PROTECTIVE FACTORS PREDICTING ACADEMIC
RESILIENCE IN ADOLESCENT AT-RISK STUDENTS
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the
Department of Graduate and Professional Studies in Education
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Child Development
(Theory and Research)
by
Jennifer Ann Sturtevant
SPRING
2014
© 2014
Jennifer Ann Sturtevant
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
PROTECTIVE FACTORS PREDICTING ACADEMIC
RESILIENCE IN ADOLESCENT AT-RISK STUDENTS
A Thesis
by
Jennifer Ann Sturtevant
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Juliana Raskauskas
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Sheri E. Hembree
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Jennifer Ann Sturtevant
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________,
Susan Heredia, Department Chair
___________________
Date
Department of Graduate and Professional Studies in Education
iv
Abstract
of
PROTECTIVE FACTORS PREDICTING ACADEMIC
RESILIENCE IN ADOLESCENT AT-RISK STUDENTS
by
Jennifer Ann Sturtevant
The goal of this study was to explore the factors that contribute to academic resilience in
at-risk late adolescents. Specifically, the study investigates how intrapersonal (selfefficacy, academic autonomy, locus of control) and interpersonal (parental involvement
and parental autonomy support) factors and family income relate to academic resilience.
The study was conducted using a survey with 91 juniors and seniors at a central
California high school. Results support the relationship between intrapersonal factors
(self-efficacy, academic autonomy and locus of control) and academic resilience of lowincome adolescents. Contrary to other findings within this field, there were limited
relations between parental involvement and parental autonomy support with academic
resilience. This study also found a significant relationship between higher income level
and higher GPA. Finally, students’ with lower income levels were significantly
associated with a single parent family structure. Limitations and future implications are
discussed.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Juliana Raskauskas
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This journey has been extremely rewarding and along the way, my educational and
professional life has progressed immensely. There have been many people throughout this
process who have assisted me in various ways. I am grateful to all who encouraged me and
supported me through the last two years. In addition, I would like to mention a special thanks to
the school where I collected my data and say thank you for the overwhelming support I received
from the teachers involved in the study.
To begin, I would like to thank Dr. Juliana Raskauskas for always going above and
beyond what I could have possibly imagined from a sponsor. Working with you has been a
pleasure, and I am honored to have had you as a mentor from the beginning of my educational
career at CSU Sacramento. You are a statistical genius, always willing to help, and are
passionate about your work. Thank you for all your support, time, quick feedback, and
encouraging words.
I would also like to thank my second reader, Dr. Sheri Hembree. Your expertise and
knowledge have been invaluable throughout this process. I especially want to thank you for your
time and feedback, I know how time consuming this process is, and am grateful for your
assistance.
Next, I would like to make a special thank you to all of my friends who have understood
how important this endeavor is to me, have stuck by my side and have even offered their houses
for quiet places to study. I also want to make sure that my colleagues, who have become more
like family, know how much their support and encouragement has helped me get through this
vi
program. We will forever share a bond of completing this part of our life together and I am
grateful for that.
Lastly, I want to thank my amazing family and boyfriend for the endless support and love
that I have felt from them through this process. First, I want to thank my parents for always
supporting my educational decisions, encouraging me to work hard and instilling the idea in me
that I can do anything I put my mind to. Second, I would like to thank my brother and my sisters
who all played unique roles in supporting me through this process, their encouragement, patience,
and support will always be remembered. Finally, I want to thank my boyfriend for sticking by me
through this process, putting up with all the chaos, and always reminding me that I can do it. I
am truly blessed for all of the love and support that I received from so many people throughout
this process, thank you to everyone that has helped me, even those that have not been mentioned.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………….. 1
Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 2
Methods ....................................................................................................................... 3
Definition of Terms ..................................................................................................... 5
Limitations ................................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Thesis ........................................................................................... 8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................... 9
Theoretical Framework: Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model ............................. 10
Academic Resilience.................................................................................................. 15
Interpersonal Factors.................................................................................................. 20
Intrapersonal Factors.................................................................................................. 25
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 31
3. METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 33
Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 33
Design of the Study.................................................................................................... 34
Participants................................................................................................................. 35
Measures ……………………………………………………………………………….. 36
viii
Procedures.................................................................................................................. 43
Summary .................................................................................................................... 45
4. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 46
Associations between Parental Involvement and Parental Autonomy Support and
Academic Resilience…………………………………………..…………………… 46
Associations between Adolescent Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Academic
Autonomy and Academic Performance ..................................................................... 50
Predicting Academic Resilience from Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Factors ........ 51
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 54
5. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 56
Parental Involvement and Academic Resilience ........................................................ 57
Parental Autonomy Support and Academic Resilience ............................................. 59
Self-Efficacy and Academic Resilience..................................................................... 61
Locus of Control and Academic Resilience............................................................... 62
Academic Autonomy and Academic Resilience ........................................................ 64
Relative Prediction of Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Factors .................................. 66
Implications ................................................................................................................ 67
Limitations and Future Research ............................................................................... 68
Appendix A. Consent to Participate in Research-Parent ...................................................... 73
Appendix B. Assent to Participate in Research-Student ....................................................... 76
Appendix C. Demographic Survey-Parent............................................................................ 78
Appendix D. Demographic Survey-Student ......................................................................... 80
Appendix E. Self-Efficacy Survey-Student .......................................................................... 82
ix
Appendix F. Locus of Control Survey-Student .................................................................... 83
Appendix G. Academic Autonomy Survey-Student ............................................................. 87
Appendix H. Parental Involvement and Parental Autonomy Support Survey-Student ........ 90
References ............................................................................................................................... 95
x
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Sample Demographics………………………………….……………………………. 36
2.
Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables.… ……………………………. 48
3.
Correlations Among Variables……… ..………….…………………………………. 49
4.
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting GPA.……… .... …………………………. 52
5.
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting CST Language Arts Scores………………. 53
6.
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting CST World History Scores………………. 54
xi
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Existing research on the contribution of income level to development indicates
that living in low income environments has lasting negative psychological, behavioral,
and academic consequences that can persist into adulthood (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008;
Alaimo, Olson, & Frangillo, 2001; Chatterji, 2006; Davis-Kean, 2005; Leventhal &
Brooks-Gunn, 2011; Moren-Cross, 2006; Wadsworth & Achenbach, 2005). Specifically,
the social disparities associated with low income are linked to lower achievement in
children and past research indicates that academic achievement is a major developmental
area of concern for children from low income families when compared to their more
affluent peers (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008; Chatterji, 2006). These inequalities in
academic performance can persist into adulthood, and can negatively influence the
overall adjustment and achievement for the individual. Thus, it is necessary to explore
variables that might counteract economic risk factors in order to diminish the
achievement gap between high and low income children’s academic abilities, and
promote resilience in the individual.
Research has established that living in at-risk environments, including lowincome and single-parent family environments, can have adverse effects on the academic
outcomes for children. Research has also recognized that as the number of risk factors
increases that an individual has, the more detrimental effect those risk factors have on
developmental outcomes (Olson, Bond, Burns, Vella-Brodrick, & Sawyer, 2002;
2
Woolley & Bowen, 2007). However, there are also a number of students within such atrisk environments that defy the odds and flourish academically (Gizir & Aydin, 2009;
Morales, 2010).
What has yet to be fully understood are the factors that predict academic
resilience in these at-risk youths. Prior research indicates a need to investigate the role of
both intrapersonal and interpersonal factors in predicting academic resilience (Gizir et al.,
2009; Morales, 2010). Intrapersonal factors occur within the individual, such as selfefficacy, autonomy, and locus of control. Interpersonal factors are factors that occur
between people, such as parental involvement and parental support. Research testing
developmental processes in this population of low-income single-parent late adolescent
groups is both timely and relevant toward understanding academic resilience.
Research Questions
The purpose of the current study was to explore the relationship between
academic resilience and intrapersonal (self-efficacy, autonomy, locus of control) and
interpersonal factors (perceived parental involvement and parental autonomy support) in
at-risk (low-income, single-parent) late adolescent students. Past research has identified
intrapersonal factors that influence academics as well as the socializing influence of
parents (interpersonal factors) (Gizir & Aydin, 2009; Morales, 2010). Hence, the present
study extends on previous work from these two lines of research. In particular, questions
3
relating to inner resources (individual level), parenting (social level), and academic
resilience are addressed:
(a) Do children’s perceptions of interpersonal resources with parents (i.e.,
involvement and parental autonomy support) predict academic resilience?
(b) What are the relative contributions of three intrapersonal resources: selfefficacy, autonomy, and locus of control, in predicting at-risk students’
academic resilience?
(c) Are intrapersonal factors stronger predictors of academic resilience than
interpersonal factors?
Thus, in the current study, the researcher explored links between the child’s personal
attributes and their perceptions of how their parents interact with them and their academic
resilience. The aim in examining this model is to shed light on the processes through
which individual resources may affect the social context and the adaptive behavior of
academic resilience among low income youth.
Methods
The present study used a quantitative correlational survey design in order to study
adolescent perceptions of intrapersonal characteristics (self-efficacy, academic autonomy,
locus of control) and interpersonal characteristics (parental involvement and autonomy
support) in relation to academic resilience (GPA, CST language arts, CST world history).
4
Participants
Two teachers on the school campus assisted with recruiting participants. Parental
recruitment and consent letters were sent home to parents with demographic
questionnaires to parents of potential participants in seven 11th and 12th grade classes.
Prior to completing the questionnaire, students who returned parental consent also signed
an assent form. The final sample consisted of 91 eleventh and twelfth graders from a
single high school in central California.
Measures
The study employed self-report questionnaires to assess study variables. Parent
participants completed a demographic questionnaire that provided household
information. In addition, student participants completed five self-report questionnaires
that provided information about their family characteristics and demographic
information, their grade point average, their California Standards Test (CST) score for
English language arts and social studies, their perception of their self-regulated learning
and ability to ask others for help, whether or not they attribute their academic outcomes
to their own abilities or other forces, why they do things related to school activities, and
how they perceive support and involvement with academics by their parents. The
researcher administered the questionnaires to participants in their normal classroom
environment during regularly scheduled class time.
5
Data Analysis
In order to test for associations between intrapersonal factors, interpersonal
factors, income and academic resilience in the study, the researcher conducted
correlational analyses. First, descriptive statistics were conducted to describe the basic
features of the data. Then, Pearson correlations and a correlation matrix were conducted
to determine the relationship between variables; the significant variables were then
entered into multiple regression analyses to further examine how the factors are related to
academic resilience. Lastly, multiple regression analyses were utilized to assess the
relationship between the dependent variable (academic resilience) with the independent
variables (self-efficacy, autonomy, internal locus of control, parental involvement, and
parental autonomy).
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this research the terminology in this study are defined as
follows. First, academic resiliency can be defined as the ability to flourish or succeed in
academics despite the factors of economic inequality or adversity that the individual faces
(West-Olatunji, Sanders, Mehta & Behar-Horenstein, 2010). In the current study,
academic performance was operationalized as GPA, California Standards Test (CST)
language arts, and CST world history scores. Second, students from low-income families
or single-parent families were selected because they are considered at-risk.
6
Third, intrapersonal factors were assessed as they predict academic resiliency:
self-efficacy, academic autonomy, and locus of control. Self-efficacy was defined as the
concept that an individual’s successes or failures of an action are attributed to internal
factors of the individual, and can be assessed by looking at the amount of effort or
perseverance one puts into tasks that they perform (Bandura, 1997; Sherer, Maddux,
Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, & Rogers, 1982). Autonomous children are
characterized as those who think for themselves, make their own decisions, and have the
ability to accomplish a task on their own (Close & Solberg, 2007; Grolnick, Ryan, &
Deci, 1991; Park, Holloway, Arendtsz, Bempechat, & Li, 2012; Wong, 2008).
An internal locus of control can be defined as the belief that the individual can
control what happens to them, or can influence their own fate whereas, an external locus
of control is defined as the belief that the individual thinks that what happens to them is
by chance, fate, or luck (Bursik & Martin, 2006; Cappella & Weinstein, 2001; Ryan &
Grolnick, 1986; Uguak, Elias, Uli, & Suandi, 2007).
Interpersonal factors were also investigated: perceived parental involvement and
perceived parental autonomy support. Parental support for autonomy was defined as the
characteristics that promote children as active agents in their own environment, and
include: giving children choices, taking the child’s perspectives and viewpoints, and
encouraging their initiatives and attempts at problem solving (Grolnick, 2009; Grolnick et
al., 1991; Wong, 2008) , and parental involvement was defined as the extent to which
parents are knowledgeable about, interested in, and willing to take an active role in the
daily activities of their children (Grolnick, 2009; Grolnick et al., 1991; Wong, 2008).
7
Limitations
The limitations of this study are important to acknowledge when interpreting
results and drawing conclusions. First, the participants in this study represent a
convenience sample of seven classes at a single school site, making the sample size small
and relatively unrepresentative. Although there were some male participants in this
study, 76% of participants in this study were female, which may have influenced findings
and may not be representative of the whole school population. The characteristics of this
sample limit the generalizability of any findings. By using larger samples from different
SES levels, ethnic groups, and gender groups, future research could include a more
representative sample yielding more generalizable results.
Another possible limitation of this study is the data collection technique used.
Due to time and financial limitations, data could only be gathered through questionnaires.
In using self-report questionnaires there is a concern for social desirability and the
reliability is reduced. To get a more accurate measure, future research should aim to
include reports from parents and teachers as well as self-report. Additionally, the design
of the study was correlational in nature. Utilizing correlational methodology limits the
conclusions that can be drawn to relationships between variables, rather causal findings.
Therefore, it is not possible to state that any association found between intrapersonal
variables, interpersonal variables, and academic resilience is a causal relationship.
8
Organization of the Thesis
The current chapter has served as an overview of the study. Chapter 2 provides a
review of the literature related to factors that influence academic resilience, such as
intrapersonal factors and interpersonal factors. Chapter 3 describes the methodology
used to conduct the study including the purpose of the study, the design, the participants,
and data collection and analysis. Chapter 4 discusses the statistical analyses used to
answer the research questions, as well as significant findings and tables for the data
analyses. Finally, Chapter 5 includes a summary of the findings, discussion of the
limitations of the study, possible implications and recommendations for future research.
9
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
For over 80 years the relationship between SES and academic competence has
been explored and findings have indicated that there is an achievement gap between low
and high income students (Bemak, Chung, & Siroskey-Sabdo, 2005; Flores, 2007; Yaffe
& Educational Testing Service, 2011). Lower socioeconomic status (SES) has
consistently been associated with poorer developmental outcomes in children and
adolescents (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008; Chatterji, 2006; Flores, 2007). Such negative
effects can begin early in life and persist throughout the individual’s life (Cappella et al.,
2001; Evans & Rosenbaum, 2008; Heckman, 2006).
The child’s context can either support or limit the progression of development.
The context can be determined by a combination of variables that comprise SES, which
are typically identified as: parental education, parental employment status, parental
occupation, and household income level (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Letourneau, DuffettLeger, Levac, Watson, & Young-Morris; 2013). According to Conger and Donnellan
(2007) socioeconomic status represents “an individual’s location in multiple
environmental hierarchies, usually involving economic resources, educational
achievement, and occupational status” (p. 177). Income level has been established as a
significant component of SES, and was assessed in the current study (Davis-Kean, 2005;
Eamon, 2005; Engle & Black, 2008).
10
In the United States 43% of children between the ages of 6 to 17 years old live in
low-income families (Addy, Engelhardt, & Skinner, 2013). The achievement gap
between students in low-income households and those not in low-income households has
widened (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008; Chatterji, 2006; Davis-Kean, 2005; Garg, Melanson,
Levin, 2007). Specifically, low-income status has been associated with negative
developmental outcomes and academic adjustment for students (Chatterji, 2006; DavisKean, 2005; Moren-Cross, 2006; Leventhal et al., 2011; Wadsworth et al., 2005).
