Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

102 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Autonomy and Relatedness in Families: Assessment. Principle: 1) Key Question, what char a good arg: 2)
1) All families argue
2) What char. a good vs. a bad argument? Constructive, beneficial, better relation/understanding than before; maintaining autonomy.
Displaying/promoting autonomy
1) Stating reasons (acklowledge validity: negotiate?) Ex. curfew depends on which friends' houses and what day of week (Agree to disagree in a pinciple base) Persuasion? 2) Extent to which they are confident (as importatn as the reasons)
Undermining autonomy:
Overpersonalizing, pressuring, and recanting. Ex. When you're older you'll understand, you're too old to understand: threatening, impasse. Not discussing reasons. Pressuring: no reasons but Degrading for Disagreeing, ridiculing, laughing, rolling eyes: effective (ex. car dealer) but undermines relationship as win or lose.
Undermining autonomy:
Recanting: usu adolescents; backpedaling (end quickly b/c adol. is intimidated, undermining autonomy). More or less genuinely. (Whatever: slightly more autonomous)
Displaying Relatedness:
Validating and Listening.
Acknowledge for good reasons, compliment, show willingness to negotiate (whether legitimate or not) Unlike lawyers, "good point" comments Diffuse Tension.
Displaying Relatedness:
Listening closely. Ex. Versus car dealer, useful when relat. is not important. Show caring (displaying relat, validating other person), softening blow.
Undermining Relatedness:
Ignoring/Interrupting and Hostility
Interrupting can be excited, wanting to move conversation forward, guessing and responding while following up, or two: ignore what they are going to say, not caring. Or, allowing to finish and then continuing thoughts as if statement was not made.
Undermining Relatedness:
Hostility: Degrading, rude, gestures -> enraging, annoying even if right. Quoting -> usu overpersonalizing (distracting from argu onto way of talking as imitated). Ex. "My rules, no explan. is nec" -> No possible response from adol. Rather: "I feel strongly about this issue" (Elaboration of want/reason) Promotes more understanding. Adol would feel best with some logic behind reasons (autonomy). Feel less connected?
Method of argument
Carries over from parents to peers to spouse. Future implications.
Autonomy and Relatedness: Findings
1) High autonomy and relatedness (age 16+) strongly correl. Good relat. with parents. (Correl more fuzzy for 13,14 yr olds) [Adol constantly test rules, need to know parental support].
Autonomy and Relatedness: Findings
1) High autonomy and relatedness
Lower rates of depression, greater psychosocial maturity (tests and friend's ratings), greater popularity (if higher autonomy). Should be treated like future peers.
Autonomy and Relatedness: Findings
2) Undermining relatedness/hostility
More strongly linked with delinquency [via rules and relationship with parents]; Slightly less depressed (at least high energy, vs. all good things go together trend) than those less hostile.
Autonomy and Relatedness: Findings
3) Undermining Autonomy differs from:
Simply not displaying autonomy. Depressed in short trem and eventually blast out of relat. (hostile by 16), supression only temporary.
4.Undermining autonomy Findings (?)
At 25, friends ratings: strongly correl across 10 yr per. Accustomed to disagreements -> future rel with peers continue.
5. Attachment & Autonomy and Relatedness
Disagree while acting to maintain relationship (secure base) (Attach. security is linked)
D. 1) Autonomy and Relatedness -In Risky Environment
2) Safe vs. "risky" environments
3) Autonomy depends on context, age and danger
1) Risky: poor, city. Inhib. autonomy more (treated like younger) better in risky envir (also more understood, as non-risk adol do when younger).
D. 1) Autonomy and Relatedness -In Risky Environment
Europ-Am, middle class vs. Af Am differing because more likely to be poor (and autonomy less important) Most other, ex. eastern cultures vary autonomy less than respect for parents (Descendents in Am to gain indep culturally; difficult if Eastern in US culture. Reflects on future job: lower or upper level -> manager vs. less well off. Autonomy more crucial in Am as for jobs.
