Identities of Change in Establishing High-Risk Adolescents' Academic ''I Am Who I Am Because of Here!'': School Settings as a Mechanism

http://jea.sagepub.com/Adolescence

The Journal of Early

http://jea.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/17/0272431613480271The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0272431613480271

published online 18 March 2013The Journal of Early AdolescenceElizabeth Levine Brown, M. Allison Kanny and Blake Johnson

Identitiesof Change in Establishing High-Risk Adolescents' Academic

''I Am Who I Am Because of Here!'': School Settings as a Mechanism

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:The Journal of Early AdolescenceAdditional services and information for

http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jea.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Mar 18, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on August 21, 2013jea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jea.sagepub.com/

http://jea.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/17/0272431613480271

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://jea.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jea.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jea.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/17/0272431613480271.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


Journal of Early AdolescenceXX(X) 1 –28

© The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0272431613480271

jea.sagepub.com

Article

“I Am Who I Am Because of Here!”: School Settings as a Mechanism of Change in Establishing High-Risk Adolescents’ Academic Identities

Elizabeth Levine Brown1, M. Allison Kanny2, and Blake Johnson3

AbstractA growing body of research considers the role of school settings in supporting adolescents’ social-emotional and behavioral development through instructional, social, and organizational practices (Eccles & Roeser, 2009). Recent lines of inquiry have begun to investigate individual aspects of the school setting and their influence in promoting positive academic outcomes and youth development (Shinn & Yoshikawa, 2008). These authors argue that, through an ecological lens, the school environment serves as a mechanism of change in supporting early adolescents’ academic identities. By presenting evidence that the school plays a fundamental role in changing these high-risk, African American youths’ academic perceptions, trajectories and aspirations, which led further to a 92% rate of students’ matriculation to college, we introduce how school setting characteristics support these youths’ conceptualizations of their academic identities. Moreover, this article

1George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA2University of California-Los Angeles, CA, USA3George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:Elizabeth Levine Brown, College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, MS 4B3, Thompson Hall 1804, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. Email: [email protected]

480271 JEAXXX10.1177/0272431613480271The Journal of Early AdolescenceBrown et al.research-article2013



2 Journal of Early Adolescence XX(X)

addresses how our understanding of early adolescents’ academic identities implicates future research and practice.

Keywordsidentity, inner-city/urban youth, positive youth development, school context

Due to demographic modifications and economic stratification that are chang-ing school contexts, public schools are increasingly accountable for students’ achievements and for closing the persistent gap between students of color and their White peers (National Center for Education Statistics[NCES], 2010; see also, Brantlinger, 1992; Chapa & Valencia, 1993 for review). Recent inquiry by the William T. Grant Foundation (Granger, 2006, 2007; Tseng, 2007) sug-gests that school settings play a role in promoting positive youth development and influencing academic learning (Shinn & Yoshikawa, 2008). In particular, research findings studying the role of school setting in promoting positive youth development suggest that factors of school setting such as, teacher- student relationships (Pianta & Allen, 2008), setting high expectations (Weinstein, 2008), and challenging learning environments (Meier & Wood, 2004) benefit student engagement and improve academic outcomes.

School setting, as defined by the William T. Grant Foundation, is the interaction of student social processes, academic resources, and the alloca-tion of those resources by teachers and administrators (Seidman, 2010; Tseng & Seidman, 2007). School setting constructs generally coincide with measures of academic performance; however, in adolescence, they take on an equally important role in nonacademic development (Poncelet, 2004). The emergence of nonacademic constructs, such as identity devel-opment and agency beliefs (i.e., a person’s belief that he or she has the skills, resources, and emotional stability to be successful in a given envi-ronment), coincide with academic developments in adolescent school set-tings (Nassar-McMillan, Karvonen, Perez, & Abrams, 2009; Renninger, 2009). Given research that during adolescence peers become one of the strongest socializing forces in youths’ lives (Brown, Bakken, Ameringer, & Mahon, 2008), the influence of school environments seems particularly important for high-risk,1 African American youth due to the presence of peer pressure to engage in hedonistic activities (Stoddard, Zimmerman, & Bauermeister, 2011) that may derail these students from achieving academically.

Thus, for these adolescents, academic success is dependent on the unique-ness and transformability of a school environment to initiate change in con-trast to the messages received from peers and the surrounding community,



Brown et al. 3

and also to support new identity formations that promote long-term academic success. Building upon prior inquiry, these authors consider how variables of the school setting influence how adolescents conceptualize themselves as academic beings for sustainable academic success. Specifically, the article considers the ability of a rigorous, highly structured middle school setting to operate as a mechanism of change, and how high-risk, African American youth perceived factors of their school setting as a means to nurture their academic identities (defined below).

The data presented here represent a smaller exploratory study integrated into a larger, longitudinal study of adolescents’ self-authorship2 in relation to academic achievement. Unrelated to the original study, data supported the ways that a school setting collectively operates as a mechanism for improved academic experiences for these adolescents. Hence, through a priori data, the current study aimed to explore the following research questions: (a) How and why do students identify their school setting as a mechanism of change?; (b) What school setting characteristics serve as mechanisms of change for these students?; and (c) Given these school setting characteristics, how do these high-risk, African American adolescents perceive themselves within the aca-demic domain?

Theoretical Framework

Identity Development in Context

Identity development in adolescence is strongly influenced by context (Adams & Marshall, 1996; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Kia-Keating, Dowdy, Morgan, & Noam, 2011; Rusby, Crowley, Sprague, & Biglan, 2011). In Bronfenbrenner’s model (1989), five localized systems or ecologies con-stantly interact and influence one another. The model is centralized at the microsystem with the most immediate sources of influence, and extends out-ward as far as the macrosystem, which takes into account the varying atti-tudes and ideologies of the culture of focus. Hence, the consideration of social contexts in adolescents’ lives is essential in order to more comprehen-sively understand adolescent identity development.

For instance, contexts affect the behaviors and beliefs of youth at a time when many experience greater psychosocial instability (Poncelet, 2004), adult supervision decreases (Richards, Miller, O’Donnell, Wasserman, & Colder, 2004), risk-taking behaviors typically emerge (Forbes & Dahl, 2010), and peer influences become more meaningful (Dodge & Sherrill, 2006). Further, adolescence is characterized by pronounced shifts in cogni-tive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal development. Erikson (1950)




pioneered this conceptualization of identity development by asserting that adolescents undergo a pivotal developmental period by which they eventu-ally attain identity synthesis.

Later work has shown that as these changes occur during adolescence, individuals typically undergo processes during which they “try on” various identities, using the surrounding context as a source of feedback by which they make decisions regarding an ultimate choice (Gardner & Steinberg, 2005). In Marcia’s (1991) Identity Status model, this process is described as a stage called moratorium in which adolescents actively explore alterna-tives with the underlying goal of identifying those identity dimensions that satisfy both intrapersonal and interpersonal conditions of the individual. In this way, adolescence marks a pivotal developmental moment for most youth as they search, identify, and develop prominent dimensions of iden-tity that will serve as a basis for their late adolescent and adult lives.