This literature review includes an overview of the role that interpersonal and
intrapersonal factors play in the academic resilience of children classified as at-risk as a
result of low income or poverty status. The first section focuses on the theoretical
foundations that dominate this area of research: Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological theory.
The second section discusses the dynamic developmental age period of adolescence.
The third section discusses how risk factors influence the academic achievement of
children from low income households. The fourth section includes an overview of
resilience literature, specifically the interpersonal factors and intrapersonal factors
associated with academic resilience.
Theoretical Framework: Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological model provides a framework to explain the
connections investigated in the current study. This systems theory posits that dynamic
11
interactions among processes, person, context, and time combine to affect the
developmental outcomes of individuals (PPCT model) (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
The key factor that Bronfenbrenner identifies in development is proximal
processes, which is also the first part of his bioecological theory model (PPCT model).
Proximal processes occur when the individual engages regularly in activities or
interactions with important people in their life, which allows the individual to both make
sense of the world, and understand their place in it (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
Such processes can be modified by both the person and context that are involved in the
processes. The first property of Bronfenbrenner’s PPCT model is relevant to this study
because consistent interactions around academics between the parent and adolescent are
what will be examined in the current study.
The model’s second focus is on the personal characteristics that the individual
brings with them to the social situation (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). These
personal characteristics are divided into three types and termed demand, resource, and
force. Demand characteristics are characteristics that are an immediate stimulate to
others, such as age, gender, or skin color. These personal characteristics can influence
the initial interactions of individuals because expectations can be formed immediately
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Resource characteristics relate somewhat to both
mental and emotional resources and are not immediately apparent even though they can
be prompted by demand characteristics. For example, previous experience, skills, and
also social and material resources such as availability of good food, caring parents, or
housing are resource characteristics (Tudge, Mokrova, Hatfield, & Karnik, 2009). The
12
third personal characteristics are force characteristics, which are those that deal with
differences in motivation, temperament, persistence, and other similar characteristics.
Force characteristics play the most active role in changing the context with resource
characteristics and demand characteristics following, therefore they will be the
characteristics focused on most in this study (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Such
force characteristics will be identified in the current study as: self-efficacy, autonomy,
and locus of control.
The third component of the PPCT model is context. Bronfenbrenner’s context
involves four interrelated systems within the environment (Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
2006). The microsystem is the environment in which the individual spends a large
amount of time engaging in interactions and activities, for example the home or the
school. The mesosystem includes the various interrelated microsystems that the
individual spends time within. The exosystem is the environment that the individual is
not directly in, but this environment still influences the individual’s development
indirectly. For example parents’ unemployment or social isolation could indirectly
influence the individual’s development (Berk, 2008). Lastly, the macrosystem influences
all of the other context levels such as cultures or social cultures such as socioeconomic
status levels (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). For the purpose of the current study the
microsystem will be of specific interest when assessing the interactions between the child
and parent, in addition, the macrosystem will also be considered in this study due to the
influence of social class on the participants.
13
The fourth component of his model focuses on time, which plays a salient role in
any theory of human development, in that, such models address change in time.
Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) also divided time into subfactors: micro-time, mesotime, and macro-time. Micro-time occurs throughout the progression of certain activities
or interactions. Meso-time represents the activities and interactions that occur
consistently within the developing person’s environment. Lastly, macro-time focuses on
the specific historical events that are occurring during the developmental processes of the
individual “at one age or another” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). In the current study
time will be included by limiting the specific age group of this study to late adolescence
(16 to 18 years old). Late adolescence was chosen because it is a critical time when
adolescents are deciding to continue on to higher education or not. Continuing education
is a way to diminish adversity related to low income, and a strong educational
background can be considered a measure of success that can influence future income
levels. It is important to examine whether intrapersonal (self-efficacy, locus of control,
academic autonomy) and interpersonal factors (parental involvement and autonomy
support) are related to achievement at this crucial age period.
Adolescence is a time in development when individuals are trying to form
identities. During the late adolescent period 16 to18 years old, these individual identities
are becoming more developed (Kuhn & Franklin, 2006). Along with the formation of
identities, biological, psychological and social forces combine to make adolescence a
period of time that is pivotal for individuals. Thus, the physical and cognitive changes
14
during late adolescence lead to an influence on the social-emotional development of the
individual and will be of focus in the current study.
Key developments in adolescence related to the present study include the
completion of puberty culminating in sexual maturity and full adult appearance. These
shifts are related to identity development as well as growing sense of autonomy (ability
to accomplish tasks on one’s own, think for themselves, make own decisions, and be
independent) (Ryan & Connell, 1989). Although puberty triggers psychological
distancing from parents and parental influence during the adolescent time period shifts, it
remains important. Parent-child relationships remain essential for assisting adolescents
to become autonomous, responsible individuals, and the parent-child relationship still
influences the social development of the child (Eamon, 2005; Grolnick, 2009; Wong,
2008). As the adolescent attains greater autonomy, their personal decision making in all
aspects of life becomes more important. In addition, individuals in late adolescence are
increasingly able to think in a more complex manner, be imaginative and be more
rational (Kuhn & Franklin, 2006). Therefore, they are able to reflect on their own
thoughts and choices, and make dramatic revisions to the way they see themselves, both
physically and psychologically which would influence the individual’s self-efficacy,
autonomy and locus of control.
Late adolescence is also a time period that has been associated more strongly with
explanatory factors of academic resilience compared to younger adolescents (Kabiru,
Beguy, Ndugwa, Zulu, & Jessor, 2012). Researchers explain that this difference may be
due to the different role that protective factors and parental relationships play at a later
15
developmental stage. Since resilience is a process that develops over time, older
adolescents have had more time to develop protective factors that influence their
academics. In order to better understand factors that influence the development of the
individual at this time period the current study examined the various factors that
influence the development of the individual specifically personal characteristics such as
psychological factors, and contextual characteristics such as parental involvement,
parental control, and parental autonomy support.
Academic Resilience
Numerous research studies have been done on the concept of academic resilience
(Gizir & Aydin, 2009; Masten & Obradovic, 2006; Morales, 2010; Olsson, Bond, Burns,
Vella-Brodrick, & Sawyer, 2003). However, interpersonal factors and intrapersonal
factors are emphasized in the current study with a particular focus on adolescents and
their parents. Literature on at-risk environments and academic achievement is first
reviewed, followed by research on academic resilience through intrapersonal factors
(self-efficacy, locus of control and academic autonomy), and interpersonal factors
(parental involvement and parental autonomy support).
Risk Factors
It has been well documented in past research that at-risk environmental factors
such as low-income households and single-parent families are associated with
developmental outcomes (Alika & Edosa, 2012; Eamon, 2005; Engle & Black, 2008;
16
Finn & Rock, 1997; Garg, Melanson & Levin, 2007; Hill, 2006; Magdol, 1991; Hsieh &
Shek, 2008). Such factors can be identified in Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory as
context, the third component of the PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). For
example, the characteristics of the home context such as low income or single-parent
families can modify the processes that occur between the person and context
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Further, the macrosystem contains the resources that
provide support to the inner levels of the context, such as the influence of social class on
the participants. The current study adds to the understanding of academic resilience by
examining the variance of environmental factors on academics among this population of
low-income, single-parent, late adolescents within a bioecological framework.
Low Income. Prior research using an ecological framework has shown that low
income and poverty greatly influences the development and educational outcomes of
children, both directly and indirectly (Davis-Kean, 2005; Eamon, 2005; Engle & Black,
2008). For example, the socioeconomic status of the child’s family (macrosystem) has an
indirect influence on the socialization of the individual through the beliefs and values
associated with that specific social class (Campbell, Pungello, & Miller-Johnson, 2002;
Tudge et al., 2009), whereas the income level of the child’s family has a direct influence
on the development of the child through lack of nutritional food in the home for the child
(microsystem) (Alaimo, Olson & Frangillo, 2001; Alaimo, Olson, Frongillo & Briefel,
2001). The literature suggests that students who are categorized as low income have
significantly lower achievement when compared to their more affluent peers, and this gap
early in life often leads to higher rates of drop out in high school (Chapman, Laird, Ifill,
17
& Kewalramani, 2011; Harding, 2011). When comparing high school dropouts to high
school graduates, dropouts are more likely to continue the deleterious cycle of poverty
and negative developmental outcomes (Rumberger, 2011).
For example, Harding (2003) assessed how the incidence of fluctuating levels of
selection bias would change the conclusions about the effect of high-poverty
neighborhoods or low-poverty neighborhoods on high school dropout rates and teenage
pregnancy for individuals that prior to adolescence were on average identical. Through
their analysis they found that students who grew up in high-poverty neighborhoods were
more likely to drop out of high school and have a teenage pregnancy when compared to
those who grew up in a low-poverty neighborhood. Similarly, Cappella and Weinstein
(2001) conducted a secondary data analysis of a nationally representative sample that
included 1,362 8th to 12th graders to explore the predictors of high school students’
academic resilience in relation to reading achievement. The authors determined that 85%
of youths that entered into high school with low reading levels continued to have low or
basic reading levels, where 15% were able to defy the odds and turn around their reading
achievement. Students from higher income backgrounds were more likely to be resilient
than their lower income peers. These findings suggest that achievement is relatively
stable and predictable across students’ academic careers, and since past research has
identified low income as having a deleterious effect on academic achievement it is
relevant in the current study to further explore factors that can mediate the negative
academic outcomes of low-income adolescents.
18
Single Parent. Family/parental support is one of the factors that may be related
to resilience. Unfortunately, low-income families are more likely to be single-parent
homes which limits both income and opportunities for support (Alika & Edosa, 2012;
Garg et al., 2007; Redd, Karver, Murphey, Moore, & Knewstub, 2011; Sun & Li, 2011).
For instance, not only do parents provide basic necessities of food, shelter, and clothes,
parents also socialize their children and help them adjust to societal demands (Engle &
Black, 2008). This lack of opportunity for support may be why single-parent families
have been associated with more negative academic outcomes (Alika et al., 2012; Garg et
al., 2007; Redd et al., 2011; Sun et al., 2011). For example, Alika and Edosa (2012)
used correlational analysis to explore the relationship between broken homes and
academic achievement of secondary school students. By analyzing questionnaires filled
out by 150 respondents, the authors found that there was a negative relationship between
academic achievement and single parent homes. In addition, gender of the student and
socioeconomic status of the parent was also significantly related to the academic
achievement of the students in single parent homes, such that students from single parent
homes with low socioeconomic status did not perform well academically and males had
lower academic achievement than females from these single parent homes. These
findings suggest that family structure has a significant association to secondary school
students’ academic achievement and implies that the context in which the student lives
also influences the students’ outcomes.
To add to these findings, Garg, Melanson, and Levin (2007) assessed
questionnaires from 3, 432 adolescents between the ages of 12 to 20 years old. They
19
looked at the differences in educational aspirations of adolescents from single-parent and
two biological parent families. They found that overall, adolescents from single-parent
families scored significantly lower on educational aspirations then adolescents from
intact families. Similarities in educational aspirations were found between single-parent
and intact families when academic self-concept, family involvement and background
factors (gender, grade, parental education and SES) were assessed. These findings
suggest that family structure may contribute to academic outcomes of adolescents, but
intrapersonal and interpersonal factors can mediate the negative academic outcomes of
these adolescents and are of interest in the current study.
Protective Factors
Most empirical and theoretical research has established that regardless of age,
situations, and culture, overlapping internal and external protective factors are associated
with academic competence (Davey, Eaker, & Walters, 2003; Gizir & Aydin., 2009;
Masten & Obradovic, 2006; Morales, 2010; Olsson, Bond, Burns, Vella-Brodrick, &
Sawyer, 2002; Vanderbilt-Adriance, & Shaw, 2008). It has been well documented in
resilience research that personal attributes, relationships and contexts consistently predict
academic resilience across diverse situations (Gizir & Aydin, 2009; Morales, 2010). For
example, Gizir and Aydin (2009) investigated the protective factors that contributed to
academic resilience in 872 eight-grade students in six low-SES schools in Turkey.
Through the use of demographic questionnaires, the Resilience and Youth Development
Module survey, a scholastic competence scale, and other questionnaires focused on
20
internal characteristics of the student, researchers found that high parental expectations,
school caring relationships, and peer caring relationships were the most influential
external protective factors in predicting academic resilience.
In addition, internal protective factors were also positively linked with academic
resilience: positive self-perceptions of academic abilities, high educational aspirations,
empathic understanding, an internal locus of control, as well as, hope for the future.
Therefore, both interpersonal and intrapersonal factors were significant predictors of
academic performance in adolescents despite environmental risk factors such as poverty
(Gizir, et al., 2009; Masten et al., 2006; Morales, 2010).
Based on this body of research on academic resilience, the major areas of
research in the current study were intrapersonal protective factors including self-efficacy,
autonomy, and locus of control and interpersonal factors including perceived parental
involvement and perceived parental autonomy support. The importance of such factors is
consistent with Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory in that multiple factors influence
the development of the individual (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
Interpersonal Factors
Parental Support for Autonomy
The first important line of research that has emerged from resilience literature has
focused on the influence of parents (Apiwattanalunggarn & Luster, 2005; Vandenbelt,
Luster & Bates 2002; West-Olatunji et al., 2010). Despite studies that contend that
21
influence shifts away from the parent during adolescence, family relationships remain
important in adolescence (Olsson et al., 2003). Research indicates that parental
relationships, if positive and consistent, appear to be positively associated with
adolescent academic resilience. For example, several studies show that parental
autonomy support and parent involvement are related to academic outcomes and
adjustment in adolescents from at-risk environments (Altschul, 2011; Grolnick, 2009;
Wong, 2008).
Parental Involvement
To further investigate the parental characteristics that promote academic
resilience in children from low-income families, it is important to evaluate the association
of parental involvement to academic resiliency. Parental involvement can be described as
the way in which parents support their children’s education and development in order to
ultimately have a positive influence on their academic achievement and school
adjustment (Hayes, 2011). This multidimensional construct of parental involvement can
be assessed in the home (e.g. contact between parent and child that is focused on
schooling and helping them with their homework) or in the school (e.g. helping in the
classroom and communicating with the teacher) (Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins & Weiss,
2006; Englund, Luckner, Whaley & Egeland, 2004; Fantuzzo, McWayne & Perry, 2004;
Hayes, 2011; Vandenbelt, Luster & Bates, 2001). Although parental involvement has
been reported to decline between elementary and high school (Hayes, 2011) adolescence
22
still remains a critical period for involvement from parents (Altschul, 2011; Hill &
Tyson, 2009).
For example, Altschul (2011) used nationally representative data to assess the
type of parental involvement that had the strongest relationship with Mexican American
adolescents’ academic outcomes. Through use of questionnaires and standardized test
measures the researcher found that the type of parental involvement that had the greatest
relationship to academics was parental involvement in the home, which was viewed in
this study as help with homework, enriching activities, educational resources,
extracurricular instruction, and discussion of school matters. The findings also suggest
that the influence of these types of parental involvement occurs prior to high school.
However, more information is needed throughout the later stages of high school as well
to extrapolate such findings across all age ranges.
In order to determine which types of involvement have the strongest relation with
achievement Hill and Tyson (2009) conducted a meta-analysis across 50 studies. They
focused on three types of involvement that were related to adolescents’ academic
achievement (home-based involvement, school-based involvement and academic
socialization). In doing so, they found that parental involvement was universally
positively associated with academic achievement. Moreover, they identified academic
socialization, as the type of involvement that has the strongest relationship to academic
achievement in adolescence. They also found that school-based involvement was
positively related to achievement, as well as home-based involvement, the only exception
was that homework help had inconsistent relationships to achievement across the studies.
