indicates there was a significant difference in the choice of helper made by the students. Parents (28.51 %),
A Study on the Peer-Helpers in Junior High Schools in the Republic of China
friend (24.41 %), and sister-brother (12.62%) were the top three persons students choose as helpers. The results of the Chi-square for null hypothesis one are
reported in Table 2.
The forty-seven (47) items on the instrument were categorizedinto seven major problem areas labeled Health-Physical Development (items 1 and 2), School School (items 3-13), Home-Family (items 14-20), Money-Work-Future (items 21-28), Sex-Boy/Girl Relationship (items 29-30), Relations to People in General (items 31-36), and Self-Centered Concerns (items 37-47). In order to see the significant difference of students' choice for help in different problem areas, the chi-square test was computed in each problem area. Table 3 to Table 9 shows the results.
Table 2
Differences Among Helpers for Total Problems
Helper No. % Rank
Parents 3,216 28.51
"Sister-brother 1,424 12.62 3
'Counselor 755 6.69 6
Class advisor 824 7.30 5
General class teacher 239 2.12 9 School administrator 26 0.23 12 Peer-friend 2.753 24.41 2 Doctor-nurse 55 0.49 10 Social worker 309 2.74 8 Minister 55 0.49 10 Talk to no one 1,218 10.80 4 Other 406 3.60 7 11,280 100.00 X2 = 13194.63*** *** P
<
.001 一 163 一Bulletin of Nationa1 Taiwan Nonna1 University Vol. XXVII
Table 3
Dìfferences Among Helpers for Health Problems
Helper No. % Rank
Parents 279 58.13
Sister-brother
so
10.42 3Counselor 10 2.08 6
Class advisor 2 0.42 10
General c1ass teacher 4 0.83 9
School administrator
。
0.00 12 Peer-friend 52 10.83 2 Doctor-nurse 28 5.83 5 Social worker 5 1.04 8 Minister 1 0.21 11 Talk to no one 43 8.96 4 Other 6 1.25 7 480 100.00 X2=
1666.5*** ***p<
.001 一 164 一A Study on the Peer-Helpers in Junior High Schools in the Republic of Cruna
Table 4
Differences Among Helpers for School Problems
Helper No. % Rank
Parents 503 19.05 2
Sister-brother 365 13.07 3
Counselor 134 5.08 7
Class advisor 298 11.29 4 General class teacher 138 5.23 6 School administrator 7 0.27 10 Peer-friend 831 31.68 Doctor-nurse 2 0.08 12 Social worker 29 1.10 9 Minister 6 0.23 11 Talk to no one 271 10.27 5 Other 76 2.88 8 2,640 100.00 X2
=
3126.09*** 車 **p<
.001 - 165 一Bulletin of National Taiwan Nonnal University Vol. XXVII
Table 5
Differences Among He1pers for Family Problems
Helper No. % Rank
Parents 277 16.69 3
Sister-brother 346 20.60 2
Counse10r 92 5.48 6
C1ass advisor 93 5.54 5
General c1ass teacher 2 0.12 11
Schoo1 administrator 0.06 12 Peer-friend 418 26.88 Doctor-nurse 3 0.18 10 Social worker 66 3.93 8 Minister 16 0.95 9 Talk to no one 276 16.43 4 Other 90 5.36 7 1,680 100.00 X2 = 1728.41
***
***
p<
.001 一 166 一A Stúdy on the Peer-Helpers in Junior High Schools in the Republic of China
Table 6
.D
ifferences Among Helpers for Money~Work-Future_ProblemsHelper No. % Rank
J?arents
805
41.
93
Sister-bròther
207
12.78
3
Counselor
174
‘9.06
4
Class advisor
134
6.38
5
General c1ass teacher
47
2.45
9
School adrninistr研討10
0.52
10 Peer-friend -295
15.36
2
Docíot-nurse O0.00
12
Social worker64
.3
.33
7 Minister3
0.16
Talk to no one121
6.3
6
Other60
3.13
8
1
,920
100.00
X
2 =3397.45***
*串串 p<
.0Cl 一 167 一Bulletin of National Taiwan Normal University Vol. XXVII
Table 7
Differences Among Helpers for Sex-BoyjGir1 Relationship Problems
Helper No. % Rank
Parents 120 25.00
Sister-brother 36 7.5 5
Counselor 51 10.63 3
Class advisor 35 7.29 6
General C1ass teacher 20 4.17 9 School administrator 2 0.42
11
Peer-friend 96 2o.do 2 Doctor-nurse 17 3.54 10 Social worker 31 6.46 7 Minister O 0.00 12 Talk to no one 48 10.00 4 Other 24 5.00 8 680 100.00 X2 = 351.82*** ***p<
.001 一 168 一A Sludy on the Peer-Helpers in Junior r五gh Schools
扭曲e Republic of China
Table 8
Differences Among Helpers for Relationships to People in General Problems
Helper No.