School Ecology and Identity Development

Given this emphasis on development within context, school environments can be viewed as salient contexts in which individuals undergo significant developmental changes. In particular, as a vital ecology within neighbor-hoods, schools become a context where all the elements of identity develop-ment converge (Gilligan, Briggs, Stanton, & Barron, 2010; Swartz & Martin, 1997). For instance, adolescent identity development is reflected through numerous mechanisms. Given this emphasis on development within context, school environments can be viewed as salient contexts in which individuals undergo significant developmental changes. In particular, as a vital ecology within neighborhoods, schools become a context where all the elements of identity development converge (Gilligan, Briggs, Stanton, & Barron, 2010; Swartz & Martin, 1997). For instance, adolescent identity development is reflected through numerous mechanisms embedded in the school setting, including the selection of school-based peers and the ability to make deci-sions, both academic and nonacademic. Indeed, Wortham (2006) details the deep interrelation between adolescent social identity development and aca-demic learning. Moreover, adolescents spend substantial amounts of time in school-centered activities, thus giving schools a greater ability to influence development. Hence, school settings guide behavioral and attitudinal norms and are shown to be linked to both academic achievement and social interac-tion patterns (Koth, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2008). Further, Eccles and Roeser (2009) posit that schools influence students’ social-emotional and behavioral development through social, organizational, and instructional processes. This development can occur as a result of various aspects of the school, ranging



Brown et al. 5

from the most proximal, everyday tasks to more removed influences such as district policy.

In fact, Eccles and Roeser’s (1999) seminal work, in which they intro-duced the Stage-Environment Fit model, provides a particularly useful means for conceptualizing schools as ecological systems in which identity develop-ment occurs. The model includes the school setting as an intermediate envi-ronment situated within a hierarchically ordered system. As do other ecological models, Eccles and Roeser’s work emphasizes constant interac-tions within and between systemic layers where student development occurs. Accordingly, the authors assert that schools must be thought of as systems “characterized by multiple levels of analysis composed of various regulatory processes (organizational, interpersonal, and instructional in nature)” (Eccles & Roeser, 2009, p. 404). In turn, it is these processes that impact students’ cognitive, social-emotional, and behavioral development. In turn, these pro-cesses inform our understanding of adolescent identity development within the school context.

The first two levels of the Eccles and Roeser’s (1999) model are of par-ticular relevance to the present study’s emphasis on identity development in consideration of school setting. At the most immediate educational level, classrooms act as miniregulatory systems that comprise aspects of school set-tings such as student-teacher interactions and relationships, instructional beliefs and practices, pedagogical approaches, classroom climate, classroom management, the nature of academic work, and motivational climate. With respect to adolescent identity development, these various components of the classroom level are paramount in laying a foundation for students to consider and shape their identities. However, classroom practices do not occur in a vacuum; rather, they both influence and are influenced by the surrounding school organizational context. These authors define this organizational level as inclusive of factors related to adolescent developmental processes includ-ing school climate, sense of community, peer interactions, and more struc-tural aspects of the particular environment (e.g., school size, availability of extracurricular activities, etc.).

Extending beyond the organization level of the ecological model, we con-sider the school district and larger social system levels. With regard to the school district level, Eccles and Roeser stress the importance of school con-texts for adolescent identity development, and particularly that which per-tains to the academic domain. Thus, as adolescents enter new middle school contexts, it is crucial that the school setting is appropriately suited to support students’ developmental needs in order to facilitate identity formation. Finally, we must consider the larger social system level in which each of the aforementioned contexts are embedded. Although this final context of the




ecological model is the most distal, it is argued to impact all that occurs within the more proximal layers affecting youths’ identity development. In particular, the broader community can influence school resources, institu-tional type, and norms for parent involvement, among a constellation of other factors. As such, the school context must be taken into account as an interme-diate context where adolescent identity development can be fostered.

Fostering Academic Identity in School Contexts for High-Risk, African American Youth

As a means to support identity development in youth, one area of study per-tains to understanding how schools support adolescents’ academic identity. Welch and Hodges (1997) define academic identity as “a dimension of a larger, global self-concept,” and posit that taken among adolescents in the academic setting, it is “central to academic performance and achievement motivation” (p. 37). In this way, Welch and Hodges’s work forms a useful nexus with the aforementioned views of identity development within context. Yet, because various scholars address academic identity in their work, it is important to note here that the conception of this term varies across studies and thus requires further discussion below.

Extant literature on academic identity is closely tied to that of academic self-concept (Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdtke, & Köller, 2008). The formation of a strong academic identity entails the fostering of a positive self-concept within the academic domain. Howard (2003) describes this function as a commit-ment to identifying, understanding, and persisting through challenges (often academic) that are likely to occur within the school setting. However, in addi-tion to academic self-concept, academic identity has also been linked to cog-nitive constructs (Graham, 1989). For adolescents, these might include the perception of one’s academic ability and control, interpersonal evaluation, and future expectations. Finally, an additional subbody of academic identity literature discusses the negotiation of competing identities (e.g., gender and race; Howard, 2003; Zirkel, 2002), which could further influence how youth develop their academic identities. Thus, the construct of academic identity is conceptualized via a number of complimentary and overlapping approaches.

Yet, notably lacking from the literature on academic identity is a contex-tual component that explicitly links school environments to the fostering of academic identities. As an extension of the aforementioned aspects of aca-demic identity among adolescents, here we consider the presence of an addi-tional component that may help to shape the construct of academic identity. The role of school settings within the broader community is of distinct impor-tance to high-risk, African American youth because of their increased



Brown et al. 7

exposure to incidences of violence, lower levels of supervision, and a range of demographic and family psychosocial risks (Dishion & Dodge, 2006; Pebley & Narayan, 2003; Schwartz & Proctor, 2000). Many of these contex-tual influences show profound implications for how these youth perceive their identities and perform academically (Grant et al., 2005). In particular, high-risk, African American youth tend to disengage from academically-driven identities as a result of their identification with competing influences outside of the academic achievement domain (Kerpelman, Eryigit, & Stephens, 2008). Because of this, understanding the role of school cultures and settings in shaping high-risk, African American academic identities is important (Nassar-McMillan et al., 2009). Given the present emphasis on understanding academic identities among high-risk, African American ado-lescents, it seems appropriate that an additional factor (i.e., school setting) be considered that takes into account the unique contexts in which these youth develop academic identities.