23
Parental Support for Autonomy
Parental support for autonomy refers to the extent that parents encourage their
children to make their own choices as well as demonstrate values that promote
independence in their children; such parenting skills have been found to predict academic
achievement (Grolnick, 2009; Grolnick et al., 1991; Wong, 2008). The characteristics of
parental autonomy support that promote children to be active agents in their environment
include: giving children choices, taking the child’s perspectives and viewpoints, and
encouraging their initiatives and attempts at problem solving (Grolnick & Pomerantz,
2009; Grolnick et al., 1991; Wong, 2008).
Research suggests that perceived parental autonomy support is associated with
higher grade point average, achievement test scores, perceived competence, children’s
autonomous regulation of their behaviors in school, and academic resilience (Grolnick et
al., 1991; Wong, 2008). For example, Grolnick, Ryan, and Deci (1991) examined 56
children in Grades 3 through 6. Through the use of Perception of Parents Scale (POPS;
Grolnick et al., 1991), which related children’s perceptions to motivational relevant inner
resources and to outcomes of achievement, other child-completed measures using selfreport scales, teacher completed competence ratings, and short questionnaires and
interviews for a subset of parents, the authors discovered that maternal and paternal
autonomy support and involvement were both positively associated with perceived
competence, control understanding and perceptions of autonomy. From these findings
parental autonomy support and involvement were identified to be related to the inner
motivational resources of control understanding, perceived competence and perceptions
24
of autonomy and contributes to student achievement, hence parental involvement and
autonomy support was examined in the current study.
In a similar study, in more recent work utilizing the POPS measurement, Wong
(2008) assessed 171 adolescents in order to explore the relationship between parental
involvement and autonomy support with academics, disruptive behavior and substance
use. This study also used various student self-report measures and teacher or school
administrator ratings of student competence. Wong, (2008) found that higher levels of
perceived parental involvement and autonomy support predicted better academic and
adjustment outcomes for students. Autonomy support has been found to predict
adolescents’ academic development for both low and high-risk students. Thus, parental
autonomy support can foster adolescents’ protective intrapersonal traits, in turn
promoting academic resilience.
As the literature reviewed here indicates, both parental autonomy support and
parental involvement are salient mediators between academic resilience and at-risk
students (Altschul, 2011; Dearing et al., 2006; Englund et al., 2004; Fantuzzo et al., 2004;
Grolnick, 2009; Grolnick et al., 1991; Hayes, 2011; Hill & Tyson., 2009; Niemeyer,
Wong, & Westerhaus, 2009; Vandenbelt et al., 2001; Wong, 2008). Students with higher
levels of autonomy support were found to have better academic outcomes. In addition,
students with greater levels of parental involvement were also found to have more
successful academic outcomes. Both parental school based involvement and home based
involvement have been found to be prevalent predictors of academic resilience in
children from low income families, but further investigation of parenting related to
25
individual characteristics is needed to better understand this dynamic process of academic
resilience. Since such constructs have been identified as predictors of academic
resilience and keeping Bronfenbrenner’s PPCT model in mind, the current study will
explore parental involvement and parental autonomy support in relation to the
intrapersonal factors that also relate to academic resilience.
Intrapersonal Factors
The second important line of research in resilience literature is the investigation
of intrapersonal factors related to the student that have been previously linked with
academic resilience: self-efficacy, autonomy, and internal locus of control (Bursik &
Martin, 2006; Choi, 2004; Wong, 2008). Research indicates that a range of intrapersonal
(individual-level) characteristics are thought to contribute to adolescent resilience.
Intrapersonal characteristics within the literature include self-efficacy, autonomy, and
locus of control. According to Bronfenbrenner’s PPCT Model (2006) the second main
focus of his theory is on the personal characteristics that the individual brings with them
to the social situation. These personal characteristics are divided into three types and
termed demand, resource, and force. In this part of the literature review force
characteristics will be of specific interest. Force characteristics are personal
characteristics that deal with differences in motivation, temperament, persistence, and
other similar characteristics such as self-efficacy, autonomy, and locus of control. Force
characteristics play the most active role in changing the context with resource
26
characteristics following, therefore they will be the characteristics focused on most in this
review of the literature (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
Self-Efficacy
As adolescents become more skilled physically and psychologically, they form
more stable and integrated views of their own personal capabilities, values, and attributes
(Bandura, 1977; Kuhn & Franklin, 2006). With this newfound competence, a sense of
agency emerges. The construct of self-efficacy, which is characterized as an individual’s
belief in his/her own abilities to produce specified attainments, is a central focus in
Bandura’ social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy is the concept that an
individual’s successes or failures of an action are attributed to internal factors of the
individual, and can be assessed by looking at the amount of effort or perseverance one
puts into tasks that they perform (Pajares & Urdan, 2006; Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante,
Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, & Rogers, 1982). In other words, an individual’s self-efficacy is
personal judgments made by the individual about their performance capabilities on a
specific type of task at a particular point in time (Pajares & Urdan, 2006).
According to Bandura, self-efficacy is reported to have a higher predictive
validity if the specifics of the constructs are closely aligned with the specifics of the
performance task (Bandura, 1977). Therefore, in the current study, the focus was on
academic self-efficacy (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996a; Choi, 2004;
Close & Solberg, 2007).
27
Over the last three decades, multiple studies have been conducted using
Bandura’s Children’s Perceived Self-Efficacy (CPSE) survey (Carroll, Houghton, Wood,
Unsworth, Hattie, Gordon & Bower, 2009; Pastorelli, Caprara, Barnaranelli, Rola, Roza
& Bandura, 2001). For example, Carroll, Houghton, Wood, Unsworth, Hattie, Gordon
and Bower (2009) explored how self-efficacy and academic achievement mediated the
effects of academic aspirations and delinquency. Using the CPSE scale to assess selfefficacy of 935 students, aged 11-18 years, they found that academic self-efficacy had a
strong, direct relationship to academic achievement. Close and Solberg (2007) further
investigated self-efficacy and autonomous motivation in association with achievement,
distress, and retention on low-income Latino youth, but did not use Bandura’s CPSE
scale. Using quantitative surveys with 427 adolescents, they found that students who
reported higher autonomous motivation for going to school also reported higher selfefficacy in their academic ability, and that those students did perform better
academically. They also found that students’ who reported higher self-efficacy beliefs
reported less distress and reported higher levels of achievement. Further, Pastorelli,
Caprara, Barnaranelli, Rola, Roza and Bandura (2001) investigated the ability to replicate
the CPSE scale across countries. In their exploration, they found that the CPSE scale was
consistently reliable across countries and that overall girls emerged as having a higher
sense of self-efficacy related to academic activities and had a higher efficacy in resistance
of peer pressure. From their findings it is apparent that both self-efficacy and autonomy
are related to academic achievement and are salient factors to examine in the current
study.
28
Autonomy
During adolescence, teens begin to have more opportunities to govern their own
behavior (Kuhn & Franklin, 2006). In this self-regulation of behavior, autonomous
adolescents think for themselves, make their own decisions, and have the ability to
accomplish tasks on their own (Close & Solberg, 2007; Grolnick et al., 1991; Park et al.,
2012; Wong, 2008). According to Ryan and Connell (1989) higher levels of academic
autonomy are associated with positive coping strategies, on the other hand lower levels of
academic autonomy are associated with higher levels of anxiety as well as negative
coping strategies in school. Hence, adolescents who are autonomously motivated
illustrate yet another intrapersonal factor that contributes to academic resilience (Grolnick
et al., 1991; Park et al., 2012; Patrick, Skinner, & Connell, 1993; Van Ryzin, Gravely, &
Roseth, 2009).
Throughout the last 25 years, various studies have shown that autonomy is linked
to adolescent adjustment. For instance, Van Ryzin, Gravely, and Roseth (2009) collected
short-term longitudinal data to assess students’ sense of autonomy, belongingness, and
engagement in school as contributors to the adolescents’ psychological well-being. They
found that there was a direct link to peer-related belongingness and positive adjustment,
as well as a shared relationship between academic autonomy, teacher-related
belongingness and engagement in learning. Students’ perceptions of academic autonomy
were found to have an independent positive association with engagement in learning, and
this positive engagement in learning was then linked to positive adjustment.
29
Subsequently, Patrick, Skinner, and Connell (1993) investigated the contribution
of autonomy and perceived control in academics to children’s behavior and emotions in
the classroom. Assessments were conducted in three 45 minute sessions with a total of
246 children in Grades 3, 4, and 5. Students self-reported on their behavior and emotion
within the classroom. Specifically, the SRQ was used to assess the child’s perceived
autonomy. The authors found that autonomy revealed unique effects over the strong
effects of perceived control. They concluded that autonomy is a distinct source of
motivation for students’ behavior and emotion in classroom learning activities. In brief,
there is consistent support for including autonomy as an intrapersonal factor that is
predictive of academic resilience in the current study.
Locus of Control
During adolescence individuals begin to form perceptions of their personal
capabilities, values, and attributes and have more control over their own activities (Kuhn
& Franklin, 2006). Locus of control can be defined as the expectancy of internally or
externally controlled reinforcements to an event. Individuals who believe that
reinforcement can be credited to their own efforts or ability are identified as internally
controlled, whereas, individuals who believe that reinforcement is credited to chance,
fate, or some other external force, are identified as externally controlled (Rotter, 1966;
Weiner, 1992). Therefore, individuals with an internal locus of control place greater
value on their skill, achievement, and ability, all of which can lead to adjustments in their
own academics. Thus, another intrapersonal factor that may contribute to academic
30
resilience is an internal locus of control, or belief that the individual can control what
happens to him/her or can influence his/her own fate and will be included in the current
study (Bursik & Martin, 2006; Cappella & Weinstein, 2001; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986;
Uguak et al., 2007).
From extensive research on this construct, Rotter (1966) developed the InternalExternal Locus of Control (I-E Scale) (Cappella & Weinstein, 2001; Uguak et al., 2007),
that has been typically used to assess locus of control and link it to achievement. The
recurrent finding is that individuals who have a strong belief that they can control their
own destiny (internal locus of control) are more likely to flourish academically and adjust
better to life despite their environment (Rotter, 1966; Uguak et al., 2007). For example,
Cappella and Weinstein (2001) investigated factors that enabled improved reading
achievement from previously failing youth. Using a national longitudinal database of
1,362 8th to 12th graders the authors determined that having an internal locus of control
independently predicted academic resilience. In order to measure locus of control the
researchers utilized a scale that was stemmed from Rotter’s (1966) I-E Scale. Thus,
another factor that may contribute to academic resilience is having an internal locus of
control.
In sum, multiple studies have linked the intrapersonal variables of self-efficacy,
autonomy, and internal locus of control to achievement outcomes. Therefore, these
variables were considered in the current study as potential predictors of academic
resilience (Close & Solberg, 2007; Uguak et al., 2007; Van Ryzin et al., 2009).
31
Conclusion
This review has presented an overview of research on at-risk environments as
well as the variables that counteract the economic risk factors for late-adolescents.
Research has established that at-risk environments (low-income and single-parent
families) can have adverse effects on the academic outcomes of children in such
environments (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008; Chatterji, 2006; Flores, 2007). However, there
are also a number of students within such at-risk environments that defy the odds and
flourish with their academic outcomes (Gizir & Aydin, 2009; Morales, 2010). What has
yet to be fully understood are the factors that predict academic resilience in these at-risk
youths.
It is necessary to explore variables that might counteract economic risk factors in
order to diminish the achievement gap between high and low income children’s academic
abilities, and promote resilience in the individual. Prior research indicates a need to
investigate the role of both intrapersonal and interpersonal factors in predicting academic
resilience (Gizir &Aydin, 2009; Morales, 2010). Research testing developmental
processes in this population of low-income single-parent late adolescent groups is both
timely and relevant toward understanding academic resilience. Although the literature
suggests that both interpersonal and intrapersonal factors assist in mitigating the adverse
effects of low-income single-parent families, the unique contribution between those
variables are unstudied in relation to each other and to income level. By examining the
intrapersonal and interpersonal factors that are associated with academic experiences in
32
the current study, it is possible to better understand the phenomena of academic
resilience.
Considering the previous research, the overall aim of the current study was to
extend upon the academic resilience research by investigating the role that both
intrapersonal (self-efficacy, autonomy, locus of control) and interpersonal (perceived
parent involvement, perceived parental autonomy support) factors play in the
development of academic resilience. In addition, the research examined whether there
were differences in interpersonal and intrapersonal factors in relation to academic
success, when comparing income groups.
The research questions that are drawn from the literature and the theoretical
framework are as follows
(a) Do children’s perceptions of interpersonal resources with parents (i.e.,
involvement and parental autonomy support) predict academic resilience?
(b) What are the relative contributions of three intrapersonal resources: selfefficacy, autonomy, and locus of control, in predicting at-risk students’
academic resilience?
(c) Are intrapersonal factors stronger predictors of academic resilience than
interpersonal factors?
33
Chapter 3
METHODS
The aim of the current study was to investigate the relationship between both
intrapersonal (self-efficacy, autonomy, locus of control) and interpersonal (perceived
parent involvement, perceived parental autonomy support) factors and academic
resilience among low income adolescents. In addition, the researcher attempted to
identify whether or not intrapersonal factors make unique contributions to academic
resilience controlling for interpersonal factors, thereby, testing one mechanism by which
at-risk adolescents’ academic resilience may be fostered.
Research Questions
In order to accomplish the goals of the current study there were four main
questions that the researcher asked:
(a) Do children’s perceptions of interpersonal resources with parents (i.e.,
involvement and parental autonomy support) predict academic resilience?
(b) What are the relative contributions of three intrapersonal resources: selfefficacy, autonomy, and locus of control, in predicting at-risk students’
academic resilience?
(c) Are intrapersonal factors stronger predictors of academic resilience than
interpersonal factors?
34
Based on previous research it was predicted that parental involvement and
parental support for autonomy, and adolescent self-efficacy, locus of the control, and
academic autonomy would be associated with better academic scores. Further, it was
predicted that although both intrapersonal and interpersonal factors would be associated
with academic resilience of at-risk adolescents, and that intrapersonal characteristics
would have a stronger relationship with resilience than interpersonal factors, despite
income level.
Design of the Study
This study used a correlational design to examine the relationships between
variables. Parent participants completed a self-report questionnaire that provided
information about their household demographics, and student participants completed five
self-report instruments that provided information about their family characteristics and
demographic information, academic performance, and Children’s Perceived Self-Efficacy
Scale (CPSE Appendix E), the Self-Regulatory Style Questionnaire–Academic
Autonomy (SRQ-A Appendix F), the Locus of Control Scale (Appendix G), Perceptions
of Parents Scale (POPS Appendix H).
Correlational and regression analyses were used to explore associations between
intrapersonal factors, interpersonal factors, family structure, income as the socioeconomic
status indicator, and the child’s expression of academic resilience. Correlational analyses
were conducted and significant variables were then entered into multiple regression
35
analyses to further examine how the factors predicted academic resilience. Regression
analyses were conducted regressing self-efficacy, autonomy, internal locus of control,
parental involvement, and parental autonomy support on to academic performance.