IX. Peer Relations/Peer Pressure
A. Historical Change
1. Adolescent Age Segregation, Age/Grading
1) Time with peers of diff ages small. Change from mixed age groupings (100, 50 ya) Reasons: Age grading in schools; effectively age grading in college; used to spend less time in school when out of school -> neighborohood age ranges, apprenticeships. Fewer adults in neighborhoods when both parents work. Age grading as nec (ex. idea of preschool and high school together vetoed immediately)
2. Cohort Effects
(Among generation X vs. Y, etc.) Relevant: size relative to the rest of society; their impact. Inc in crime rates in 1960s, drug use. Less today due to smaller cohort size.
B. Developmental Changes
1. Crowds & cliques emerge
Crowds: usu 3-12 children and same gender, age, soc class. Membership based on who you interact with. Give sense of identity; reference group, feel comfortable with them. Esp early to mid adol. in importance, then submerge.
2. Crowds & cliques submerge
Become more open: diff groups of friends; permeable. Important in peer pressure (violating norms less important later -> other groups)
3. Gender segregation
Ending (vs prior to adol) at age eleven (beg at six), No good theories to explain., would seg very young or older.
4. Racial and Social Class Segregation
Third graders pay less attention to SES and ethnicity than adol. Why unknown (same community), race and income overlap. Racial cleavage/seg -> greater for girls than boys (> athletic: these activities are less seg).
C. Peer Pressure
1. Conformity- Trends Across Age
- Why stronger in adol? Positive sides?
1) Inc early to mid adol (b/c of cliques, croweds...) Autonomy: opinions of peer group vs family. Unsure of circle of trust (not much auton gained). Or, this suscep to peer pressure good. Will be judged (for rest of life) by peers. College: extracur act. depends on peer relations. Relations with colleagues crucial.
2. Real vs. Apparent Effects of Peer Pressure
- Parents' concern of other children, pressure. - Most apparent effects of concern are false. - Parents see short term effects. Usu. are moving toward bad beh any way; seek group with this beh. Yes, trouble would inc, but only 15% of effect. All in group looking for trouble (vs all peers dec avg)
2. Real vs. Apparent Effects of Peer Pressure
*Peer selection vs Peer influence. Small effect of peers. Marginal idea with little ways to identify yourself in high school vs college. Revisiting cliques: popular -> inc drinking, drugs. Brains -> inc all alreas Problem/edge -> dec in all
3. Relation to parental autonomy behaviors
Least autonomy have children most suscept. to peer pressure. Autonomy lessens transfer to peers (also transfer ways of acting, ex. not assertive vs ability to argue) Discussions (verbal) autonomy transfers to peer group.
4. Parents vs. peers?
Not less important but peer importance inc. Different domains. Peers: daily, short term, leisure activities, problems relating to other peers. Parents: long-term, educ, occup, values, ethics (most likely to be experts)
4. Parents vs. peers? Questions:
Does peer pressure peak in early adol? (and end) Ex. Law firm: men, dark suit, shoes, white shirt, varying tie (Different?) Not est for women in law firms yet. College fraternity/sororities... Usual in any tight groups. Is Peer pressure nec bad? Ex. competing for grades; showers for teen boys (15).
D. Popularity
1. Popularity ≠ status
Those in 'in' group, high status. Popularity: relevant ques, 5 or 10 people most enjoy spending time with; truly well-iked vs. high status.
2. Correlates of Popularity (Qualities)
High Status: More aggressive and less responsive to others' needs and wants. Popular peoples' qualities: 1) More soc. skilled 2) More intelligent (vs. interest in academics) Taking others' perspectives.