Thus, as a framework for this article, the authors state that in an ecological model, in addition to extant notions of academic identity among high-risk, African American youth, a school is positioned within a community of norms and influences that shape independent developments within the school. Simultaneously, school settings might also be considered as a system of nested environments where students can change their conceptualizations of academic potential and where middle schools are uniquely positioned within a community to facilitate the development of youths’ academic identities. Hence, the aim of this article is to articulate how high-risk, African American youth describe salient characteristics of their middle school context as mech-anisms of change in the conceptualization of their academic identities. In turn, these authors consider school context as an additional, uninvestigated component to understanding adolescent academic identity.

Method

Site Description and Participants

The school, referred to in this article as Shepherd Middle School (SMS), is located in a large city in the eastern United States. As part of a national move-ment to improve educational opportunities for high-risk students, students of color from underserved communities attend this charter school, which serves students in grades five through eight from public schools with low graduation rates and limited opportunities for secondary and postsecondary success. As identified by the principal, the mission of the school is to serve underre-sourced communities by providing a highly structured and rigorous academic




program that prepares underserved students for current and future academic success (i.e., attending college).

As a newly built middle school, SMS provides a safe and clean atmo-sphere, despite its location in a highly violent and crime-ridden urban com-munity. School walls display motivational academic slogans such as “Success is best” and “To achieve is to believe.” Additionally, college banners and paraphernalia dress, classroom doors and bulletin boards, and individual classrooms depict school mottos, student weekly incentive charts, and cur-rent affairs.

As noted during observations at SMS, classroom teachers and administra-tors engage frequently with students. All teachers provide contact informa-tion to students and parents and encourage follow-up for school-based questions. Although the school adheres to an extended school day, it is com-mon to see teachers and administrators at the school two to three hours beyond contracted hours and on weekends. Moreover, the annual school report indicates each teacher and staff missed on average only a half day of school for the entire previous school year.

The design of SMS involved implementation of an instructional model that incorporates high quality teachers, extended school days, goal-driven instruction, and formal partnerships among student, teacher, and parent trios. As acknowledged by the assistant principal, the working theory behind this reform school was to change the quality of educational experiences for high-risk students and to close the persistent achievement gap. In addition, the school stresses the importance of having academic goals such as, going to college and getting into a highly competitive high school, to engage students in thinking differently about their academic selves and futures in comparison to community peers enrolled in public schools.

According to the SMS 2009 annual report, the SMS student composition is 90% African American, and 80% low-income. Thirty one African American eighth-grade students participated voluntarily in this study. All students attended SMS at the time of the study and were representative of the larger demographic of students in regard to gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and academic achievement. Students were recruited based on their willing-ness to participate in the study. Parent or guardian consent was provided prior to the start of data collection.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection involved two one-on-one semistructured interviews, two demo-graphic surveys, one short-answer questionnaire and a videotaped tour of the school. Interview 1 asked youth identity development questions pertaining to



Brown et al. 9

the initial focus of the study (i.e., self-authorship theory) followed by probing questions for more in-depth understanding. Sample questions from interview 1 included: a) What are some things/events/experiences that are important to you?, b) How do you think others would define you?, c) What was your motiva-tion to come to this school?, and d) Has this school lived up to your expectations?

The second interviews focused on questions of school setting as a mecha-nism of change in addition to follow-up questions on self-authorship. Sample questions from interview 2 included (a) Where are you going to school next year? (b) How do you think your life would be different if you never came to SMS? (c) What parts of SMS (e.g., environment, teachers, peers, opportuni-ties) have been influential to your success? (d) How is this school setting different from schools you attended in the past? The demographic question-naires asked about high school admittance and family education, while the short-answer questionnaire explored how youth saw themselves academi-cally based on their idea that the SMS setting served as mechanism of change. Finally, participants lead a videotaped school tour while directing researchers to important people or places and discussing how the school influences their perceptions about academic futures.

Although the initial purpose of the larger study was related to self-authorship, an unexpected theme emerged through grounded theory analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) regarding school setting as an important mechanism of change in students’ ways of thinking, and particularly their perceptions of themselves as academic beings. Accordingly, we employed constant comparative analy-sis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) in secondary data analysis of observations, interviews, surveys, and student-directed school tours to further explore sub-themes related to the ways school setting fostered students’ academic identity development. To confirm conceptual categories of school setting characteris-tics described by participants, authors used line by line analysis to review researcher memos and confirm patterns across all data sources (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).

Results

The findings of this study suggest that school settings serve to change how high-risk, African American adolescents perceive their future academic opportunities and identities as academic beings. Initially, students indicated that SMS was an influential mechanism of change in their understanding of crucial school setting characteristics that influence their academic success and in turn foster their academic identities. Further, these eighth graders dem-onstrated that this school site shaped how they think and engage in school in




contrast to their former public schools. Accordingly, findings reinforce an ecological viewpoint of the ways school settings act as contexts that influ-ence adolescent identity, and more specifically foster academic identity. In particular, SMS students identified sources of influence in (a) the overall school culture aspect of SMS at the organizational level, and (b) more spe-cific school setting characteristics at the classroom and organizational levels, including teacher-student relationships, behavior management policies, and challenging learning environments.

School Setting as a Mechanism of Change

SMS participants affirmed that the SMS school setting served as their gate-way to future academic success. Unlike former studies on school setting theory in relation to positive youth development, these findings indicate that it is not just one individual aspect of the school setting, which served as the turning point for these high-risk, African American students. Instead, the col-lective organizational environment created change.

Twenty nine out of 31 students stated consistently across data that SMS alone prepared them for future academic success and opportunity. Although students acknowledged subscales of the academic settings (i.e., teacher- student relationships, behavior management policies, and challenging envi-ronments) as significant elements of their school environment, responses generally focused on the collective setting as the main contributor to these students’ current and future academic success.

For example, Dwayne, a 13-year-old SMS student, described this finding best through his written response to the question “do you feel you have the skills necessary to be a successful high school student. Why or why not?”

“Yes I do. I do because SMS has guided me down a right path and help me work very hard. How to take my time and use all the skills I were taught. To try my hardest and if I still don’t get it use a educated guess on a program. I learned lots here. I am who I am because of here!” (Dwayne)

Dwayne’s interpretation of his school experiences suggested that SMS as a collective unit provided him with opportunities and skills for continued suc-cess. Here, Dwayne indicates that through attending SMS, he situated his academic journey on the “right” path. Consequently, Dwayne acknowledged that he gained ethical beliefs and skills from this school setting that prepare him for achievement of future academic goals (i.e., attending college). Thus, according to this student, school settings can serve two roles within the larger contextual community setting: (a) shifting how students think about their



Brown et al. 11

academic experiences, and (b) providing academic skills that develop the academic learner.