Participants
The participants for this study were recruited from a central California high
school with low-to-high socioeconomic status coverage area. All junior and seniors who
had courses from two teachers hosting the study across the day were the target group
invited to participate (approximately 208 students), as well as their parents. A total
sample of 91 students and their parents completed the questionnaires (44%). Student
participants were 16 to 18 years old (M = 16.85, SD = 0.61). The sample was comprised
of 46% Hispanic, 37% European American, and 17% other ethnic races. The majority of
the sample was female (76%). As an incentive to engage the students in participation,
each student was offered extra credit for returning their parental consent form signed,
whether or not parents agreed for their child to participate. Table 1 shows the sample
demographics.
36
Table 1
Sample Demographics
Demographic Variable
Percent
Two-Parent
75.8%
Single-parent
19.8%
Extremely Low Income
6.7%
Low Income
45.3%
High Income
48%
Measures
Both students and parents were asked to complete questionnaires for this study.
The students completed five different assessments: a demographic questionnaire
(Appendix D), the Children’s Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale (CPSE Appendix E), the
Self-Regulatory Style Questionnaire–Academic Autonomy (SRQ-A Appendix F), the
Locus of Control Scale (appendix G), Perceptions of Parents Scale (POPS Appendix H).
Parents were asked to fill out a demographic questionnaire (Appendix C). Self-report
questionnaires were utilized because previous research has established that students’ selfreports on grades have been found to be consistent with grades assigned by teachers
(Carranza, You, Chhuon, & Hudley, 2009; Dornbusch, Ritter, Mont-Reynaud, & Chen,
1990). In addition, because adolescent report on parental characteristics has been found
37
to be similar to parental report (Grolnick et al., 1991; Grolnick & Slowiaczeck, 1994;
Wong, 2008), the use of adolescent self-report was justified.
Demographic Information
A demographic questionnaire that assessed the characteristics of the students’
family was administered to the adolescent participants. The questionnaire consisted of 20
questions, including the student’s age, gender, ethnicity, and expectations of educational
level of attainment (see Appendix D). Parental characteristics included parent(s)
education level, relative income, and employment status. Family characteristics included
number of people in family, primary language spoken in the home, and family structure.
Past studies have used similar demographic questionnaires (Dearing et al., 2006).
In addition, parents completed a demographic questionnaire that was sent home
separately along with consent letters. The parents were included as respondents for
demographic information due to concerns that adolescents might not be knowledgeable
about these demographics, especially household income. The demographic questionnaire
consisted of 12 questions, including parent’s gender, ethnicity, educational level of
attainment, and occupation (see Appendix C). Family characteristics included combined
household income, number of people in family, and primary language spoken in the
home. In order to measure combined household income on the questionnaire the parents’
had the option of picking an income range (i.e., $1,000-$10,000; $10,001-$20,000;
$20,001-$30,000; $30,001-$40,000; $40,001-$50,000; $50,001-$60,000; $60,001$70,000; $70,001-$80,000; $80,001 and above; N/A). Those ranges were then coded into
38
three different groups: group 0= $1,000-$10,000(extremely low income); group 1=
$10,001-$60,000(low income); and group 2= $60,001 and above (high income) (see
Table 1) and N/A was treated as missing data and was not utilized in the analyses. The
high/low income indicator was divided from the 50th percentile, high income was above
the 50th percentile (group 2), low income was below the 50th percentile (group 1), and
extremely low income was given its own group since it was below $10,000 and also fell
below the 50th percentile.
Self-Efficacy
Students’ self-efficacy was measured using subscales of Bandura’s Children’s
Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale (CPSE; Bandura, 1990), which has been validated for
children 0-18 years of age (see Appendix E). From the original scale two subscales were
included with items scored on a Likert scale. Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated Learning
contains ten items. A sample item reads “Finish my homework assignments by
deadlines”. A second subscale, Self-Efficacy for Enlisting Parental and Community
Support contains four items, and a sample item includes “Get my parents to help me with
a problem”. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale that represents their belief in
their level of capability of execution of specific activities, from 1 (cannot) to 5 (definitely
can) do. Higher scores represent higher levels of self-efficacy. The validity of this scale
was supported by multiple factor analyses studies, and the scale has an acceptable degree
of reliability (Pajares et al., 2006). This scale has been used with children from 11-18
years old (Carroll et al., 2009). In the current study, the Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated
39
Learning scale had a good internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha = .85), and the SelfEfficacy for Enlisting Community Support had an acceptable internal consistency
(Cronbach’s Alpha = .72).
Autonomy
Students’ autonomy was measured using the Self-Regulatory Style Questionnaire–
Academic Autonomy (SRQ-A; Ryan & Connell, 1989) (see Appendix G). This 32 item
questionnaire consists of four subscales that evaluate the autonomous reason for task
involvement. The External Regulation subscale contains nine items, the Introjected
Regulation subscale contains nine items, the Identified Regulation subscale contains
seven items, and the Intrinsic Motivation subscale contains seven items. Participants
rated each set of items as answers to questions related to why they accomplish activities
related to school. Sample items included “Why do I do my homework?” and sample
responses were “Because I want the teacher to think I’m a good student”, then responses
were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (very true) to 4 (not at all true). The four
scales are distinct factors and have found to be valid as indicators of the amount of
autonomy in which school activities are done (Ryan & Connell., 1989). This scale has
been used with both younger students (third through fifth grade) and older adolescents
(average of 15 years old) (Patrick et al., 1993; Van Ryzin et al., 2009). The External
Regulation (Cronbach’s Alpha = .76) and the Identified Regulation (Cronbach’s Alpha =
.72) had an acceptable internal consistency, and the Introjected Regulation (Cronbach’s
40
Alpha = .83) and the Intrinsic Motivation (Cronbach’s Alpha = .82) scales had a good
internal consistency.
Locus of Control
Students’ locus of control was measured using the Locus of Control Scale (Rotter,
1966). This 23 item forced-choice questionnaire has the participant choose between
either an internal or external interpretation of the statement, either an A or B response
(see Appendix F). This means that the items of the locus of control scale used yes or no
(A or B) responses to indicate the degree of agreements one has with each statement.
Sample items included “Many of the unhappy things in people’s lives are partly due to
bad luck” and “People’s misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.”
The questionnaire is scored by giving the “external” direction, a score of one, and
the “internal” direction a score of zero. The higher the score, the more external the
respondent’s locus of control is rated. The locus of control scale from Rotter is used
extensively and has been validated in various studies with both primary and adolescent
respondents (Cappella & Weinstein, 2001; Uguak et al., 2007).
Perceived Parental Involvement and Support for Autonomy
Perceived parental involvement and support for autonomy were measured using
the Perceptions of Parents Scale (POPS; Grolnick et al., 1991). This 22 item (11 for
mother and 11 for father) questionnaire assessed the adolescent’s perception of whether
their parents are involved in their lives and parental support of the adolescent’s choices
41
and decisions (see Appendix H). Each item had four response choices available.
Students were asked to pick the response that best described their mother and father. For
example, choices for an item assessing parental involvement include “a. Some mothers
(fathers) never have enough time to talk to their children. b. Some mothers (fathers)
usually don’t have enough time to talk to their children. c. Some mothers (fathers)
sometimes have enough time to talk to their children. d. Some mothers (fathers) always
have enough time to talk to their children.”
There are four subscales to the questionnaire: Mother Involvement contains five
items, Mother Autonomy Support contains six items, Father Involvement contains five
items, and Father Autonomy Support contains six items. POPS has been used to study
the academic resilience of adolescents and has been validated in various studies (Grolnick
et al., 1991; Wong, 2008). Adolescent report on parental characteristics has been found to
report similar to parental report (Grolnick et al., 1991; Grolnick & Slowiaczek, 1994;
Wong, 2008). In order to improve internal consistency for the Mother Involvement
subscale, item one was omitted because it did not contribute to the consistency, thus, the
internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s Alpha = .73). In addition, to improve
the internal consistency for the mother autonomy support subscale, item 2 was omitted
because it did not contribute to consistency. Internal consistency for the mother
autonomy, father involvement and father autonomy subscales were adequate (Alpha = .62
and .65 and .67, respectively).
42
Academic Performance
Academic performance was assessed through report of students’ GPA and test
scores. Students’ were asked to self- report their cumulative grade point average GPA
(see Appendix D) with a single open-ended item that asked them their current GPA (M =
2.97, SD = .58). Students’ self-reported GPAs were not cross-checked with school
records due to confidentiality concerns, but both instructors that assisted in the study
informed students of their GPA once parental consent forms were returned.
In addition, two single open-ended items that asked about student’s standardized
test scores were on the questionnaire, one for English language arts and one for social
studies. Participants were prompted before data collection that scores from their 10th
grade California Standards Test, English language arts and social studies would be
needed. Scores for these tests were sent home after the test was taken, but in case of
misplaced scores, this information could be requested through the records office on
campus since the scores are kept in each student’s files. If requested ahead of time, an
actual copy of the score sheet can be given to the parent or student, or the scores for
English language arts and social studies from their 10th grade test can be orally given to
the parent or student. Both instructors who participated in the study were able to look up
CST scores for each student and give them their scores once parental consent was
returned. Previous research has utilized students’ self-reports on grades and have found
that they tend to be consistent with grades assigned by teachers (Carranza et al., 2009;
Dornbusch et al., 1990).
43
Procedures
The researcher first obtained approval to conduct the study from the Child
Development Department as well as the IRB at California State University, Sacramento
and the assistant principal of the target high school. After these boards and the assistant
principal approved the data collection procedures, the assistant principal suggested two
instructors who could assist with the study. The researcher then spoke with the
instructors about all aspects of the study, answered questions, and set two dates to do data
collection. On the first meeting day the researcher spoke briefly about the study and
handed out parental consent forms with demographic questionnaires. The parental
consent letter included information about the study as well as a consent form (Appendix
B). The consent form gave parents the option to allow their child to participate or not. A
demographic questionnaire was also sent home for the parents to fill out, the
questionnaire included parent’s sex, ethnicity, educational level of attainment, and
occupation (Appendix C). Upon return of the parental consent form, regardless if parents
said yes or no, participants received five extra credit points from the teachers hosting the
study in their classroom. Due to the issue of adolescents’ inconsistency with returning
forms sent home to parents, an incentive was offered for the return of the parental forms
as opposed to participation in the study.
On the day of the survey, the researcher distributed assent forms to students who
returned their parental consent forms (Appendix C). Prior to administering the
questionnaires, the instructors gave the students both their total high school GPA as well
44
as their CST language arts and CST world history scores for 10th grade. Next, the
students were told that their responses were anonymous, their participation was
voluntary, and they could withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.
Participants were asked to not put their names on the questionnaire to maintain
anonymity, but they were asked to put their name on a blank page that was attached to the
questionnaire so that the demographic questionnaire filled out by the parent could be
matched with the questionnaire filled out by the student. Participants completed
questionnaires in class and the students who did not participate were designated another
assignment by the teacher.
The questionnaire took approximately 30-40 minutes for the participants to
complete. After the student questionnaires were collected in the classroom, they were
matched by only referring to the blank sheet with the student’s name on it with the
demographic information sheet that was attached to the signed parental consent forms, of
which the researcher only looked at the signed parental consent form to match with the
student’s provided name. After the questionnaires were matched together both the signed
consent and assent forms with identifying information and the sheet with the student’s
name were removed from the questionnaires and stored in a separate storage case,
assuring confidentiality.
45
Summary
This chapter described the methods used to conduct a study of interpersonal and
intrapersonal factors of late adolescents’ and their relationship to academic resilience.
The results of data analysis are reported in the following chapter, including descriptive
statistics and the results of correlational and regression analyses used to examine the
research questions of the current study. Figures and tables are presented to display the
statistical data obtained from the study.
46
Chapter 4
RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of statistical analyses from this study. The
researcher conducted analysis of this data using SPSS statistical analysis software.
Pearson’s r correlational and regression analyses were used to explore associations
between intrapersonal factors, interpersonal factors, family structure, socioeconomic
status, and the child’s expression of academic resilience. Interpersonal and intrapersonal
variables that evidenced significant correlations with academic performance were used in
multiple regression analyses to further examine how the factors are related to academic
resilience.
Associations between Parental Involvement and Parental Autonomy
Support and Academic Performance
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for the study variables. The first
research question addressed in this study was whether children’s perceptions of
interpersonal resources with parents (i.e., involvement and parental autonomy support)
were associated with academic resilience. To examine this question, Pearson correlations
were conducted to see whether the parental involvement (mother or father) with
autonomy support (mother autonomy support or father autonomy support) was more
likely to be associated with higher academic performance (GPA, CST score for language
arts, CST score for world history. As shown in Table 3, mother involvement was the only
factor found to be associated with any academic outcome variable. Mother involvement
47
was found to be significantly related to higher scores on language arts, r (87) = .26, p
=.02, indicating a weak, positive correlation between mother involvement and academic
performance on CST language arts scores where higher scores on mother involvement
were correlated with higher scores on CST language arts standardized tests. Notable, is
that father autonomy support was trending towards significance for GPA, r (81) = .21, p
< .06.
48
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables
Variable
M
SD
GPA
2.97
.58
CST Language Arts
374.13
51.75
CST World History
352.69
61.14
Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated
Learning
3.45
.65
Self-Efficacy for Enlisting Parental
and Community Support
2.34
.98
External Regulation
2.91
.51
Introjected Regulation
2.88
.56
Identified Regulation
3.27
.45
Intrinsic Motivation
2.10
.58
Locus of Control
11.34
2.34
Mother Involvement
1.96
.67
Mother Autonomy Support
1.17
.55
Father Involvement
1.71
.63
Note. GPA Range 0.00-4.00. CST Scores Range 150.00-600.00. Self-Efficacy Range
(i.e., Self-Regulated Learning, Enlisting Parental and Community Support)1.00-5.00.
Academic Autonomy Range (i.e., External Regulation, Introjected Regulation, Identified
Regulation, Intrinsic Motivation) 1.00-4.00. Locus of Control Range 0.00-22.00. Parental
Involvement and Autonomy Support Range (i.e., Mother Involvement, Mother
Autonomy Support, Father Involvement) 0.00-3.00.
Table 3
Correlations Among Variables
1
1
2
2.Language Arts
.51**
1
3.World History
.61**
.68**
1
4.Self-regulated
learning
.45**
.13
.26*
1
5.Parent &
Community Support
.14
.04
.05
.41**
1
6.Mother
Involvement
.20
.26*
.21
.25*
.42**
1
7.Father
Involvement
.10
.06
-.02
.12
.44**
.08
1
8.FatherAutonomy
.21
.02
-.07
.22*
.38**
.25*
.46**
1
9.MotherAutonomy
.16
.09
.09
.06
.07
.26*
.16
.14
1
10.Locus of Control
.02
-.24*
-.22*
-.19
-.16
-.11
-.19
.01
-.13
1
11.External Reg
.00
.05
.00
.10
.16
-.15
.25*
.12
-.16
-.03
1
12.Introjected Reg
.14
.04
-.02
.28**
.21*
.04
.23*
.14
-.04
-.13
.38**
1
13.Identified Reg
.17
-.07
.06
.50**
.39**
.16
.19
.37**
.11
-.27**
.13
.38**
1
14.Intrinsic Mot
.33**
.21
.30**
.36**
.16
.03
.07
.01
.09
-.23*
.09
.35**
.46**
1
15.Income
.32**
.13
.14
.27*
.35**
.27*
.09
.12
.24*
.04
-.16
.24*
.17
.02
1
16.Single-Parent
-.15
-.11
-.13
-.07
-.17
-.14
.11
.16
-.03
-.11
-.13
-.17
-.05
.19
-.40**
1.GPA
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
*p < .05, ** p < .01
49
50
Associations between Adolescent Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and
Academic Autonomy and Academic Performance
The second question asked in this study was whether the three interpersonal
resources: self-efficacy, academic autonomy, and locus of control, predicted at-risk
students’ academic resilience. In order to test whether scores on self-efficacy (selfregulated learning and enlisting parental and community support) were associated with
GPA and CST scores, Pearson r correlations were run (see Table 3). As shown in Table
3, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning was found to be significantly related to higher
GPA, r (91) = .45, p = .00, indicating a moderate, positive correlation between selfefficacy of self-regulated learning and GPA where higher scores on self-efficacy for selfregulated learning were correlated with higher scores on GPA. A similar positive
correlation was found between self-efficacy for regulated learning and CST scores for
world history, r (89) = .26, p = .01. These findings show that there was a weak, positive
correlation between self-efficacy for self-regulated learning and CST scores on world
history such that higher scores on self-efficacy for self-regulated learning were associated
with higher scores on CST world history standardized tests.