%
RankParents 401 27.85
Sister-brother 186 12.92 3
Counselor 121 8.40 5
Class advisor 101 7~Ol 6
General C1ass teacher 13 。.90 9 School administrator 3 0.21 10 Peer-friend 366 25.42 2 Doctor-nurse 3 0.21 11 Social worker 30 2.08 8 Minister 0.07 12 Talk to no one 162 11.25 4 Other 53 3.68 7 1,440 100.00 X2 = 1762.82*** ***p
<
.001 -169 一Bulleti.il of Nationa1 Taiwan Norrna1 University Vo1. XXVII
Table 9
Differences Among Helpers for Self-Centered Concerns Problems
Helper No.
%
RankParents 831 31.47
Sister-brother 254 9.62 4
Counselor 173 6.55 5
Class advisor 161 6.10 6
General Class teacher 15 0.57 10 School administrator 3 0.12 11 Peer-friend 695 26.32 2 Doctor-I1urse 2 0.07 12 Social worker 84 ‘3.18 8 Minister 28 1.06 9 Talk to no one 297 11.25 3 Other 97 3.67 7 2,640 100.00 X2 = 3722.02*** ***p
<
.001 -17。一Null Hypothesis Two
A Studyon 也ePeer-Helpers in Junior 阻gh Schools in the Repub1ic of China
The important concern in hypothesis two was the independence between sex group and helper group. The b.ypothesis asked the question
,“
Do students have a signif::cant difference of helper based on, the sex of the student?" The resu1ts of the Chi-Square are reported in Table 10 Since the X2 obtained was significant beyond the .001 level, the null hypothesis was rejected and the rela-tionship was graphed using the appropriate cell percent in Figure 1. The decision to reject ìndìcates that there was significant difference in students' choice of helpers based on sex, and the graph depicts that information specifically.The relationship in Figure 1 indicates males preferred to choose the parents, peer-friend, a::1d sister-brother more frequehtly than other helpers and fem抖的 preferred to choose the peer friend, parents, and no one more frequently than others.
Null Hypothesis Three
The important concern in hypothesis three was the independence between grade group and helper group. The hypothesis asked the question
,“
Do students have a significant difference in their Choice of helpers based on the grade in school?" The :results of the Chi-square are reported in Table 11 The X2 obtained was significant beyond the .001 leve1. Therefore the null hypoihesis was rejected and the relationship was graphed using appropriate cell percent in Figure 2. The decision to reject indicates that there was significant dìfference in students' choìce of helpers based on grade level and the graph ìllustrates that information. The relationship in Figure 2 indicates that juniors, sophomores, and seniors preferred peer-friend, parents, and sister-brother frequently more often than other helpers. Relative to hypothesis three, examination of the graph indicates that in reference to the top three helpers, sophomores were more like1y to choose the peer-friend than juniors or seniors. Juniors tended to select parents more often than sophomores or seniors. Seniors showed a tendency to select sister-brother more than juniors or sophomores.Bu11etin of Nationa1 Taiwan Nonna1 University Vol. XXVII
Table 10
The Relations Between Helper and Sex
Male Pemale
Helper No.
%
Rank No.%
Rank Parents 1,705 30.23 1,511 26.79 2 Sister-brother 746 13.23 3 678 12.02' 4 Counselor 471 8.35 6 284 5 、04 6 C1ass advisor 499 8.85 4 325 5.76 5 Genetal c1ass 137 2.43 9 102 1.81 '8 teacher Scho01 18 0.32 12 8 0.14 12 administrator Peer~friend 1,145 20,30 2 1 ，608，、， 28.51 Doctor-nurse 37 0.66 10 18 0.32 11 Social worker 217 3.85 7 92 1.63 9 Minister 29 0.51 11 26 0.46 10 Talk to no one 481 8.53 5 737 13.07 3 Other 155 2.75 8 251 4.45 7 5,640 100.00 5,640 , 100.00 X2 :::: 279.84*** ql " ***p <, .001 一 172 一A S缸údyon the Peer-Helpers in JUüior Hi拉 SchooIs in the Republic of China
Figure 1
Interaction Between Helper and Sex
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 、\ \ \ 、\ ----一、 \ 、 、、. .、 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 相同 ωoho 弘 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 7 - peer-friend 8 - doctorjnurse 9 - social worker 1 0---minister 11 - talk to no one 12 - other -173 一 Helper 1 - parents 2 - sisterjbrother 3 - counselor 4 - c1ass advisor
5 - general class teacher 6 - school administrator male
Bulletin of National Tiliwan Nonnal University Vol.
xxvn
Table II
The Relatìons Between Helper and Grade
Junior Sophomore Senior
Helper No. % Rank No % R位ùc No. % Ran.