Further, students asserted that by being in this school setting, they per-ceived themselves as more prepared academically than their peers in neigh-borhood schools. For example, Brianna, one of the top students in the class, considered SMS her only chance for future academic opportunity. Despite her intelligence and dedication to learning, Brianna lacked challenging aca-demic experiences in her former school and reported a need for an environ-ment that fostered the learning and development of students. Although Brianna had the motivation to attend college prior to coming to SMS, she recognized that she did not have the required skill sets for acceptance into “a good high school—one that gets me into college.” Like other students, Brianna believed that SMS created these academic opportunities:

“I feel like I will be successful in high school and college mainly because I have attended SMS. I consider this school a blessing to me because, honestly without it I would not be prepared for school as I am now. However because of SMS I am prepared. I have been practicing useful skills like completing homework and staying out of trouble. I’ve also made sure that I keep up my GPA and that I participate in extracurricular activities. I feel that I am headed in the right direction thanks to SMS.” (Brianna)

Brianna’s story reiterates the general patterns indicating these students’ per-ceptions that this school served as a mechanism of change within the broader school district and community contexts by providing opportunities for aca-demic success. Like Brianna, other participants acknowledged that by walk-ing through the SMS school doors and becoming an SMS student, their academic chances to attend a quality high school, and later college, changed instantaneously.

Despite these perceptions on the role of SMS in creating future academic opportunity, all 31 students recollected minimal initial interest in attending SMS. This hesitation was often attributed to a lack of desire to leave their neighborhood friends or lament for missing graduation ceremonies in their public school. In this way, findings serve to reinforce extant understandings of adolescents’ developmental trajectories in context, with particular regard to academic identity development, as they grappled with decisions about the particular identity dimensions they wished to ultimately adopt (e.g., neigh-borhood friendships vs. academic opportunity). However, most students indi-cated that by coming to this school they set expectations and standards that academic achievement and success were possible, and thus, their perceptions for coming to SMS changed by eighth grade.




Although all participants identified the SMS school setting, encompassed by the organizational level of the Eccles and Roeser (1999) model, as the primary mechanism responsible for their academic opportunities and suc-cess, many students noted three more specific attributes of the school setting that shaped their identities as academic beings: teacher-student relationships, behavior management policies, and challenging learning environments. Interestingly, we might conceptualize the impact of these particular aspects as experienced both at the classroom and organizational level; this finding further buttresses the notion that the multiple levels of ecological systems appear to interact with and inform one another in an iterative process. Further, student responses tended to support a notion that the overall SMS school set-ting was the primary factor behind their current and future academic success. Specifically teacher-student relationships, behavioral management policies, and challenging learning environments had individual effects on various aspects of the students’ academic experience.

Teacher-Student Relationships

Consistent with empirical literature, teacher-student relationships contributed strongly to how SMS served as a mechanism of change for these students. In particular, the majority of students stated repeatedly that their relationships with teachers strongly influenced their level of academic performance. Students spoke about feeling “cared for” and “helped” by teachers and how those experiences were interpreted as tangible demonstrations of the teach-ers’ desires for students to be successful. This finding is especially notable as it underscores Eccles and Roeser’s (1999) call for developmentally support-ive school environments that address students’ particular needs. The struc-tural and organizational aspects of middle school environments often provide limited opportunities for meaningful teacher-student interactions. Yet, SMS students expressed two specific ways in which teachers influenced their aca-demic experiences and perceptions of the future: (a) by providing motivation and (b) by being accessible. These subcodes provided relevant information for how these adolescents perceived this school setting characteristic and how teacher-student interactions at SMS nurtured their academic identities. For example, with the pattern of teacher caring filtered throughout these par-ticipants’ responses, seeing oneself as an academic learner and having poten-tial future academic success stemmed from having supports where students felt “cared for,” which was a significant difference from former teacher- student relationships.

In addition, students explained how teachers motivated students through words of encouragement as well as school-based incentives. Although



Brown et al. 13

school-based incentives serve as external motivators, teachers’ encouraging dialogue appeared to positively influence students’ self-confidence and esteem, which seemed to directly influence these students’ perceptions of their academic abilities. Most participants noted that motivating comments, such as “you can do it” or “keep up the good work,” were a rarity in their former school context.

In addition to feeling valued within teacher-student relationships, students acknowledged teachers’ willingness to help as a sign of caring. For example, Michael, a 13-year-old SMS student, indicated that teacher assistance with classwork and homework demonstrated a difference between his current and past school setting.

“The teachers, they care a lot about you. So like teachers at my other school they really didn’t care. They just get you work and you try and do it, but if you can’t then you just didn’t do. But here if you don’t do it, they, they try to help you do it or something.” (Michael)

Here, it is evident that within the broader school district level in which lim-ited experiences of teacher caring occurred for Michael, SMS provided unique opportunities for him to feel supported. Another student, Katrina, emphasized similar sentiments to Michael’s description of caring and helpful teachers.

“It’s strict (here), but they strict for a good cause. They try, they try and get you prepared for high school, and high school’s going to get you prepared for college So every, like everything they tell us it’s for a reason. Like sometimes, the kids w don’t like it, but like they (teachers) not doing it for their help. They just doing it to help us, because they already got they, they already went to college and stuff like that So now it’s our turn. They trying to help us.” (Katrina)

Michael and Katrina’s experiences showed how dissatisfaction from past teacher-student relationships influenced desired attributes for current teacher-student relationships. As Michael reflected on these relationships he indi-cated that from his teachers’ responsiveness to his academic needs, his individual work ethic and performance enhanced. This realization suggests that Michael, like other participants, began to understand setting factors important to his academic success, which in turn assisted in the development of an academic identity. In consideration of Michael’s comments, which reso-nated throughout the majority of the participants’ responses, teachers’ moti-vational statements and actions within a given school setting appear to be important mechanisms that support how these youth conceptualized their academic potentials and, in turn, fostered their academic identities.




Throughout the students’ dialogues, it became evident that the collective setting in general, and teacher concern in particular, served as defining influ-ences on their academic abilities and potentials. Thus, many of these high-risk adolescents responded to the SMS setting by establishing individual responsibility for their academic outcomes. Teacher accessibility proved a reliable factor to the formation of academic identity in students and its long-term, positive trajectory.

Thirty of these students stated that upon leaving this school setting and entering into a new high school environment, they would seek out teachers’ guidance with coursework and ask questions regarding other academic con-cerns. Given that some participants had no prior interaction or confidence in their former teacher-student relationships and now saw the role of teacher-student interactions as pivotal to their academic success, we hypothesize that the SMS school setting instilled supports and strategies to encourage academic success and build academic identities. For example, Shante, summarized best the students’ comments regarding how SMS teacher-student relationships influenced participants’ perceptions of selves as academic learners:

“I wanna be here now because the teachers, they’re very determined, like, they—at my old school, they didn’t really care so much about our education, like, the lessons weren’t very detailed as they are here. The teachers didn’t give us their phone numbers like they do here, like in the case if we need help with homework and things like that. So I really think that’s good—it makes me feel that they care. And I want to do better because of that.” (Shante)

By understanding teacher-student relationships at SMS, one begins to con-ceptualize why SMS students identified their school setting as the indicator of change that enhanced their academic experience, ability, and opportunity. SMS eighth graders mentioned repeatedly the differences between former and present teacher-student relationships, highlighting how educators’ care and accessibility significantly influenced their perceptions of SMS and their future expectations for teacher-students’ relationships. This recurrent juxta-position illustrates how a particular school setting within the larger school district creates unique opportunities for influences on students. Therefore, in deciphering how these youth identify SMS as a mechanism of change, teacher-student relationships serve as a contributing factor within the SMS school setting to nurture academic identities.