Next, Pearson’s r correlations were computed to assess the relationship between
locus of control (external or internal) and academic performance (GPA, CST score for
language arts, CST score for world history). As shown in Table 3, more internal locus of
control (i.e., lower score) was found to be significantly related to higher scores on CST
for language arts, r (89) = -.24, p = .02, and higher scores on CST scores for world
history r (89) = -.22, p = .04, indicating a weak, negative correlation between internal
51
locus of control and academic performance on CST language arts scores and CST world
history scores, where students who reported more internal locus of control (i.e., lower
score) was related to higher scores on CST standardized tests.
Finally, Pearson’s r correlations were computed to test whether scores on
academic autonomy (external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation,
intrinsic motivation) were associated with students’ academic performance (GPA, CST
score for language arts, CST score for world history). As shown in Table 3, intrinsic
motivation was found to be significantly related to higher scores on GPA, r (91) = .38, p
< .01, and higher scores on CST world history scores, r (89) = .30, p = .01, indicating a
weak, positive correlation between intrinsic motivation and academic outcome variables
of GPA and CST world history scores, where higher scores on intrinsic motivation were
associated with higher scores on GPA and CST world history scores. In addition, intrinsic
motivation was trending towards significance with higher scores on CST language arts
scores, r (89) =.21, p < .06.
Predicting Academic Resilience from
Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Factors
The third question asked in this study was whether intrapersonal or interpersonal
factors would be stronger predictors of academic resilience. In order to test the relative
contribution of intrapersonal characteristics (self-efficacy, locus of control, academic
autonomy) and interpersonal characteristics (parental involvement and autonomy
support) to academic scores (GPA, CST language arts, CST world history) a regression
52
analysis was conducted. The variables entered as the predictor variables were father
autonomy support, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, intrinsic motivation and
income. The outcome variable was GPA. As seen in Table 4, the regression model was
significant (F (4, 61) = 6.76, p = .00). The amount of variance in GPA explained by the
model was 26%. By comparing the Betas within this regression the researcher was able
to determine that income is taking up most of the variance in this regression (β =.25, p =
.03), and with father autonomy support nearing significance (β =.21, p < .06).
Table 4
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting GPA
Variable
β
SE
p
Father Autonomy Support
.22
.12
.06
Self-regulated Learning
.24
.11
.07
Income
.25
.11
.03*
Intrinsic Motivation
.20
.12
.10
*p < .05, **p < .01
Note. F (4, 61) = 6.76, p = .00, Adjusted R2 = .26.
Next, a multiple regression was conducted with mother involvement, locus of
control, and intrinsic motivation predicting CST language arts scores. As seen in Table
5, the regression model was significant (F (3, 83) = 4.38, p < .01). The amount of
variance in CST scores explained by the model was 11%. By comparing the Betas within
this regression the researcher was able to determine that mother involvement was taking
up most the variance in this regression (β = .23, p < .03).
53
Table 5
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting CST Language Arts Scores
β
SE
Mother Involvement
.23
7.97
.03*
Locus of Control
-.19
2.33
.08
Intrinsic Motivation
.15
9.57
.17
Variable
p
*p < .05, **p < .01
Note. F (3, 83) = 4.38, p < .01, Adjusted R2 = .11.
Finally, a multiple regression was conducted with self-efficacy for self-regulated
learning, locus of control, and intrinsic motivation predicting CST language arts scores.
As seen in Table 6, the regression model was significant (F (3, 85) = 4.33, p < .01). The
amount of variance in CST scores explained by the model was 10%. By comparing the
Betas within this regression the researcher was able to determine that intrinsic motivation
was taking up most the variance in this regression (β = .21, p = .06). But there were no
significant predictors of CST world history scores in this regression. These findings show
that reports of higher levels of intrapersonal or interpersonal characteristics measured in
the current study were not significant predictors of CST world history scores.
54
Table 6
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting CST World History Scores
β
SE
Self-regulated Learning
.16
10.24
.14
Locus of Control
-.14
2.73
.20
Intrinsic Motivation
.21
11.60
.06
Variable
p
*p < .05, **p < .01
Note. F (3, 85) = 4.33, p < .01, Adjusted R2 = .10.
Conclusion
Similar to many other findings within this field, intrapersonal factors (selfefficacy, academic autonomy, locus of control) were related to academic resilience of
low-income adolescents. Intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning,
and internal locus of control were all significantly related to at least one measure of
academic resilience (GPA, CST language arts, CST world history). Contrary to other
findings within this field, there were limited relations between parental involvement and
parental autonomy support with academic resilience. The significant finding in relation
to parental involvement and parental autonomy support was that higher levels of mother
involvement were related to higher scores in language arts. There was also a significant
relationship between higher income level and higher GPA. Finally, students with lower
income levels were significantly associated with a single parent family structure. The
next chapter will discuss these results within the context of past research on protective
factors of academic resilience. Limitations for the study and future areas for research
55
will also be discussed.
56
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
According to Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory and the PPCT model there
are dynamic interactions that exist across proximal processes, person, context and time
that all combine to influence the developmental outcomes of the individual
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris 2006). Thus, this study investigated the relationship between
intrapersonal characteristics (self-efficacy, academic autonomy and locus of control),
interpersonal characteristics (parental involvement and autonomy support), income level,
and family structure, in relation to academic resilience (GPA, CST language arts and
CST world history)of late adolescents. For example, by limiting the specific age group of
this study to adolescence, it is possible that this specific developmental time interacts
with the other constructs of the PPCT model and influences the individual differently
than other times in the individual’s life and leads to different outcomes (Bronfenbrenner
& Morris, 2006). Overall, the purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of
what factors might contribute to academic resilience of at-risk late adolescents. The
results of this research add to the existing research on academic resilience by showing
that intrapersonal factors and interpersonal factors can be protective for adolescents atrisk of academic problems due to low-income status (Gizir & Aydin, 2009; Morales,
2010). This chapter discusses the findings of the research with focus on, (a) the
relationship between interpersonal characteristics and academic resilience, (b)
intrapersonal characteristics and academic resilience, (c) how income level and family
57
structure predict academic resilience. Finally, the limitations, recommendations, and
areas of future research are discussed.
Parental Involvement and Academic Resilience
Bronfenbrenner’s theory posits that proximal processes (i.e., when an individual
engages regularly in activities or interactions with an important person in their life, such
as their parent, and the individual makes sense of the world and understands their place in
it) are what stimulate development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Therefore, by
examining the consistent interactions associated with academics between the parent and
the adolescent, the current study was able to examine how the first property of
Bronfenbrenner’s PPCT model, proximal processes, influences the child’s academic
outcome. Specifically, in the current study, maternal involvement was associated with
CST language arts scores, this finding is consistent with previous research on parental
involvement predicting the academic resiliency of low-income children (Dearing et al.,
2006; Englund et al, 2004; Fantuzzo et al, 2004; Vandenbelt et al., 2001). Throughout
the majority of such studies the focus was only on mother’s involvement to academic
success (Dearing et al., 2006; Englund et al, 2004; Fantuzzo et al, 2004; Vandenbelt et
al., 2001).
Although the model that associated mother involvement with CST language arts
scores was found to be significant, mother involvement was not related to CST world
history scores or GPA. The relationship between mother involvement and the language
58
arts assessment was not surprising due to the numerous studies that found mother
involvement to be a strong predictor of academic outcomes (Apiwattanalunggarn &
Luster, 2005; Granot & Mayseless, 2001; West-Olatunji et al., 2010). To add, parental
involvement was also expected to be related to academic resilience because parents who
are highly involved with their student are often knowledgeable about their child’s daily
activities and are willing to take an active role in such daily activities (Grolnick et al.,
1991; Wong, 2008). In doing so, parents that are highly involved are able to help their
children focus on schoolwork and eliminate distractions within the immediate
environment while the student is working on schoolwork (Wong; 2008). Still, it is not
known why maternal involvement did not relate to the other measures of academic
performance. This may be because past research has identified that differing types of
involvement influence different academic outcomes, especially for Mexican American
families (Altschul, 2011; Carranza et al., 2009). For example, academic expectations
were the type of involvement found to be more correlated with academics for Mexican
American adolescents (Carranza et al., 2009). Thus, it is possible that the type of
involvement measured in this study did not best represent the type of involvement that
has the most influence on the ethnicity group and age group of the participants in this
study (Altschul, 2011; Carranza et al., 2009; Niemeyer et al., 2009).
Father involvement was not a significant predictor for any form of academic
resilience assessed in the current study. A possible explanation for these findings could
be in relation to the majority ethnicity in this sample. Carranza and colleagues (2009)
found that parental academic expectations were the type of involvement that had a greater
59
influence on the educational outcome of Mexican American adolescents, and since 46%
of the participants in this study were Hispanic, it is possible that the type of mother and
father involvement used in this study was not the best measure for the majority ethnicity
in this sample. To add, it is also possible that the parent demographic variable of income
level, which has been related to educational attainment level in past research, could be
influencing the level of father involvement in the current study (Hayes, 2011). Since
37% of the participants in this study were low income, it is possible that the contextual
variable of income is influencing the amount of involvement by fathers. Past research
has linked parent educational attainment to income level and such variables could
influence the students’ achievement (Carranza et al., 2009; Hayes, 2011). Thus, by
utilizing Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model to guide the research the current findings
add to the literature on parental involvement and academic achievement, but more
research is needed to explore the types of involvement and how demographic variables
influence involvement to get a better understanding of the influence of involvement on
academics.
Parental Autonomy Support and Academic Resilience
Parent-child relationships remain essential for assisting adolescents in becoming
more autonomous, responsible individuals and parental autonomy support serves as
another indicator of proximal processes in this study (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
Since, the socializing influence of parents on children has been well documented
60
throughout the resilience literature and Bronfenbrenner’s theory contends that such
regular interactions with important people in an individual’s life (i.e., parental autonomy
support) influences development, it emerges as a salient construct in this study
(Apiwattanalunggarn & Luster, 2005; Vandenbelt et al., 2002; West-Olatunji et al.,
2010). Within such research, parental autonomy support was found to be successful in
predicting the academic resilience of adolescents and has been associated with higher
GPA and achievement test scores (Altschul, 2011; Grolnick, 2009; Grolnick et al., 1991;
Wong, 2008). The current findings partially support the prediction that there is a
relationship between parental autonomy support and academic resilience of at-risk
adolescents in that there is a trend towards significance in the relationship between father
autonomy support and higher levels of GPA. This finding of a relationship near
significance between parental autonomy support and academic resilience of adolescence
is not surprising in that parents who are high in autonomy support often value
encouraging independent problem solving within their children and focus on why
schoolwork is important and encourage their adolescent to have their own opinion about
their schoolwork (Grolnick et al., 1991; Wong, 2008). In doing so, utilizing such
parenting techniques associated with autonomy support may have assisted the students in
developing a concept of schoolwork as being meaningful or important to them and
focused less on the controlling aspects of schoolwork (Wong; 2008). Thus, perceived
parental autonomy support can be viewed as a protective factor for at-risk adolescents
and mitigate the adverse environments that at-risk students were in.
61
Self-Efficacy and Academic Resilience
Although Bronfenbrenner’s theory contends that proximal processes are what
stimulates development, his theory also mentions that the systematic variations between
individual’s outcomes are due to both the person, context and time (Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 2006). Thus, the second main focus of his theory is on the personal
characteristics that the individual brings with them to the social situation. Of which, the
most influential personal characteristics in changing the context are identified as force
characteristic (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Force characteristics are those that
focus on differences in motivation, temperament, persistence and other similar
characteristics (i.e., self-efficacy, autonomy and locus of control). For example, previous
research indicates that how an individual feels about his or her abilities, their selfefficacy, is related to the academic achievement of the individual (Carroll et al., 2001;
Choi, 2004; Close & Solberg, 2007; Pastorelli et al., 2001). By examining the force
characteristic of self-efficacy in the current study, there were inconsistent findings in
relation to self-efficacy and academic resilience. The only significant relationship was
between self-efficacy for self-regulated learning and GPA and CST world history scores.
A possible explanation for these results is that students who reported higher self-efficacy
beliefs could also be experiencing less distress in their lives, and are therefore better able
to achieve academically (Close & Solberg, 2007). To add, although gender was not
included as a predictor of academic resilience in this study, past research has identified
that across cultures female students are more likely to report a higher sense of self-
62
efficacy in relation to academic activities (Pastorelli et al., 2001). Since, 76% of the
participants in the current study were female it is possible that gender influenced the
current results and partially explained the current findings.
On the other hand, self-efficacy for enlisting community and parental support was
not significantly related to any of the measures of academic resilience. A possible
explanation for these findings could be in relation to the developmental period of the
participants. Developmentally adolescents are forming their own sense of identity and are
becoming more autonomous, therefore, they may be better able to solve problems
independently, which may be why there was no significant relationship between
academic resilience and self-efficacy for enlisting community and parental support within
these participants (Kuhn & Franklin, 2006; Close & Solberg 2007; Wong, 2008). The
small sample size could also explain the inconsistent findings in relation to self-efficacy
for enlisting community and parental support. Overall, the current results were partially
inconsistent with past research findings on self-efficacy, but self-efficacy for selfregulated learning still emerged as a protective factor that was associated with adolescent
academic outcomes.
Locus of Control and Academic Resilience
Force characteristics of the person can influence the context, proximal processes,
and the developmental outcomes, thus, they remain salient to explore within this study
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Keeping Bronfenbrenner’s theory in mind another
63
force characteristic of the individual that was examined in relation to academic resilience
was locus of control. For example, various studies have identified significant
relationships between an internal locus of control and academic achievements (Bursik &
Martin, 2006; Cappella & Weinstein, 2001; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986; Uguak et al., 2007).
The present results confirm such findings and add to this body of research. When
assessing locus of control in relation to academic resilience (GPA, CST language arts,
CST world history), students who reported having a higher internal locus of control had
higher CST language arts scores and higher CST world history scores. The relationship
between internal locus of control and academic outcomes could be due to the fact that
students who have an internal locus of control believe that they can control what happens
to them and influence their own fate (Bursik & Martin, 2006; Cappella & Weinstein,
2001; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986; Uguak et al., 2007). Students with an internal locus of
control should be able to control their academic environment more and may place greater
value on their skill, achievement and ability than students with an external locus of
control.
A surprising finding was that an internal locus of control was not a significant
predictor of GPA. A possible explanation for this finding could be in relation to the
small sample size of the participants. Perhaps with a larger sample size an internal locus
of control would also have been a significant predictor of GPA. It is also possible that an
internal locus of control was not related to GPA, because GPA taps into a different aspect
of academics than test scores do by looking at various levels of performance such as
turning in homework, showing up to class, participating in class, exam grades, and
64
homework assignment grades. Whereas, standardized test scores are solely based on the
performance of one certain subject during one testing period, instead of being graded
over a semester or school year. In sum, having an internal locus of control may be
considered another protective factor for mitigating the effects of adverse environments on
adolescents’ academic outcomes.