Parents 1,269 33.75 1,031 27.42 916 24.36 2
Sister-brother 445 11.84 3 489 13.00 3 490 13.03 3
Counselor 268 7.13 6 241 6.41 5 246 6.54 6
C1ass advisor 281 7.47 5 226 6.01 6 317 8.43 5
General class teacher 115 3.06 7 69 1.86 9 55 1.46 9
School admìnistrator 12 0.32 12 10 0.27 12 4 0.11 12 Peer-fríend 703 18.70 2 1,097 29.18 953 25‘35 Doctor‘nurse 19 0.51 11 17 0.45 10 19 0.51 10 Social worker 108 2.87 9 85 2.26 8 116 3.09 8 Mì別ster 26 0.69 10 12 0.32 11 17 0.45 1I Talk to no one 403 10.72 4 333 8.86 4 482 12.82 4 Other 111 2‘95 8 150 3.99 7 145 3.86 3,760 100.00 3,760 100.00 3,760 100.00 X' = 240.26*** ***p < .001 一 174 一
A Stuùy on the Peer-Helpers in Junior 目gh Schools in the Republic of China
Figure 2
Interaction Between He1per an吐 Grade
10.00 40.00 30.00 UV臼 oolE 門開 20.00 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Helper 叮叮心 hu cn mAM&ab eS VA+L4mu OLVVAOB , A 啥叫 AO 的 n Hr ﹒的 kb wuOW 恥 cvu uh 叫“祉，山 間叮到浴缸叫 tuanh -solec psccgs 一一一一一一 -A 呵，品司 34. 戶、 JKU 7 - peerjfriend 8 一位。ctorjnurse 9 - sÓCÌal worker 10 - minister 11 - talk to no one 12 - other Jumor sophomore semor 山且血且姐姐血岫 -175 一
BUlletin of Na尬。na1 Taiwan Norma1 University Vol. XXVIl‘
Null.的'pothesis
Four
The important concern in hypothesis four was the relations between geographical location group and helper group. The hypothesis asked the question,
“
Do students have a significant difference in selecting helpers based on the geographical10cation of the school?" The results of the Chi-Square are reported in Table 12. Sfuce the X2 obtained was significant beyond the .0011evel, the null hypothesis was rejected and the relationship was graphed usfug the appropriate cell percent in Figure 3. The decision to reject indicates that there was significant difference 卸 students' choice of helpers based on geographicallocation of school,
and the graph describes 血atinformation.The relationship in Figure 3 indicat臼 that the students 泊 Taichung， Kaohsiung, and I-Lan preferred to choose the parents, peers, and sister-brother 品 helpers more frequently than other helpers while the students in Taipei prefèrred to choose p前en峙， peer
s,
and no one more frequently. The graph also indicates that in reference to the top three sources of help there was a tendency for students in Taìpeì to choose peer-friend and no one more frequently than students in Taichung, Kaohsiung, and I~Lan. The students 凶 Kaohsiung and Taichung tended to select pal'ents more often than the students in Taipei and 1-Lan and the students in I-1-Lan showed a tendency to select sister-brother more than the students ín the other three areas.Discuss;on
The resu1ts of this study have positive implications for peer dynamics. Peers seem to be an important choice as a helping person relative to junior high school students inc1uded in this study, even though p訂ents were the most preferred sources of help. The fact that the peer was the second from the top three persons students most frequent1y chose indicates that students use their natural relation-ships with parents as their first source of help. But if this breaks down or proves unsatisfactory the students do view their peers as persons to whom they could turn for help.