Behavior Management

Along with teacher-student relationships, behavior management emerged as a second subpattern indicating why students defined their school setting as a



Brown et al. 15

mechanism of change. As experiences at the organizational and classroom levels, the majority of students discussed how the school’s rigid and strict behavior management policies influenced the school climate and school expectations, which in turn positively affected students’ academic behaviors and performance.

Students revealed that the SMS “no tolerance” policy provided a sense of safety not experienced formerly in their elementary schools. Benjamin, a 14-year-old SMS student, demonstrated how although students did not fear for their safety in their former neighborhood school, the violent school envi-ronments reduced optimal learning time in the classroom.

“Like here it is strict and all but it has to be. Yeah, well at the school I used to go to there was all this drama—kids yelling, fighting and the teachers did nothing about it. They just talked over it and that was it. And I didn’t want to be between all that because it not going to help me. So yeah so they might be strict here at SMS but at least I can learn something. That don’t happen in my old school.” (Benjamin)

Through Benjamin’s illustration of his old school environment, he under-scored how SMS’s behavior policies influenced his learning opportunities. Within a more structured school setting, and particularly a classroom envi-ronment in this example, adolescents showed that learning and academic suc-cess were priorities.

The majority of participants acknowledged SMS’s highly structured envi-ronment as a positive mechanism of this school setting with particular refer-ence to their future academic success; however, some students found the strict setting difficult. Beyonce, a 13-year-old SMS student, explained:

“The teachers, they’re mean. And sometimes the principals, they’re mean. They’re just too mean here. They’re always strict. You can’t do nothing but your work. You can’t wear bracelets. If you’re earrings are too big they will take your earrings and your necklace too. They’ll take your necklace. Every time you talk they say ‘Be quiet.’ You just can’t do nothing. You can’t get out your seat with out permission but it’s just—they’re just too mean. In my old school you could get up out your seat without permission. You don’t need permission to do everything.” (Beyonce)

Although Beyonce had significant emotions regarding the lack of freedom she experienced at SMS, she recognized that coming to SMS was a good decision with regard to her future academic success. Beyonce further stated:

“I think it was a good decision to come here because it will help me get into a good high school. I won’t know what I know if it wasn’t for SMS. And I know I need that in my old school, we didn’t learn much because so many didn’t act right. So, I get




why I need to follow the rules, but I still get mad that I have to follow all these rules.” (Beyonce)

Thus, even though Beyonce expressed frustration with the highly structured environment, she identified that the behavior procedures employed by SMS provided increased learning time and in turn enhanced her academic knowl-edge and skills necessary for future success.

Although interpretation of interviews and survey responses were not sufficient to critically analyze how SMS employs its behavioral manage-ment policies, the theme of behavior management repeatedly emerged as a reason supporting the SMS school setting as a mechanism of academic change. In fact, during discussion with these adolescents on where they applied or predicted attending high school, all 31 students stated that they wanted to attend schools with a “structured environment”, as they learned more in these settings. Thus, despite some students’ struggle with SMS’s behavioral policies, all participants stated that the policies were for stu-dents’ betterment as they lead to student learning. In this way, emerging academic identities can be witnessed through students’ desires regarding future school settings based on the setting characteristics that bolstered their current academic success.

Challenging and Engaging Learning Environments

A final pattern, challenging and engaging learning environments, emerged when participants explained further how the SMS school setting created greater opportunities for classroom engagement and achievement; accord-ingly, this particular theme was evident at both the classroom and organiza-tional levels of the conceptual model. Although student comments provided no clear reasoning for the meaning of student engagement, our interpretation of student engagement, students’ investment and participation in their learn-ing, represented students’ comments regarding challenging environments. Discussed by several SMS students, this quality was clearly denoted by one student Sasha. Sasha explained why she identified the SMS environment as challenging and how the setting engaged her learning:

“At my old school, we really didn’t get a chance to learn that much, basically it was just free time and all that, but here it’s like no playtime, it’s learnin’ time. They stay on top of what you do, so it’s hard to be lost.” (Sasha)

Other participants expressed similar descriptions to Sasha’s “learnin’ time” when describing SMS’ challenging learning environments and how these environments embedded ongoing student participation and dialogue.



Brown et al. 17

Moreover, the students acknowledged that the rigorous academic program pushed them to achieve and to partake in their academic experiences, thereby supporting how challenging learning environments influenced participants’ perceptions of their school setting, and supporting how these students saw the collective setting as a mechanism of change.

Several students found that the expectations at SMS led to identity matu-ration. An example came from Rafael, whose insight regarding his prior aca-demic environment provided a synthesis for participants’ explanations:

“I’m learning a lot and if I stayed in that school, I wouldn’t learn as much as I did if I stayed. If I didn’t go SMS, I’d probably learn a couple of things that I wouldn’t learn at SMS . . . .It has went above and beyond. It’s like well since every year I have been at SMS, it has new rules, new things. Like in eighth grade if you do so good, like exceptionally well, you become a Climber, which is a privilege that you get. It’s like having privileges that motivate the kids to do better. Every Friday we have a whole school thing. That’s a privilege for kids not in trouble so that makes you not want to miss homework assignments, not get in trouble, that really motivates you.” (Rafael)

Rafael’s comments provided further conceptualization on several aspects of these findings. First, Rafael’s descriptions of SMS supported the overarching finding that these high-risk adolescents deemed organizational and cultural aspects of their school setting as the mechanism for creating their future aca-demic success. Second, Rafael discussed how high expectations and a chal-lenging learning environment pushed students to strive for academic achievement in regard to both their skill-based knowledge and character development. Finally, Rafael, not unlike other participants, stressed how the SMS school setting challenged students by rewarding those who adhered to school guidelines, both academically and behaviorally.