Academic Autonomy and Academic Resilience
Force characteristics play the most active role in changing the context and the
autonomy of the individual (i.e., a force characteristic) and can influence the motivation,
temperament, and persistence of the individual within a context (Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 2006). For example, autonomy is another intrapersonal factor that has emerged
as predictive of academic resilience and has been prevalent throughout the resilience
literature (Grolnick et al., 1991; Park et al., 2012; Patrick et al., 1993; Van Ryzin et al.,
2009). Within such research, academic autonomy can be seen as an influential process
on the academics of adolescents that allows students to think for themselves, make their
own decisions and accomplish academic tasks on their own (Close & Solberg, 2007;
Grolnick et al., 1991; Park et al., 2012; Wong, 2008). The current findings partially
support the prediction that higher scores on academic autonomy would be significantly
related to higher academic scores. Specifically, the subscale of intrinsic motivation on
the academic autonomy measurement emerged as a significant predictor of academic
resilience in both GPA and CST world history scores, and was trending towards
65
significance for CST language arts scores. This finding is consistent with intrinsic
motivation theory that has focused on the idea that individuals are inherently motivated to
develop various competencies, specifically intellectual mastery, and that individuals are
pleased when they accomplish a task (White, 1959). Since individuals in late
adolescence are increasingly able to think in a more complex manner, be imaginative and
more rational, they are also able to reflect on their own thoughts and choices which
would have an influence on their academic autonomy, and could be an explanation to
why there is such a strong relationship between intrinsic motivation and academic
resilience in this group of late adolescents (Kuhn & Franklin, 2006). By limiting the
specific age group of this study to adolescents it is possible that this specific
developmental time influences the academic autonomy of the individual differently than
other times in the individual’s life and leads to different outcomes. Another possible
explanation for this finding is that students with higher levels of academic autonomy
have been associated with having more positive coping strategies, and therefore despite
adverse environments, students with higher levels of academic autonomy would be able
to perform better and focus more on academics (Ryan & Connell, 1989). According to
Van Ryzin, Gravely and Roseth (2009) students’ perceptions of academic autonomy were
found to have an independent positive effect on engagement in learning, which was then
linked to a positive influence on academic adjustment. Overall, it is apparent that
academic autonomy can be viewed as a possible protective factor for academic resilience,
but it is also possible that academic performance leads to more academic autonomy.
Thus, more research is needed to explore the other subscales within the academic
66
autonomy measurement since no significant relationship was found between those
subscales.
Relative Prediction of Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Factors
Both the microsystem (i.e., environment where the individual spends a large
amount of time) and the macrosystem (i.e., inclusive situation that influences all of the
other context levels, such as SES) are apparent in this study and are recognized as the
characteristics of the home context, such as low income or single-parent families
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Of which, both can modify the processes that occur
between the person and the context. For example, the context can influence the person
because of previous experiences, skills, and also social and material resources associated
with the context such as availability of good food, caring parents, or housing (Tudge et
al., 2009). Such characteristics are known as resource characteristics and play the second
most active role in changing the context (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). To illustrate,
past research has identified that income level can have lasting negative academic effects
on children that can persist into adulthood (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008; Alaimo et al.,
2001; Chatterji, 2006; Davis-Kean, 2005; Moren-Cross, 2006; Leventhal & BrooksGunn, 2011; Wadsworth & Achenbach, 2005). In evaluating the relationship of
intrapersonal characteristics to academic resilience (GPA, CST language arts, CST world
history), and including income level the current findings contradict the prediction that
despite income level intrapersonal characteristics would emerge as significant predictors
67
of academic resilience. Specifically, income level was significantly correlated with GPA
despite intrapersonal characteristic, such that students with higher income level reported
higher total high school GPA. The findings of the relationship between higher levels of
income and higher levels of GPA could be partially explained by Conger and colleagues
concepts (2010). According to Conger, Schofield, Conger and Neppl (2010) if the
economic pressure (unable to pay bills, cannot meet material needs such as food and
clothing) is high within a family then the parents are at more risk for emotional and
behavioral problems. Such problems can influence the parent-child relationship and the
cognitive well-being of the child. In addition, like the study done by Conger and
Donnellan (2007), the present study’s findings support that there is a reciprocal process
where economic conditions can predict personal characteristics of adolescents which
would then influence their SES in adulthood. Overall, income level can be associated
with specific weak context of the family environment, which can influence the academic
attainment of adolescents within such environments (Orthner, Jones-Sanpei, &
Williamson, 2004).
Implications
Although the current study reflects a small population of late adolescents within
the Central Valley of California, this study and its findings can be useful to parents,
educators, counselors, and law makers in better understanding the process of how young
people adapt to at-risk environments and become academically resilient. Counselors and
68
educators who work with adolescents and parents who have adolescents can benefit from
understanding the intrapersonal and interpersonal characteristics associated with
academic resilience of adolescents, and can focus on promoting and utilizing such
techniques in order to diminish adversity within at-risk environments. Policy and
lawmakers should also note the significant relationship that income level has on academic
attainment of adolescents and should focus on creating intervention programs that
promote intrapersonal characteristics (self-efficacy, academic autonomy, locus of control)
in order to mediate the influence of at-risk environments. Lastly, law makers could also
initiate that within classroom instruction all teachers should include promotion of
intrapersonal characteristics within their academic standards. Overall, it is important to
keep in mind that childhood experiences can contribute to issues in adulthood, therefore
helping adolescents develop intrapersonal characteristics that can mitigate such adverse
environments could diminish the deleterious cycle of poverty and negative developmental
outcomes of adolescents (Rumberger, 2011).
Limitations and Future Research
It is important to mention the limitations of the current study. First, the
participants in this study represent a convenience sample of seven classes at a single
school site, limiting generalizability. By using larger samples from different SES levels,
ethnic groups, and gender groups, future research could include a more representative
sample and the results could be more widely generalized.
69
Another limitation in regards to the sample was with gender. Although there were
some male participants in this study, it is necessary to note that 76% of participants in
this study were female. Such issues with gender may have influenced findings and may
not be representative of the whole school population. It is important for future research to
continue the examination of the relationship between gender, intrapersonal
characteristics, interpersonal characteristics, income level and family structure with
academic resilience with larger, more diverse populations in order to be able to generalize
the findings.
Another possible limitation of this study is the data collection technique used.
Due to time and financial limitations, data could only be gathered through questionnaires,
a form of quantitative methods that allowed for analyses of multiple participants in a
short period of time. Open-ended questions and observations that could further explain
depth reasoning, behavior and the relationships of variables were not included. In using
such self-report questionnaires there is a concern for social desirability and the reliability
of the findings is also reduced. In future research, to get a more accurate measure,
researchers should aim to include reports from parents and teachers as well as self-report
questionnaires and interviews with open-ended questions more specific to what factors
influence academics. In doing so, internal validity could be increased. Another limitation
with the collection technique used was that within the parental involvement and
autonomy support measure (POPS) two items had to be omitted in order to raise the
internal consistency of the measure. If the variable is not being measured relations then
cannot account for it in the regression analysis. By utilizing a different measure with
70
higher internal consistency in future research the researcher would be able to draw
stronger conclusions about the relationship between parental involvement and autonomy
support and other variables. In doing so, the researcher would also be able to control for
parental involvement and autonomy support in future research to determine its effect on
academic outcomes.
Finally, the data were analyzed using correlational methods. Utilizing
correlational analysis limits the conclusions that are drawn about the relationships
between variables, and findings are not considered causal. It is not possible to state the
direction of effects for the associations found between intrapersonal variables,
interpersonal variables, and academic resilience. In order to shed more light on the onset
time and direction of the effects of influential factors, future research could utilize
longitudinal data analysis that examines various factors that influence academic outcomes
of at-risk adolescents. In doing so, researchers would be able to better understand how
such factors contribute to the academic resilience of adolescents.
In addition, the next step for research in this area would be to do an intervention
study that focused on the significant variables found within this study that were
predictors of academic resilience. By implementing an intervention aimed at improving
the internal characteristics related to academic resilience it is possible that at-risk students
could gain inner resources that would assist their academic throughout their lifetime.
Future research could also examine the interaction between demographic variables and
intrapersonal and interpersonal variables. For example, by assessing how low-income
students with low self-efficacy for self-regulated learning adjust to academic
71
environments when their parental involvement is low, researchers could better understand
how to intervene these at-risk students. Such intervention tools for academic resilience
must also be further research and made accessible to both parents and teachers.
Despite these limitations, the results presented here have important implications
for policy and program intervention aimed at improving the academic achievement of atrisk students. In addition, this research is relevant because it sheds light on the potential
intrapersonal protective factors that can influence the academic outcomes of at-risk
adolescents. By identifying the internal characteristics that can influence academic
achievement, professionals can promote the development of those factors early on in a
student’s academic career and can potentially influence students’ development
throughout their lifetime. Overall, this study contributed to the extensive research in
exploration of factors that mitigate adverse environments, but there is still a great deal
that is unknown about academic resilience of at-risk adolescents and should be further
studied.
72
Appendices
73
APPENDIX A
Consent to Participate in Research-Parent
You are being asked to participate in research which will be conducted by Jennifer
Sturtevant, a graduate student in Child Development at California State University,
Sacramento. The purpose of this study is to investigate the individual characteristics and
societal characteristics that influence late-adolescents’ academic achievement.
In this study you are being asked to complete a demographic questionnaire that is
attached to this letter. If you and your spouse/partner decide to participate, it will only
take approximately 15 minutes of your time, and you will be contributing to a growing
body of research about factors that help children succeed at school.
You are also being asked for permission for your child to participate. Your child would
be asked to complete 4 questionnaires in class asking questions about their perception of
their self-regulated learning and ability to ask others for help, whether or not they
attribute academic outcomes to their own abilities or other forces, why they do things
related to school activities, and how they perceive support and involvement with
academics by adults. In addition, another questionnaire will be administered to the
students regarding family characteristics and demographic information; I am further
asking them to report their own cumulative GPA and standardized test scores. It is
anticipated that the survey will take approximately 30 minutes of class time to complete.
Your student’s teacher will give extra credit to students who return their consent form,
whether or not you agree to allow them to participate. Students who do not have consent
to participate, or personally decide not to participate, will complete an alternate
assignment in class while the survey is being completed.
Participation in this research is completely voluntary. Some of the items in the
questionnaires may seem personal, but you do not have to answer any question if you do
not want to. You or your child are free to skip any questions on questionnaires or stop at
any time with no penalty. If you choose to participate in this study, no personal
information will be shared and all results will be reported in aggregate form so no
individuals are identifiable. Your name will only appear on the consent form which you
sign prior to filling out the questionnaires and these will be stored separately from the
completed questionnaires. When sending signed consent forms with your student, you are
also requested to put the completed demographic questionnaire in the envelope provided
and seal the envelope before sending back both forms to school with your adolescent.
This will ensure that the demographic questionnaires will be kept confidential. Once
your adolescent has completed their questionnaire, the demographic questionnaire
envelopes will be opened and matched with your students’ questionnaire. Immediately
after the demographic questionnaire is matched with the questionnaire filled out by your
student, the consent form with any personal identifying information will be removed and
74
stored in a separate locked box so there is no way for even the researcher to identify
which questionnaires belong to you. After three years all data will be destroyed.
All results obtained in this study will be kept confidential. You are not required to put
your name on any of the questionnaires. All questionnaires and consent forms will be
stored separately by the researcher in a locked cabinet for three years, after which all data
will be destroyed.
All adolescent participants will receive extra credit for returning their parental consent
form, whether you agree to participate or do not agree to participate. The recipients of the
extra credit will be notified after all data are collected.
Please note that your child’s cumulative GPA up to this point in high school academics
will be information they need to bring with them to class to fill out their questionnaire. In
addition, standardized test scores from your child’s 10th grade California Standards Tests
for English language arts and social studies will be requested on their questionnaires, so
please remind your child to look those up and bring them with them on the day they are
completing the questionnaire, January 14th, 2014. You can request this information in the
records office (xxx)xxx-xxxx on campus, and they can give you a copy of the scores or
tell you the score on the tests requested, but scores were sent home after the test was
taken.
If you have any questions about this research, you may contact myself at (xxx)xxx-xxxx
or by e-mail at xxxxxxxxx@gmail.com, my research advisor is Dr. Juliana Raskauskas
and she can be contacted at (916)278-7029 or by e-mail at jraskauskas@csus.edu.
Thank you so much for your time and support. Please remember to send your
signed consent, along with the completed demographic questionnaire in a sealed
envelope with your child by Tuesday, January 14th. Be sure to keep a copy of the
informed consent for your personal records.
Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. You are free to decide not to
participate, or to decide to stop participating at a later time without any consequences. By
signing below, you are saying that you have read this page and agree to participate in this
study. Please be sure to sign for both your participation in this study, as well indicate if
your adolescent has permission to participate in this study and sign below that choice.
I______________________________________ agree to participate as a research subject
in this study and fill out the demographic questionnaire attached to this consent form.
________________________________ ____________________
Signature of Parent Participant
Date
75
YES, I give permission for my child_______________________________ to
complete the survey.
________________________________ ____________________
Signature of Parent Participant
Date
NO, I do not give permission to my child to complete the survey.
________________________________ ____________________
Signature of Parent Participant
Date
If you would like to receive a copy of the summary findings please provide your e-mail
below.
______________________________________.
76
APPENDIX B
Assent to Participate in Research-Student
You are being asked to participate in research which will be conducted by Jennifer
Sturtevant, a graduate student in Child Development at California State University,
Sacramento. The purpose of this study is to investigate the individual level characteristics
and societal level characteristics that influence late-adolescents’ academic achievement.
You will be asked to complete several questionnaires about your academic abilities, your
personal traits and values, and your relationship with your family. The questionnaires
may require 30 minutes of your time within the classroom. Your information will
contribute to a better understanding of late adolescents’ characteristics and academics,
providing insight for educators, parents, and counselors.
Associated with your participation there are no foreseeable risks or discomfort greater
than what might be encountered in daily life or with routine psychological tests. Some of
the items in the questionnaires may seem personal, but you do not have to answer any
question if you do not want to. It may actually be beneficial for you to think about
factors that influence your academics, or you may not personally benefit from
participating in this research. If any issues are brought up by this study please refer to
your school counselor.
All results obtained in this study will be kept confidential. You are not required to put
your name on any of the questionnaires. All questionnaires and assent forms will be
stored separately by the researcher in a locked cabinet for three years, after which all data
will be destroyed.
By returning parent consent regardless of participation, you will receive extra credit in
the class in which you receive the questionnaires. The recipients of the extra credit will
be notified after all data are collected.
If you have any questions about this research, you may contact myself at (xxx)xxx-xxxx
or by e-mail at xxxxxxxxx@gmail.com, my research advisor is Dr. Juliana Raskauskas
and she can be contacted at (916)278-7029 or by e-mail at jraskauskas@csus.edu.
Please note that your cumulative GPA up to this point in high school academics will be
information you need to bring with you to class for your questionnaire. In addition,
standardized test scores from your 10th grade California Standards Tests for English
language arts and social studies will be requested on your questionnaires, so please look
those up and bring them with you on the day you are completing the questionnaire,
January 14th, 2014. You can request this information in the records office on campus,
and they can give you a copy of your scores or tell you your score on the tests requested,
but scores were sent home after the test was taken.
77
Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. You are free to decide not to
participate, or to decide to stop participating at any time without any consequences or
penalties. By signing below, you are saying that you have read this page and agree to
participate in this study.
________________________________ ____________________
Signature of Student Participant
Date
78
APPENDIX C
Demographic Survey-Parent
Today’s Date________
In the below demographic questionnaire please respond to the best of your ability.