The fact that parents are the first choice and the sister-brother is the third
Table 12
The Relations Between Helper and Geographical Location
I-Lan % Kaohsiujg No. 呢 Taichung ?毛 Taipei
% R缸lk No. Rank Rank No. Rank
No. Helper 26.17 738 30.57 862 29.72 838 27.59 778 Pa 3 14.18 400 3 13.55 382 3 12.41 350 4 10.35 292 S-B 〉 mzmqg 岱mFOHZ 間。 -BHmEMUHHMR回事會古巴個 HHHHFOMNOUUσ]HnRnzs 6 6.49 183 5 9.08 256 6 4.47 126 5 6.74 190 、 Co 8.3 0 234 6 7.27 205 5 8.40 237 6 5.25 148 CA 9 2.34 66 8 1.45 41 8 2.80 79 9 1.88 53 GCT -H 吋吋 i SA 4 0.14 12 7 0.25 12 8 0.28 10 7 0.25 12 、 12.02 621 勻 24.61 694 2 23.87 673 2 27.13 765 P-F 10 。.60 17 12 0.82 23 11 0.32 9 11 。 .21 6 D-N 8 3.72 105 7 2.06 58 9 2.70 76 8 2.48 70 SW 11 0.10 14 10 0.28 8 10 0.43 12 10 0.74 21 M 4 9.86 278 4 8.62 243 4 11.35 320 3 13.37 377 NO 7 5.57 157 9 1.42 40 7 3.30 93 7 4.11 116 .Ot X2 = 269.1 *** 100.00 2,820 100.00 2.820 100.00 2,820 100.00 2 ，且 20 SW - SociaJ worker Mi - Minister NO - Talk to no one Ot - Other GeneraJ c1ass teacher
School administrator Peer-friend Doctor-nurse 一一一 dAEM 吶 GEFD Parents Sister-brother Counselor Class i1dvisor *Up < .001 一一 -s aaOA RSCC
Bulletin of Nationa1 Taiwan Norma1 University Vol. XXVII
Figure 3
Interaction Between Helper and Geographica1 Location
60.00 50.00 但口OOHω 門向 30.00 20.00 10.00 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 peer/friend doctor/nurse Helper 7 Parents sister /brother 2 8 social worker 9 counselot 3 一 minister 10 一 c1ass advisor 4 一 talk to no one 11
genera1 dass teacher 5 other 12 school administrator Taipei Taichung 6 一 178 一 一-一一 一一一一一 ob n u mn
訓，以
KEA Study on the Peer-Helpers in Junior 血gh Schools in the Repu blic of Chlna
choice is an indication that students in this study view the family as a
v:
tal part of their lives, and see their parents and sister-brother as resources in time of trouble. It reflects Chinese cultural characteristics which indicate that fami1ies exert great influence over their chi1dren's 1ives. Meanwhile, it also indicates that even though peer dynamics is an increasing influence on adolescents, p訂閱ts sti11 act as a primary and 扭lportant source for adolescents to seek help. This finding lends credence to the practice of increasing the p缸en鼠， education 扭那idance programs of junior high schools.The fact that the peer is the second choice forhelp affirms the role of the peer as an L"11portant helper with problems relative to junior high school students. This result confirms that peer dyr..amics is very important to Chinese students and peer counseling programs would be valuable programs and could have much potential in developing the school guidance program in the Repub1ic of China. In addition, the comparison of helpers in seven problem areas showing that peers were the first source of help inboth school and family problem areas implies that the peer counseling program would be a more appropriate development in dealing with school and fami1y problem areas in the Repub1ic of China.
The significant relationships between helper and sex;, grade, and geographica1 location in this study pro'vide interesting material for discussion but must be examined more thoroughly before any conc1usions could be substant.ated. The finding that females prefer peers more often than males may indicate that females go to peer-friends as opposed to adults because of anxiety-producing biological developments which may be embarrassing. Dramatic physica1 and emotional changes influence peer group acceptance for the girl who wants to explore and examine herself with friends. In addition, the possibility exists that females may be facing more problems 旭 this period of their lives than males and therefore turn to outside sources of help more often. The fact that males sought help from the parent more often than females might suggest that males experier..ce slower emotional and physical changes and thus the natural relationship with parents can be an adequate source of help.
The significant grade level relationship also poses some 迫切resting possibili-ties. The fact that sophomores and seniors chose peers more often than juniors while the
Bulletin of National Taiwan Normal University Vo1. XXVII
fluence has the tendency to gradually increase. Furthermore, the significant geographical location interaction also points out some possibilities. Students in Taipei chose peers more often than the other three areas. This may reflect the fact that the young subculture has gradually become an important phenomenon in such big urbancity!as Taipei 卸 the Republic of China.
Conclusions
ßased on the. results of this study, the following conc1usions were drawn: 1. The students in this study showed significant differences in their choos-ing persons to help them with problems. They tended to choose parents, peers, andsister-brother as the top three sources of help with their problems, and tended to choose parents more often than peers and they chose peers more often than
sister-brother.
2. The students in this study did tend to view the peers as a significant source of help for their problems. This indicates that peer dynamics is very important to Chinese students in this study.
3. The sex of the student wa~ found to influence his choic~ of the helpers. However, in spite of these differences, results indicated that parents and peers wete frequently preferred over the other helpers listed.