Because all participants expressed how SMS “pushed me more” or gave students “a better way to get to a good high school,” a clearer indication about why students described SMS in this manner required greater exploration. Repeatedly, students expressed that high expectations set within challenging learning environments created academic success; however, students also noted a second indicator: making learning fun. This indicator further described how this school setting provided academic opportunities that pro-moted positive lived experiences. Most students stated that unlike other aca-demic settings, learning was enjoyable at SMS, which made the function and setting of the school inviting. As Coco noted:

“The activities (are enjoyable) ‘cause like in my old school, they would just give us the work and it wouldn’t be fun, so I wouldn’t really do it. But here it’s fun and it makes me want to do it.” (Coco)




Coco’s comments represented the majority of participants’ reasoning behind their increased engagement in their independent work and their enhanced desire to attend this school, not because they had to, but because they wanted to. Twenty five out of 31 participants stated that when learning was fun they enjoyed their academic activities, which acknowledged the influence of the school setting on these participants’ lived academic experiences. Despite the concept that setting high expectations supports challenging environments, the principle of making learning fun explained also how challenging, learn-ing contexts influenced students’ perception of this school setting.

Challenging learning environments, in addition to teacher-student rela-tionships and behavior management policies, emerged as subthemes to illustrate how and why participants identified this school setting as a mech-anism of change in their academic journeys. Although these patterns sug-gested why participants in this study acknowledged SMS as the indicator that influenced their current and future academic success, the lack of inde-pendent responsibility on one’s academic journey remained interesting. Despite the literature that supports the role of school settings in promoting positive youth development (Shinn & Yoshikawa, 2008), further explora-tion into these participants’ future academic experiences might better explain the true effect of this school setting on the lived experiences of these high-risk African American youth.

Discussion

The findings of this study build upon current research on school setting theory illustrating the impact that a school setting can have on positive youth development. With respect to an ecological model of development, the school setting is a unique entity positioned within the broader school district and community contexts, and represents an organizational unit with the capacity to directly influence adolescent development (Eccles & Roeser, 1999). In order to explore the crucial role of these school settings, the pres-ent study sought to address the following research questions: (a) How and why do students identify their school setting as a mechanism of change?; (b) What school setting characteristics serve as mechanisms of change for these students?; and (c) Given these school setting characteristics, how do these high-risk, African American adolescents perceive themselves differ-ently within the academic domain? By exploring the role of school settings in positioning students for future academic opportunities, the findings of this study begin to show how these adolescents identify their collective school environment as influential to positive youth development and sus-tained academic outcomes.



Brown et al. 19

An abundance of literature suggests that school and classroom climate influence academic and socioemotional outcomes (Eccles & Roeser, 2006; Jones, Brown, & Aber, 2008); however, few studies discuss how students identify the collective school setting as a catalyst in their academic journey. Past literature has focused on how individualized elements of the school set-ting affect developmental outcomes for adolescents. For example, Pianta and Allen (2008) discussed how teachers’ interactions influenced students’ aca-demic outcomes within secondary classrooms, and Weinstein (2008) explored how high classroom expectations influenced classroom climates and pro-moted positive youth development. Although these studies provided evidence to support the role of school settings on positive youth development, the mechanisms of change remain at the individual level. Therefore, although data presented here suggests that conceptualizations of the collective school setting can influence how these adolescents perceive their lived academic experiences, we hypothesize that the collective setting influences not only these adolescents’ academic trajectories, but also the formation of their aca-demic identities.

The findings presented here, that these high-risk, African American ado-lescents identify their school setting as the catalyst in determining their aca-demic success, places immense responsibility on the structured school setting to create the desired academic success. However, what happens after these eighth graders transition to a new school setting? Some high schools where these students would attend have similar setting contexts, such as a highly structured environment; however, many high school settings do not. How do these SMS students maintain their current academic progress and strive for future academic success after transitioning from the current school setting? Certainly, these questions are paramount if we are to attempt to understand the long-term academic trajectories of these students once they leave SMS and matriculate to a variety of neighborhood high schools, including tradi-tional and nontraditional public schools.

Based on our findings, and in continuation of Howard’s (2003) work, we speculate that for these high-risk youth, self-understanding and agency of one’s academic success can develop from school setting characteristics as a means to support developing academic identities. Csikszentmihalyi and Schneider (2000) show that adolescents must identify themselves as academic beings who understand the behaviors necessary to ensure future academic achievement. Moreover, these authors stress the importance of high-risk adolescents developing and maintaining positive identities to per-severe with desired goals. Thus, the SMS statistic that 92% of SMS stu-dents matriculate to college after leaving the SMS school setting 4 years prior, suggests that SMS students have some conceptualization of




themselves as academic beings, which supports their academic success beyond the collective school setting. By comparison, fewer than 70% of students at neighborhood schools complete high school, much less attend college. Hence, we propose that the SMS school setting provides more than a learning environment for academic success—it also develops these ado-lescents’ academic identities to sustain positive academic outcomes after transitioning out of SMS.

As Harvard University’s Civil Rights Project (Losen & Wald, 2005) reports, “nationally, only about 68% of all students [disproportionately poor and minority] who enter 9th grade will graduate “on time” with regular diplo-mas in 12th grade” (p. 1). By comparison, the statistic that 92% of SMS stu-dents graduate high school and matriculate into college after attending another school setting in the interim, acknowledges that SMS had significant influence on its students. Moreover, this comparison shows that the SMS set-ting seems to be providing lasting effects beyond the environment itself in order for students to remain academically successful. Numerous participants indicated that SMS provided them academic strategies to be successful as well as influenced their character, or in other words, identity.

“I know my top priorities and goal and accomplishments now. I am working to become a better person. SMS told me how to become a better person and SMS taught me a life lesson like to be independent and to always put my education first before anything. By following the lessons they have told us and by remembering that I can do it I know I will make it to college.” (Rocqui)

Rocqui’s comments indicate how SMS nurtured a belief in these students that they had the ability to be successful academically. Although the perceptions of these high-risk youth demonstrated that the school setting changed their academic potentials, participants, like Rocqui, acknowledged that SMS instilled values and beliefs within students that enhanced how they thought about their academic abilities and settings, and in turn bolstered their aca-demic identity

Even though participants in this study pinpointed the school setting as serving a fundamental role in changing their academic trajectories, school settings change and students must become autonomous over their academic success so that modifications within school settings do not circumvent aca-demic opportunity. As Nakkula and Toshalis (2006) explain, academic iden-tities must be lived and challenged for adolescents to make sense of who they are, including how they interpret and perceive their future opportuni-ties. Hence, as these high-risk, African American adolescents leave SMS and enter a new school context, future lines of inquiry can attest to how the



Brown et al. 21

present school setting characteristics influence these adolescents’ academic identity development over time. Yet, the findings here support a new avenue of research that underscores the need to foster not only positive academic identities among high-risk, African American youth, but also a metacogni-tive aspect of this development such that these youth are equipped to proac-tively seek out nurturing environmental characteristics in future contexts.