If you feel uncomfortable with responding to a question or do not know the answer
please respond NA (not-applicable).
1. Your gender? (circle) Male
Female
N/A
2. Your race or ethnicity?(e.g. Asian, Caucasian, African American)
________________________________________________________________
3. Primary language in the home?_____________________________
4. Number of people in family(living in the house)_____________
5. Is your household a single-parent household?
__Yes __ No __N/A
6. Education level of your mother? (check one)
___No completion of High School
___High school diploma/GED
___AA or AS degree
___Some college beyond AA/AS
degree
___BA or BS degree
___MA or MS degree
___Ph.D./J.D. or other doctoral degree
___N/A
7. Education level of your father? (check one)
___No completion of High School
___High school diploma/GED
___AA or AS degree
___Some college beyond AA/AS
degree
___BA or BS degree
___MA or MS degree
___Ph.D./J.D. or other doctoral degree
___N/A
8. Mother employed? __Yes __ No __N/A
9. If working, what is occupation?
_________________________________________
10. Father employed?
__Yes __ No __N/A
11. If working, what is occupation?
_________________________________________
79
12. Household income level combined. (check one)
___ $1,000-$10,000
___$10,001-$20,000
___$20,001-$30,000
___$30,001-$40,000
___$40,001-$50,000
___$50,001-$60,000
___$60,001-$70,000
___$70,001-$80,000
___$80,001 and above
___N/A
80
APPENDIX D
Demographic Survey-Student
Today’s Date________
In the below demographic questionnaire please respond to the best of your ability.
If you feel uncomfortable with responding to a question or do not know the answer
please respond NP (not-applicable).
1. What is your age?_______________________
2. Your gender? (circle)
Male
Female
N/A
3. Your race or ethnicity?(e.g. Asian, Caucasian, African American)
________________________________________________________________
4. Level of school you expect to reach? (check one)
___Less than High school
___High school diploma/GED
___AA or AS degree
___Some college beyond AA/AS
degree
___BA or BS degree
___MA or MS degree
___Ph.D./J.D. or other doctoral degree
___N/A
5. Primary language in the home?_____________________________
6. Number of people in family(living in the house)_____________
7. Do you live in a single-parent household?
__Yes __No __N/A
8. If so, who do you live with? (check one) __Father __ Mother __Other
9. If you selected other, with whom do you live?_________________
10. Education level of your mother? (check one)
___No completion of High School
___High school diploma/GED
___AA or AS degree
___Some college beyond AA/AS
degree
___BA or BS degree
___MA or MS degree
___Ph.D./J.D. or other doctoral degree
___N/A
11. Education level of your father? (check one)
___No completion of High School
___High school diploma/GED
___AA or AS degree
___Some college beyond AA/AS
degree
___BA or BS degree
___MA or MS degree
___Ph.D./J.D. or other doctoral degree
___N/A
12. Mother employed?
__Yes __ No __N/A
81
13. If working, what is occupation?
_________________________________________
14. Father employed?
__Yes __ No __N/A
15. If working, what is occupation?
_________________________________________
16. Relative to your peers how does your parents’ income rate? (check one)
__Much Lower
__Slightly Lower
__About the Same
__Higher
__ Much Higher
17. What grades do you mostly get in school? (check one)
__Mostly A’s
__Mostly A’s and B’s
__Mostly B’s
__Mostly B’s and C’s
__Mostly C’s
__Mostly C’s and D’s
__Mostly D’s
__Mostly D’s and F’s
__Mostly F’s
__N/A
18. What is your cumulative GPA?____________________
19. What is your California Standards Test score for English language arts for 10th
grade?_______
20. What is your California Standards Test score for social studies for 10th
grade?_______
82
APPENDIX E
Self-Efficacy Survey-Students
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement below by
circling the appropriate number to the right of the statement.
1
2
3
4
5
Not at all
Not too well
Okay
Pretty well
Extremely well
Rate how much you agree with these sentences…
1
Finish my homework assignments by deadlines?
1
2
3
4
5
2
Get myself to study when there are other interesting
things to do?
1
2
3
4
5
3
Always concentrate on school subjects during class?
1
2
3
4
5
4
Take good notes during class instruction?
1
2
3
4
5
5
Use the library to get information for class assignment?
1
2
3
4
5
6
Plan my schoolwork for the day?
1
2
3
4
5
7
Organize my schoolwork?
1
2
3
4
5
8
Remember well information presented in class and
textbooks?
1
2
3
4
5
9
Arrange a place to study without distractions?
1
2
3
4
5
10
Get myself to do school work?
1
2
3
4
5
11
Get my parents to help me with a problem?
1
2
3
4
5
12
Get my brother(s) and sister(s) to help me with a
problem?
1
2
3
4
5
13
Get my parents to take part in school activities?
1
2
3
4
5
14
Get people outside the school to take an interest in my
school? (for example, community groups, churches)
1
2
3
4
5
83
APPENDIX F
Locus of Control Survey-Students
For each question select the statement that you agree with the most (circle one: a or
b)
1. a. Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much.
b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy with
them.
2. a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck.
b. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.
3. a. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough
interest in politics.
b. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them.
4. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world
b. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard
he tries
5. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.
b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by
accidental happenings.
6. a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.
b. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their
opportunities.
7. a. No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you.
b. People who can't get others to like them don't understand how to get along with
others.
84
8. a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality
b. It is one's experiences in life which determine what they're like.
9. a. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.
b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a
definite course of action.
10. a. In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever such a thing as an
unfair test.
b. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying in
really useless.
11. a. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it.
b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time.
12. a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.
b. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy
can do about it.
13. a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work.
b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to- be a
matter of good or bad fortune anyhow.
14. a. There are certain people who are just no good.
b. There is some good in everybody.
15. a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.
b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.
16. a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right
place first.
b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability. Luck has little or nothing
to do with it.
85
17. a. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can
neither understand, nor control.
b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control world
events.
18. a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental
happenings.
b. There really is no such thing as "luck."
19. a. One should always be willing to admit mistakes.
b. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes.
20. a. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.
b. How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person you are.
21. a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones.
b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three.
22. a. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
b. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in
office.
23. a. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give.
b. There is a direct connection between how hard 1 study and the grades I get.
24. a. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do.
b. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.
25. a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.
b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my
life.
86
26. a. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly.
b. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you, they like
you.
27. a. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school.
b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character.
28. a. What happens to me is my own doing.
b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is
taking.
29. a. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do.
b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national as well
as on a local level.
87
APPENDIX G
Academic Autonomy Survey-Student
WHY I DO THINGS
For each section below circle the response that most closely matches how you feel
(circle one for each number in the section).
A. Why do I do my homework?
1.
Because I want the teacher to think I’m a good student.
Very true
Sort of true
Not very true
2.
Because I’ll get in trouble if I don’t.
Very true
Sort of true
Not very true
3.
Because it’s fun.
Very true
Sort of true
Not very true
4.
Because I will feel bad about myself if I don’t do it.
Very true
Sort of true
Not very true
5.
Because I want to understand the subject.
Very true
Sort of true
Not very true
6.
Because that’s what I’m supposed to do.
Very true
Sort of true
Not very true
7.
Because I enjoy doing my homework.
Very true
Sort of true
Not very true
8.
Because it’s important to me to do my homework.
Very true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
Not at all true
Not at all true
Not at all true
Not at all true
Not at all true
Not at all true
Not at all true
B. Why do I work on my classwork?
9.
So that the teacher won’t yell at me.
Very true
10.
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
Because I’ll be ashamed of myself if it didn’t get done.
Very true
13.
Not at all true
Because I want to learn new things.
Very true
12.
Not very true
Because I want the teacher to think I’m a good student.
Very true
11.
Sort of true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
Not very true
Not at all true
Because it’s fun.
Very true
Sort of true
88
14.
Because that’s the rule.
Very true
15.
Not very true
Not at all true
Because I enjoy doing my classwork.
Very true
16.
Sort of true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
Because it’s important to me to work on my classwork.
Very true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
C. Why do I try to answer hard questions in class?
17.
Because I want the other students to think I’m smart.
Very true
18.
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
Because it’s important to me to try to answer hard questions in class.
Very true
24.
Not at all true
Because it’s fun to answer hard questions.
Very true
23.
Not very true
To find out if I’m right or wrong.
Very true
22.
Sort of true
Because that’s what I’m supposed to do.
Very true
21.
Not at all true
Because I enjoy answering hard questions.
Very true
20.
Not very true
Because I feel ashamed of myself when I don’t try.
Very true
19.
Sort of true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
Because I want the teacher to say nice things about me.
Very true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
D. Why do I try to do well in school?
25.
Because that’s what I’m supposed to do.
Very true
26.
Sort of true
Not very true
So my teachers will think I’m a good student
Not at all true
89
Very true
27.
Not at all true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
Because I will feel really proud of myself if I do well.
Very true
32.
Not very true
Because it’s important to me to try to do well in school.
Very true
31.
Sort of true
Because I’ll feel really bad about myself if I don’t do well.
Very true
30.
Not at all true
Because I will get in trouble if I don’t do well.
Very true
29.
Not very true
Because I enjoy doing my school work well.
Very true
28.
Sort of true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
Because I might get a reward if I do well.
Very true
Sort of true
Not very true
Not at all true
90
APPENDIX H
Parental Involvement and Parental Autonomy Support Survey-Student
For the following questions please circle the response that best matches your
mother/father/other. The first set of questions will be about your mother and then
the next set will be about your father. If no mother/father in your life, leave that
section blank. Now please think about your mother and compare her to these
descriptions of other people’s mothers. If you do not ever spend time with your
mother but another woman lives in your household instead, please respond about
that woman.
1.
a. Some mothers never have enough time to talk to their children.
b. Some mothers usually don't have enough time to talk to their children.
c. Some mothers sometimes have enough time to talk to their children.
d. Some mothers always have enough time to talk to their children.
2.
a. Some mothers always explain to their children about the way they should
behave.
b. Some mothers sometimes explain to their children about the way they should
behave.
c. Some mothers sometimes make their children behave because they're the
boss.
d. Some mothers always make their children behave because they're the boss.
3.
a. Some mothers always ask their children what they did in school that day.
b. Some mothers usually ask their children what they did in school that day.
c. Some mothers usually don't ask their children what they did in school that
day.
d. Some mothers never ask their children what they did in school that day.
4.
a. Some mothers always get very upset if their children don't do what they're
supposed to right away.
b. Some mothers sometimes get very upset if their children don't do what they're
supposed to right away.
91
c. Some mothers sometimes try to understand why their children don't do what
they're supposed to right away.
d. Some mothers always try to understand why their children don't do what
they're supposed to right away.
5.
a. Some mothers always have the time to talk about their children's problem.
b. Some mothers sometimes have the time to talk about their children's
problem.
c. Some mothers don't always have the time to talk about their children's
problem.
d. Some mothers never have the time to talk about their children's problem.
6.
a. Some mothers never punish their children; they always talk to their children
about what was wrong.
b. Some mothers hardly ever punish their children; they usually talk to their
children about what was wrong.
c. Some mothers usually punish their children when they've done something
wrong without talking to them very much.
d. Some mothers always punish their children when they've done something
wrong without talking to them at all.
7.
a. Some mothers always tell their children what to do.
b. Some mothers sometimes tell their children what to do.
c. Some mothers sometimes like their children to decide for themselves what to
do.
d. Some mothers always like their children to decide for themselves what to do.
8.
a. Some mothers always think it's OK if their children make mistakes.
b. Some mothers sometimes think it's OK if their children make mistakes.
c. Some mothers always get angry if their children make mistakes.
d. Some mothers sometimes get angry if their children make mistakes.
92
9.
a. Some mothers never want to know what their children are doing.
b. Some mothers usually don't want to know what their children are doing.
c. Some mothers sometimes want to know what their children are doing.
d. Some mothers always want to know what their children are doing.
10.
a. Some mothers always get upset when their children don't do well in school.
b. Some mothers sometimes get upset when their children don't do well in
school.
c. Some mothers hardly ever get upset when their children don't do well in
school.
d. Some mothers never get upset when their children don't do well in school.
11.
a. Some mothers always like to talk to their children's teachers about how they
are doing in school.
b. Some mothers sometimes like to talk to their children's teachers about how
they are doing in school.
c. Some mothers usually don't like to talk to their children's teachers about
how they are doing in school.
d. Some mothers never like to talk to their children's teachers about how they
are doing in school.
Now, please think about your father. If you do not see your father but some other
man lives in your household, please respond about that man.
12.
a. Some fathers never have enough time to talk to their children.
b. Some fathers usually don't have enough time to talk to their children.
c. Some fathers sometimes have enough time to talk to their children.
d. Some fathers always have enough time to talk to their children.
13.
a. Some fathers always explain to their children about the way they should
behave.
b. Some fathers sometimes explain to their children about the way they should
behave.
93
c. Some fathers sometimes make their children behave because they're the boss.
d. Some fathers always make their children behave because they're the boss.
14.
a. Some fathers always ask their children what they did in school that day.
b. Some fathers usually ask their children what they did in school that day.
c. Some fathers usually don't ask their children what they did in school that day.
d. Some fathers never ask their children what they did in school that day.
15.
a. Some fathers always get very upset if their children don't do what they're
supposed to right away.
b. Some fathers sometimes get very upset if their children don't do what they're
supposed to right away.
c. Some fathers sometimes try to understand why their children don't do what
they're supposed to right away.
d. Some fathers always try to understand why their children don't do what
they're supposed to right away.
16.
a. Some fathers always have the time to talk about their children's problem.
b. Some fathers sometimes have the time to talk about their children's .
c. Some fathers don't always have the time to talk about their children's
problem.
d. Some fathers never have the time to talk about their children's problem.
17.
a. Some fathers never punish their children; they always talk to their children
about what was wrong.
b. Some fathers hardly ever punish their children; they usually talk to their
children about what was wrong.
c. Some fathers usually punish their children when they've done something
wrong without talking to them very much.
d. Some fathers always punish their children when they've done something
wrong without talking to them at all.
18.
a. Some fathers always tell their children what to do.
94
b. Some fathers sometimes tell their children what to do.
c. Some fathers sometimes like their children to decide for themselves what to
do.
d. Some fathers always like their children to decide for themselves what to do.
19.
a. Some fathers always think it's OK if their children make mistakes.
b. Some fathers sometimes think it's OK if their children make mistakes.
c. Some fathers always get angry if their children make mistakes.
d. Some fathers sometimes get angry if their children make mistakes.
20.
a. Some fathers never want to know what their children are doing.
b. Some fathers usually don't want to know what their children are doing.
c. Some fathers sometimes want to know what their children are doing.
d. Some fathers always want to know what their children are doing.
21.
a. Some fathers always get upset when their children don't do well in school.
b. Some fathers sometimes get upset when their children don't do well in school.
c. Some fathers hardly ever get upset when their children don't do well in
school.
d. Some fathers never get upset when their children don't do well in school.
22.
a. Some fathers always like to talk to their children's teachers about how they
are doing in school.
b. Some fathers sometimes like to talk to their children's teachers about how
they are doing in school.
c. Some fathers usually don't like to talk to their children's teachers about
how they are doing in school.
d. Some fathers never like to talk to their children's teachers about how they
are doing in school.
95
REFERENCES
Addy, S., Engelhardt, W., Skinner, C. & National Center for Children in Poverty.
(2013).Basic facts about low-income children. New York, NY: Columbia
University. Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org
Aikens, N. L., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories:
The contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100(2), 235-251. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.235
Alaimo, K., Olson, C. M., & Frongillo, E. J. (2001). Food insufficiency and American
school- aged children’s cognitive, academic, and psychosocial development.