4. The gra.de of the student was found to influence his choice of the helpers. However, inspite of these differences, the overall results indicated that parents, peers, and sister-brother were more frequent1y preferred over the other helpers listed.
5. The geographical location was found to influence his chçice of the helpers. However, inspite of these differences, the results indicated that parents and peers were most frequently preferred over the other helpers listed.
Recommendations
ßased on the results and conc1usions of this study the fol1owing recom-mendations were made:
1. Peer dynamics has turned out to be very important for junior high school students. Peer counseling programs should therefore be designed to complement
A Study on the Peer-Helpers in Junior 血gh Schools in the Repu blic of China
and supplement the existing guidance programs in junior high schools.
2. Since parents seem to play a significant role in helping their adolescents through prob1em situations,. parent education programs should be increased in junior high schools.
3. The influence of peers seems most important in schoo! and family problem areas. Peer counseling programs would be more appropriate in dealing with these problems.
References
Brown, W. F. Student to student counseling for academic adjustment. Personnel and Guidance J ournal, 1965, 43, 811-817.
Brown, W. 且， Wehe, N. 0., & ZU::J.kèr, V. G. Effectiveness of student-to-student counseling on the academic adjustment of potential college dropouts.
Journal o[ Educational Psychology, 1971,62,285-289.
Coleman, J. Social Structures and social climates in high school, [inal report.
University of Chicago: U. S. Office of Education Project, 1959.
Ettkin, L., & Snyder, L. A mode1 for peer-group counseling based on role-playing.
The School Counselor, 1972,19,215-218.
Frank, M. Peer group counseling: A challenge to grow. The School Counselor,
1974,22,267-272:
HaU, E. T. The silent language. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1973. Huang, Wen-Yin. A research of Mooney Problem Check List to Junior High School Students in Taipei. The Teaching and Learning, 1972, 5, 8-20. Hu, Ping-Chung, & Ho Fu-Tien. The guidebook [or Mooney Problem Check List,
Taipei: Chinese Behavior Science, Inc., 1977.
Kern, R., & Kirby, J. H. Utilizing peer helper influence in group counseling.
Elementaty School Guidanèe and Counseling, 1971,6, 70-75.
Lin, Ching-Shan. Statistics in psychology and education. Taipei: Tung-Hua Books
Co., 1976.
McDil1, E. L. Sources o[ educational climates in high schools. Johrt Hopkins
University, Baltimore: U. S. Offjce ofEducation Project, 1966.
Mosher, R. L., & Sprinthall, N. A. Psycholo函ca1 education: A means to promote personal development during adolescence. The Counseling Psychologist,
Bulletin of National Taiwan Nonna1 University Vo1. XXVII 1971,2,3-92.
Pyle, K. R. Developing a teen-peer facilitator program. The School Counselor,
1977,26,278-281.
Samuels，缸， & Fain, S. M. Peer counseling: An ongoing guidance currìculum
NASSP Bulletin, 1977, 61, 4349.
Samuels, D., & Samuels, M. The complete handbook ofpeer counseling. Miami, Florida: IFiesta, 1975.1
Shu, Shi-Chen, Chíu, Wei-Cheng, & Shang, Chun-Hsing. A study on guidance service at junior high schools in Taiwan. Bulletin 01 Educational Psychology,
1977,10,83-89.
Susstnan, M. B. The deyelopment and effects of a model for training peer group counselors in a mu1ti-ethnic junior high school. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, University of Miami, 1973.
Teacher Chung-Youth Counseling Center. Who help me? 一basic study in the behaviors of searching help and offering help on adolescents. Bulletin of Counseling lor Youth, published in R. O. C., 1980. 6(6),346-360.
Tsai, Yie-W剖， Cher屯， Rei-der, & Yu Der-huey. Junior high students' problem behavior, sense of familial belonging and the search of help. The Chinese Guidance Association Journal, published in R. O. 仁， 1979, 15(9 & 10), 27-38.
Upcraft, M. L. Undergraduate students as academíc advisers. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1971,49, 827-831.
Varenhorst, B. B. Middle/junior high school counselors' corner. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 1973,8,54-57.
Vassos, S. T. The utilization of peer influence. The School Counselor, 1971, 18(3),209.
Wolf, T. Undergraduates as campus mental hea1th workers. Presonnel and Guidance Journal, 1696 ， 紹， 294-304.
Zunker, V. G., & Brown, W. .F. Comparative effectiveness of student and profes. sional counselors. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 44, 738-743
我國圈中學生同儕互助行為之調查研究