Limitations and Areas for Future Research and Practice

There are four key limitations in this study; however, each can support future lines of research. First, the small sample may have affected the findings. Moreover, the participants were from the same predominantly urban, low-income middle school and lived in similar high-risk communities. A similar study with a more diverse sample might explain further how adolescents identify school setting as influential to their academic opportunities and aca-demic identities. Additionally, the participants of the study, or their legal guardians, self-selected into this school knowing the rigor of the program. Thus, the participants of this study are likely to have access to more supports and resources available than their neighborhood contemporaries. Therefore, given the emphasis on academic identity development within the context of schools, future exploration into additional school settings unlike SMS might better explain how high-risk, African American adolescents perceive the role of school setting as a source of support in nurturing academic identities.

Second, further investigation into SMS students’ perceptions on school setting after leaving SMS and transitioning to a new school environment will confirm explicitly how the SMS environment nurtured initial academic iden-tities. Moreover, an extended longitudinal study will investigate the develop-ment and sustainability of these academic identities over time. This research will contribute to establishing a comprehensive definition of academic identi-ties. Furthermore, consistent with recent reform efforts on incorporating socioemotional learning within our middle school curriculums to support long-term academic achievement (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011), this line of inquiry would assist in identifying factors that support students’ academic identities after transitioning into new school con-texts. In turn, this might inform how schools can create climates to foster these high-risk, African American youths’ identity formations.

Third, this study incorporated measurements of self report, using semis-tructured interviews and short-answer questionnaires. According to Schwarz (1999), self-reports are based on participants’ perceptions and interpretations of the given study, and how participants read and interpret questions asked. In addition to participants’ perceptions of questions, self-report measures are




dependent upon a participant’s disclosure of information. Each of these limi-tations of self-report measures impacts the validity and interpretation of the findings. However, given the purpose of this study was to better understand why these students identified their school setting as a mechanism of change, and how school setting characteristics influence these adolescents’ academic identities, the methods seemed appropriate. Moreover, the information dis-closed provided implications for SMS’s practice by demonstrating imple-mentation of research-based practices within their school context (i.e., encouraging supportive teacher-student interactions (Pianta & Allen, 2008), setting high expectations (Weinstein, 2008), and creating safe learning envi-ronments that influenced how these high-risk, African American youth con-ceptualized themselves as academic identities. It follows that schools, and particularly schools that work with high-risk, African American youth, should consider incorporating these school setting characteristics within their con-texts in hopes of fostering the academic identities of their students.

Finally, Lareau (2000) and Sipe and Ghiso (2004) explain that a research-er’s experiences and personal biases can skew analyses when interpreting qualitative data. Therefore, the lead researcher’s former professional back-ground as an educator could have influenced the results. To avoid this con-cern of validity, memo writing (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007), and line by line analyses occurred throughout the analysis process. Although these efforts were made, subjectivity to the data is still a concern. For purposes of future research, a longitudinal study with a more diverse sample might help to address the concern of validity and strengthen the reliability of this study’s findings.

Conclusion

Academic settings that encourage students’ pursuit of future opportunities, such as acceptance and attendance to college, are not available to everyone. For high-risk, African American students in this study, entering a school set-ting that motivated and expected students to strive for academic success sig-nificantly influenced how these students envisioned their futures and engaged within the given school setting. With acknowledgment of three particular aspects of school setting: (a) teacher-student relationships, (b) behavior man-agement policies, and (c) challenging learning environments, these youth identified why they felt the school setting was responsible for shaping their academic futures.

As the William T. Grant Foundation and other interested scholars continue to explore the role that school setting contexts have on positive youth devel-opment, exploration into not only school setting characteristics, but also the



Brown et al. 23

collective role of school setting as a mechanism of change is critical. Moreover, further understanding into the role of the collective school envi-ronment on adolescents’ academic outcomes seems important, particularly if high-risk, African American youth explain their academic identities in rela-tion to the overall school setting.

Generating change to bring about positive youth development shifted the outcome of youth development research in the past decade. However, little investigation into how collective settings influence students’ academic iden-tities and long-term academic outcomes exists. Although the limitations noted significantly affect the transferability of the study, these findings pres-ent interesting contributions to a field trying to understand the role of school settings in the immediate and future lives of high-risk adolescents.

Authors’ Note

As a doctoral student, Elizabeth Levine Brown trained at the University of Pittsburgh in the department of Applied Developmental Psychology. Research for this article was conducted during her time at the University of Pittsburgh and supported by the School of Education Alumni Fellowship.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Elizabeth Levine Brown received an Alumni Scholarship from the University of Pittsburgh, School of Education to collect data for this study.

Notes

1. For this article, we refer to high-risk adolescents as those from low income, high-minority communities with high levels of violence and low performing schools.

2. Self-authorship is “the capacity to internally define a coherent belief system and identity that coordinates engagement in mutual relations with the larger world” (Baxter Magolda, & King, 2004, p. xxii).

References

Adams, G. R., & Marshall, S. K. (1996). A developmental social psychology of iden-tity: Understanding the person in context. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 429-442. doi: 10.1006/jado.1996.0041




Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (2004). Learning partnerships. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An intro-duction to theories and methods, (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Brantlinger, E. (1992). Unmentionable futures: Postschool planning for low-income teenagers. School Counselor, 39, 281-291.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 6, pp. 187-249). Boston, MA: JAI Press, Inc.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychol-ogy: Theoretical models of human development (Vol. 1, 6th ed., pp. 793-827). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Brown, B. B., Bakken, J. P., Ameringer, S. W., & Mahon, S. D. (2008). In M. J. Prinstein & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), A comprehensive conceptualization of the peer influence process in adolescence (pp. 17-44). New York, NY: Guilford.

Chapa, J., & Valencia, R. R. (1993). Latino population growth, demographic charac-teristics, and educational stagnation: An examination of recent trends. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15, 165-187.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-cedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Schneider, B. (2000). Becoming adult: How teenagers pre-pare for the world of work. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Dishion, T. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2006). Deviant peer contagion in interventions and pro-grams: An ecological framework for understanding influence mechanisms. In K. A. Dodge, T. J. Dishion, & J. E. Lansford (Eds.), Deviant peer influences in pro-grams for youth: Problems and solutions (pp. 14-43). New York, NY: Guilford.

Dodge, K. A., & Sherrill, M. R. (2006). Deviant peer group effects in youth men-tal health interventions. In J. E. Lansford, K. A. Dodge, & T. J. Dishion (Eds.), Deviant peer influences in programs for youth: Problems and solutions (pp. 97-121). New York, NY: Guilford.

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405-432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. (1999). School and community influences on human development. In M. Bornstein & M. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychol-ogy: An advanced textbook (4th ed., pp. 503-554). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. (2009). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. In R. Lerner & L. Steinberg (2009), Handbook of adolescent psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 404-434). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2006). Schools as developmental contexts. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (2nd ed., pp. 129-148). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.