Journal of Pediatrics, 108(1), 44-53.
Alaimo, K., Olson, C. M., Frongillo, E. A., & Briefel, R. R. (2001). Food insufficiency,
family income, and health in US preschool and school-aged children. American
Journal of Public Health, 91(5), 781-186.
Alika, H., & Edosa, O. (2012). Relationship between broken homes and academic
achievement of secondary school students in Oredo Local Government Area of
Edo State, Nigeria. College Student Journal, 46(2), 256-263.
Altschul, I. (2011). Parental involvement and the academic achievement of Mexican
American youths: What kinds of involvement in youths' education matter most?.
Social Work Research, 35(3), 159-170. doi:10.1093/swr/35.3.159
Apiwattanalunggarn, K., & Luster, T. (2005). Individual differences in the school
performance of 2nd-grade children born to low-income adolescent mothers.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19(4), 314-332. doi:
10.1080/0256840509595074
Bachrach, N., Bekker, M. J., & Croon, M. A. (2013). Autonomy‐connectedness and
internalizing‐externalizing personality psychopathology, among outpatients.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(7), 718-726. doi:10.1002/jclp.21940
Bandura, A. (1990). Multidimensional scales of perceived academic efficacy. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996a). Multifaceted
impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67,
1206-1222.
96
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bekker, M. H. J. (1993). The development of an autonomy scale based on recent insights
into gender identity. European Journal of Personality, 7(1), 177-194.
Bekker, M. J., Arends-Tóth, J., & Croon, M. A. (2011). Autonomy-connectedness,
acculturation, and independence–interdependence among various cultural groups
in a multicultural society. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3),
368-376. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.04.009
Bekker, M. J., & Croon, M. A. (2010). The roles of autonomy-connectedness and
attachment styles in depression and anxiety. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 27(7), 908-923. doi:10.1177/0265407510377217
Bekker, M. J., & Van Assen, M. M. (2006). A short form of the autonomy scale:
Properties of the autonomy-connectedness scale (ACS-30). Journal of Personality
Assessment, 86(1), 51-60. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8601_07
Bemak, F., & Chung, R. C-Y., & Siroskey-Sabdo (2005). Empowerment groups for
academic success (EGAS): An innovative approach to prevent high school failure
for at-risk urban African American girls. Professional School Counseling. 377389.
Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the Classroom. Educational Psychology
Review, 21(2), 141-170.
Berk, L. E. (2008). Infants, children, and adolescents. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Bradley, R. H. & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371-399. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998).The ecology of developmental processes. In
W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 1:Theoretical models of human development, 993-1028. New
York: Wiley.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The Bioecological Model of Human
Development. In R. M. Lerner, W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology
(6th ed.): Vol. 1, Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793-828).
Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
97
Bursik, K., & Martin, T. A. (2006). Ego Development and adolescent academic
achievement. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(1), 1-18.
doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00116.x
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002).
Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project.
Applied Developmental Science, 6, 42–57.
Cappella, E., & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). Turning around reading achievement: Predictors
of high school students' academic resilience. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93(4), 758-771. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.758
Cardona, P., Nicholson, B., & Fox, R. (2000). Parenting among Hispanic and AngloAmerican mothers with young children. The Journal of Social Psychology,
140(3), 1-10 . doi: 10.1080/00224540009600476
Carranza, F. D., You, S., Chhuon, V., & Hudley, C. (2009). Mexican American
adolescents' academic achievement and aspirations: The role of perceived parental
educational involvement, acculturation, and self-esteem. Adolescence, 44(174),
313-333.
Carroll, A., Houghton, S., Wood, R., Unsworth, K., Hattie, J., Gordon, L., & Bower, J.
(2009). Self-efficacy and academic achievement in Australian high school
students: The mediating effects of academic aspirations and delinquency. Journal
of Adolescence, 32 (4), 797-817
Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., & KewalRamani, A. (2011). Trends in high school
dropout and completion rates in the United States: 1972-2009. (Compendium
Report, 2012-006). National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of
Education. Retrived from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012006.pdf
Chatterji, M. (2006). Reading achievement gaps, correlates, and moderators of early
reading achievement: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study
(ECLS) kindergarten to first grade sample. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98(3), 489-507. doi: 10.1037/0022- 0663.98.3.489
Choi, N. (2004). Sex role group differences in specific, academic, and general self-e
efficacy. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 138(2), 149-159
doi:10.3200/JRLP.138.2.149-159
Close, W., & Solberg, S. (2008). Predicting achievement, distress, and retention among
lower- income Latino youth. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 31-42.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.08.007
98
Conger, R. D. (2009). Issues and challenges in studying parental control: Toward a new
conceptualization: Comment. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 173-175.
doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00101.x
Conger R. D. & Donnellan M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the
socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology.
58,175–199.
Conger, R. D., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., and Whitbeck, L. B.. (1992). A
family process model of economic hardship and influences on adjustment of early
adolescent boys. Child Development 63:526–41.
Conger R. D., Schofield T. J., Conger K. J., & Neppl, T. K. (2010). Economic pressure,
parent personality and child development: An interactionist analysis. Historical
Social Research, 35, 169-194.
Davey, M., Eaker, D., & Walters, L. (2003). Resilience processes in adolescents:
Personality profiles, self-worth, and coping. Journal of Adolescent Research,
18(4), 347-362. doi:10.1177/0743558403018004002
Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child
achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home
environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 294-304. doi: 10.1037/08933200.19.2.294
Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S & Weiss, H.B. (2006). Family involvement in
school and low-income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations between and
within families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 653-664. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.653
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Mont-Reynaud, R., & Chen, Z. (1990). Family decisionmaking and academic performance in a diverse high school population. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 5(1), 143–160.
Eamon, M. K. (2005). Social-demographic, school, neighborhood, and parenting
influences on academic achievement of Latino young adolescents. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 34(2), 163-175.
Engle, P. L. and Black, M. M. (2008), The effect of poverty on child development and
educational outcomes. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1136, 243–
256. doi: 10.1196/annals.1425.023
99
Englund, M. M., Luckner, E. A., Whaley J. L. G., & Egeland, B. (2004). Children's
achievement in early elementary school: Longitudinal effects of parental
involvement, expectations, and quality of assistance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96(4), 723-730. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.723
Evans, G. & Rosenbaum, J. (2008). Self-regulation and the income-achievement gap.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 504-514.
Fantuzzo, J., McWayne, C., Perry, M. A., & Childs, S. (2004). Multiple dimensions of
family involvement and their relations to behavioral and learning competencies
for urban, low-income children. School Psychology Review, 33(4), 467-480.
Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school
failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221-234.
Flores, A. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: Achievement gap or
opportunity gap? The High School Journal, 91(1), 29-42.
Garg, R., Melanson, S., & Levin, E. (2007). Educational aspirations of male and female
adolescents from single-parent and two biological parent families: A comparison
of influential factors. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 36, 1010-1023. doi:
10.1007/s10964-006-9137-3
Gizir, C., & Aydin, G. (2009). Protective factors contributing to the academic resilience
of students living in poverty in Turkey. Professional School Counseling, 13(1),
38-49.
Gordon Rouse, K. A. (1998). Resilience from poverty and stress. Human Development
and Family Life Bulletin, 4(1), 1-3.
Granot, D., & Mayseless, O. (2001). Attachment security and adjustment to school in
middle childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(6), 530541. doi:10.1080/01650250042000366
Grolnick, W. S. (2009). The role of parents in facilitating autonomous self-regulation for
education. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 164-173. doi:
10.1177/1477878509104321
Grolnick, W. S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2009). Issues and challenges in studying parental
control: Toward a new conceptualization. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3),
165-170. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00099.x
100
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school
achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 508-517.
Grolnick W. S. & Slowiaczek, M. (1994) ‘Parents’ involvement in children’s
schooling: A multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model’,
Child Development, 65, 237–52.
Harding, D. (2003). Counterfactual models of neighborhood effects: The effect of
neighborhood Poverty on dropping out and teenage pregnancy. American Journal
of Psychology, 109(3), 676-719.
Hayes, D. (2011). Predicting parental home and school involvement in high school
African American adolescents. The High School Journal, 94(4), 154-166.
doi:10.1353/hsj.2011.0010
Heckman J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged
children. Science, 312, 1900–1902.
Hill, N. (2006). Disentangling ethnicity, socioeconomic status and parenting:
Interactions, influences and meaning. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies,
1(1), 114-124. doi: 10.1080/17450120600659069
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A metaanalytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental
Psychology, 45(3), 740-763. doi:10.1037/a0015362
Hsieh, M. O., & Shek, D. T. L. (2008). Personal and family correlates of resilience
among adolescents living in single-parent households in Taiwan. Journal of
Divorce & Remarriage, 49(3-4), 330-348. doi: 10.1080/10502550802221925
Kabiru, C. W., Beguy, D., Ndugwa R. P., Zulu E. M., & Jessor, R. (2012). Making it:
Understanding adolescent resilience in two informal settlements (Slums) in
Nairobi, Kenya. Child & Youth Services; 33(1), 12-32.
Kuhn, D., & Franklin, S. (2006). The second decade: What develops (and how). In D.
Kuhn, R. S. Siegler, W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol 2, cognition, perception, and language (6th ed.). (pp. 953-993).
Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons.
101
Letourneau, N. L., Duffett-Leger, L., Levac, L., Watson, B., & Young-Morris, C. (2013).
Socioeconomic status and child development: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21(3), 211-224. doi:
10.1177/1063426611421007
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2011). Changes in neighborhood poverty from 1990 to
2000 and youth’s problem behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 16801698. doi: 10.1037/a0025314
Magdol, L. (1991). Risk factors for adolescent academic achievement. Wisconsin Family
Impact Seminars. Retrieved from
http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_wifis11c01.pdf
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2009). Academic resilience and academic buoyancy:
Multidimensional and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates and
cognate constructs. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 353-370. doi:
10.1080/03054980902934639
Masten, A. S., & Obradovic, J. (2006). Competence and resilience in development.
Academy of Sciences, 1094, 13-27. doi: 10.1196/annals.1376.003
Miller, P. H. (2011). Theories of developmental psychology. New York: Worth
Publishers.
Morales, E. E. (2010). Linking strengths: Identifying and exploring protective factor
clusters in academically resilient low-socioeconomic urban students of color.
Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 32(3), 164-175.
doi:10.1080/02783193.2010.485302
Moren-Cross, J. L., Wright, D. R., LaGory, M., & Lanzi, R. (2006). Perceived
neighborhood characteristics and problem behavior among disadvantaged
children. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 36(3), 273-294.
doi:10.1007/s10578-005-0003-4
National Center for Children in Poverty. (2012). Child poverty. Retrieved from
http://www.nccp .org/topics/childpoverty.html
Neuenschwander, M. P., Vida, M., Garrett, J. L., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). Parents'
expectations and students' achievement in two western nations. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(6), 594-602. doi:
10.1177/0165025407080589
102
Niemeyer, A. E., Wong, M. M., & Westerhaus, K. J. (2009). Parental involvement,
familismo, and academic performance in Hispanic and Caucasian adolescents.
North American Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 613-632.
Oades-Sese, G. V. and Li, Y. (2011). Attachment relationships as predictors of language
skills for at-risk bilingual preschool children. Psychology in the Schools, 48(7),
707–722. doi: 10.1002/pits.20583
Olsson, C. A., Bond, L., Burns, J. M., Vella-Brodrick, D. A., & Sawyer, S. M. (2003).
Adolescent resilience: A concept analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 26(1), 1-11.
doi:10.1016/S0140-1971(02)00118-5
Orthner, D. K., Jones-Sanpei, H., & Williamson, S. (2004). The resilience and strengths
of low-income families. Family Relations, 53(2), 159-167.
Pajares, F., & Urdan, T.(Eds.). (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich,
Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Park, S., Holloway, S. D., Arendtsz, A., Bempechat, J., & Li, J. (2012). What makes
students engaged in learning? A time-use study of within- and betweenindividual predictors of emotional engagement in low-performing high schools.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(3), 390-401. doi:10.1007/s10964-0119738-3
Pastorelli, C., Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Rola, J., Rozsa, S., & Bandura, A. (2001).
The structure of children’s perceived self-efficacy: A cross-national study.
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(2), 87-97.
Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children's
behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the
academic domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 781-791.
Portzky, M., Wagnild, G., De Bacquer, D., & Audenaert, K. (2010). Psychometric
evaluation of the Dutch Resilience Scale RS-nl on 3265 healthy participants: A
confirmation of the association between age and resilience found with the
Swedish version. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 24(1), 86-92.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00841.x
Redd, Z., Karver, T. S., Murphey, D., Moore, K. A., & Knewstub, D. (2011). Two
generations in poverty: Status and trends among parents and children in the
United States, 2000-2010. Child Trends, (Publication # 2011-25, 1-17). Retrieved
from http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends2011_11_28_RB_PovertyStatusTrends.pdf
103
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rumberger, R. W. (2011). Dropping out: Why students drop out of high school and what
can be done about it. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ryan, R. M. & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57(5), 749-761.
Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report
and projective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 550-558. doi:10.1037/00223514.50.3.550
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercadante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B. & Rogers, R.
W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological
Reports, 51, 663-671.
Sun, Y., & Li, Y. (2011). Effects of family structure type and stability on children’s
academic performance trajectories. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 541-556.
doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00825.x
Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E. & Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and misuses
of Bronfenbrenner's Bioecological Theory of Human Development. Journal of
Family Theory & Review, 1, 198–210. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.x
Uguak, U., Elias, H. t., Uli, J., & Suandi, T. (2007). The influence of causal elements of
locus of control on academic achievement satisfaction. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 34(2), 120-128.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Poverty: Highlights. Retrieved November 12, 2013, from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/highlights.html
Van Ryzin, M. J., Gravely, A. A., & Roseth, C. J. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness, and
engagement in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being.
Journal of Youth Adolescence, 38, 1-12. doi: 10.1007/s10964-007-9257-4
Vandenbelt, M., Luster, T., & Bates, L. (2001). Caregiving practices of low-income
adolescent mothers and the academic competence of their first-grade children.
Parenting: Science and Practice, 1(3), 185-215.
doi:10.1207/S15327922PAR0103_02
104
Vanderbilt-Adriance, E., & Shaw, D. S. (2008). Protective factors and the development
of resilience in the context of neighborhood disadvantage. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 36(6), 887-901. doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9220-1
Wadsworth, M. E., & Achenbach, T. M. (2005). Explaining the link between low
socioeconomic status and psychopathology: testing two mechanisms of the social
causation hypothesis. Consultation Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1146-1153. doi:
10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1146
Weiner, B. (1992). Human Motivation: Metaphors, Theories, and Research, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). The index of autonomous
functioning: Development of a scale of human autonomy. Journal of Research in
Personality, 46(4), 397-413. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.03.007
West-Olatunji, C., Sanders, T., Mehta, S., & Behar-Horenstein, L. (2010). Parenting
practices among low-income parents/guardians of academically successful fifth
grade African American children. Multicultural Perspectives, 12(3), 138-144.
doi: 10.1080/15210960.2010.504475
White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological
Review,66, 297-333.
Wong, M. M. (2008). Perceptions of parental involvement and autonomy support: Their
relations with self-regulation, academic performance, substance use and
resilience among adolescents. North American Journal of Psychology, 10(3), 497518.
Woolley, M. E. & Bowen, G. L. (2007). In the context of risk: Supportive adults and the
school engagement of middle school students. Family Relations, 56, 92-104.
Yaffe, D. (2011). Policy Notes: News from the ETS policy information center. Policy
Evaluation and Research Center, 19(1), 1-11.