Brown et al. 25

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.Forbes, E. E., & Dahl, R. E. (2010). Pubertal development and behavior: Hormonal

activation of social and motivational tendencies. Brain and Cognition, 72, 66-72.Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference,

and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 41, 625-635.

Gilligan, T. D., Briggs, M. K., Stanton, A. R., & Barron, K. E. (2010). A collab-orative approach to evaluating well-being in the middle school setting. Journal of School Counseling, 8(8), 1-33. Retrieved from http://www.jsc.montana.edu/articles/v8n8.pdf

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Graham, S. (1989). Motivation in Afro American. In G. Berry & J. Asannen (Eds.), Black students: Psychosocial issues and academic achievement. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Granger, R. (2006). Improving the settings that affect youth. Published report, William T. Grant Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.wtgrantfoundation.org/publica-tions_and_reports/browse_reports/improving-the-settings-that-affect-youth.

Granger, R. (2007). Why try to understand and improve social settings. Published report, William T. Grant Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.wtgrantfounda-tion.org/publications_and_reports/browse_reports/why-try-to-understand-and-improve-social-settings.

Grant, K. E., McCormick, A., Poindexter, L., Simpkins, T., Janda, C. M., Thomas, K. J., & . . .Taylor, J. (2005). Exposure to violence and parenting as mediators between poverty and psychological symptoms in urban African American adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 507-521. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.12.001

Howard, T. C. (2003). “A tug of war for our minds:” African American high school students’ perceptions of their academic identities and college aspirations. The High School Journal, 87, 4-17.

Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., & Aber, J. L. (2008). Classroom settings as targets of inter-vention and research. In M. Shinn & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Toward positive youth development (pp. 58-77). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kerpelman, J., Eryigit, S., & Stephens, C. (2008). African American adolescents’ future education orientation: Associations with self-efficacy, ethnic identity, and perceived parental support. Journal Youth and Adolescence, 37, 997-1008.

Kia-Keating, M., Dowdy, E., Morgan, M., & Noam, G. (2011). Protecting and pro-moting: An integrative conceptual model for healthy development of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 220-228. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.006

Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predic-tors of student perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 96-104. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.96

Lareau, A. (2000). Social class and the daily lives of children: A study from the United States. Childhood, 7, 155-171.




Losen, D., & Wald, J. (2005, March 24). Confronting the graduation rate crisis in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Civil Rights Project. Retrieved from http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/dropouts/dropouts05.pdf

Marcia, J. E. (1991). Identity and self-development. Encyclopedia of Adolescence, 1, 529-533.

Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Köller, O. (2008). Social comparison and big-fish-little-pond effects on self-concept and other self-belief constructs: Role of generalized and specific others. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 510-524.

Meier, D., & Wood, G. (Eds.). (2004). Many children left behind. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Nakkula, M., & Toshalis, J. (2006). Understanding youth: Adolescent development for educators. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Nassar-McMillan, S. C., Karvonen, M., Perez, T. R., & Abrams, L. P. (2009). Identity development and school climate: The role of the school counselor. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 48, 195-214.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010). Recursive processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement gap. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Pebley, A. R., & Narayan, S. (2003). Neighborhoods, poverty and children’s well-being: A review. Los Angeles, CA: RAND.

Pianta, R. C., & Allen, J. P. (2008). Building capacity for positive youth development in secondary school classrooms: Changing teachers’ interactions with students. In M. Shinn & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Toward positive youth development (pp. 21-39). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Poncelet, P. (2004). Restructuring schools in Cleveland for the social, emotional, and intellectual development of early adolescents. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9, 81-96.

Renninger, K. A. (2009). Interest and identity development in instruction: An inductive model. Educational Psychologist, 44, 105-118. doi: 10.1080/00461520902832392

Richards, M. H., Miller, B. V., O’Donnell, P. C, Wasserman, M. S., & Colder, C. (2004). Parental monitoring mediates the effects of age and sex on problem behaviors among African Americans. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 221-233.

Rusby, J. C., Crowley, R., Sprague, J., & Biglan, A. (2011). Observations of the mid-dle school environment: The context for student behavior beyond the classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 400-415. doi: 10.1002/pits.20562

Schwartz, D., & Proctor, L. J. (2000). Community violence exposure and children’s social adjustment in school peer group: The mediating roles of emotion regula-tion and social cognition. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 670-683.

Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93-105.



Brown et al. 27

Seidman, E. (2010). Improving the quality of classroom interactions. Annual report, William T. Grant Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.wtgrantfoundation.org/about_us/annual_reports

Shinn, M., & Yoshikawa, H. (Eds.) (2008). Toward positive youth development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sipe, L. R., & Ghiso, M. P. (2004). Developing conceptual categories in class-room descriptive research: Some problems and possibilities. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 35, 472-485.

Stoddard, S. A., Zimmerman, M. A., & Bauermeister, J. A. (2011). Thinking about the future as a way to succeed in the present: A longitudinal study of future orien-tation and violent behaviors among African American youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 238-246. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9383-0

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and proce-dures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Swartz, J. L., & Martin, W. E. (Eds.). (1997). Applied ecological psychology for schools within communities: Assessment and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tseng, V. (2007). Doing social setting research. Published report, William T. Grant Foundation. Retrieved from www.wtgrantfoundation.org

Tseng, V., & Seidman, E. (2007). A systems framework for understanding social set-tings. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 217-238. doi: 10.1007/s10464-007-9101-8

Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Schools that articulate high expectations for all youth: Theory for setting change and setting creation. In M. Shinn & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Toward positive youth development (pp. 81-101). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Welch, O. M., & Hodges, C. R. (1997). Standing outside on the inside: Black adoles-cents and the construction of academic identity. SUNY Press.

Wortham, S. (2006). Learning identity: The mediation of social identity through aca-demic learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Zirkel, S. (2002). Is there a place for me? Role models for academic identity among white students and students of color. Teachers College Record 104, 357-376.

Author Biographies

Elizabeth Levine Brown is an assistant professor in the College of Human Development and Education at George Mason University. Her research involves understanding developmental and psychological influences on diverse, underre-sourced students’ learning. Utilizing an ecological framework, she explores this para-digm through two units of analysis, the teacher and the student. Elizabeth Levine Brown received her PhD in Applied Developmental Psychology from the University of Pittsburgh.

M. Allison Kanny is a doctoral student in the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research exam-ines aspects of college access and choice related to academic self-concept, peer and




family influences, structural components of early secondary experiences in postsec-ondary education and high-risk adolescents.

Blake Johnson is a doctoral student in the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University. His research focuses on the intersections of life span development and education, with a particular focus on goal setting and decision making. He received his MS in Educational Psychology from George Mason University.



Documents

Identities of Change in Establishing High-Risk Adolescents' Academic ''I Am Who I Am Because of Here!'': School Settings as a Mechanism