2. Correlates of Popularity cont. Popular peoples' qualities:
3) More likely to be sec attached 4) Better rel with parents: Much verbal autonomy but clear limits on beh (best negotiators later in life vs. usu getting way or too tough). [Less exclusive, humor, confident, relaxed vs defensive]
2. Correlates of Popularity
3. Predictions from popularity
2. Corr with higher status but mostly events/ interacting.
3. Ex. Popular at 13: Less hostile over time, still popular, younger (more alcohol, drugs, more modest trouble b/c well soc with adol norms - against parental rules; peer influence; what other cool adol do. Drinking effect stays until over 18.
E. Peer Rejection
Lack of Popularity: Types of Rejected adolescents
Types of rejected adol (10 people least liked to spend time with) 1) Aggressive, group with aggressive people; real risk for alcohol/drug problems, arrested. 2) Withdrawn (actively disliked but keep to themselves) Exceedingly lonely. Risk for depression. Self-fulfilling to be less soc competent (what to discuss w/ peers, etc)
E. Peer Rejection
Lack of Popularity: Types of Rejected adolescents
3) Combination of aggress/withdrawn. Worst of all; violent possibly. Parents worry about these children (Ex. Columbine children)
3. Correlates of Rejection
4. Neglect ≠ Rejection
3. Depression, beh problems, academic difficulties
4. Neglected: those on no lists; not as bad off; loners, usu more shy (same percentage for large schools); go own way.
X. Intimacy & Loneliness
A. Peer Rejection & Loneliness (cont).
1. Why Adolescents Reject their Peers for being “different” in some way?
- Feeling adol MUST be accepted and CONFORM vs other per in life. - Adults exp conformity cond: high uncertainty, stressed, unsure of own steps, seek ut others for comparison. EX. 45 ya, JFK invading of Cuba (everyone in group had doubts and regretted afterwards).
1. Why Adolescents Reject their Peers for being “different” in some way?
- Bodies changing rapidly, soc relat changing, demands of peer rel, school, highly stressed, look for comfort/bonds. - Conformity not good but perhaps natural/inevit - Leads to peer rejection - Est status: ex. roommates with three vs the other
Why some peers are rejected
- Different - Specific to indiv; rejec sensitivity (Expect to be disliked) 1) Less confident 2) Interp ambiguous situations as rejecting (Ex party for everyone else, occasionally true but usu subset or open.) Lash out? (would have been invited too?) Chip on shoulder; snide remakrs, looking down, less talking, self ful prophecy.
Why some peers are rejected
3) Engaging less: not learning soc norms. Isolation: lack of skills -> further rejec (even thought not that diff) - Disturbed patterns of reac in family; angry interac pattern. Columbine: more rejec vs aggressive; Tribes: cast away and die at times; teen suicde, cannot handle affect/strong emotion.
2. Loneliness
- Not only those rejected - College students as well (more or less? a lot more lonely than Any stage of life), difficult to compare for oneself. 1) Changing groups, settings, many people but new. 2) Inc need for soc contact, uncertain per. 3) Nature of groups change (Age 11-13 number of best friends; highest at 12 and declines steadily)
2. Loneliness
- Somewhat inevit - Neg effects - Over course of life span: Greater death risk factor than smoking cigarettes, arteries to be injured -> heart disease; Immune resp to virus; blood sugar (Stress, release much cortisol)
2. Loneliness
Short term
- More likely to drop out of college - Dropping out of HS Best predic vs grades - Expectations [Ex fourth year in college very best experince] Ex college want even more soc contact; part of effect number but mostly expectations of friends. [Rejec usu together with family prob; less sec attach, may be neglected but not rejec as much. 1st grade rejec: 5-10 yrs later predictor]
B. Intimacy
1. Distinguished from Sexuality
2. Elements of Intimacy
2. A) Open communic: self-disclosure; feelings; not to everyone. B) Combin of vulnerability and loyality (trust); exchange of vuln. C) Empathy: recog others' feelings and communic esp w/ problems. D) Sharing of resources: why imporant? Fed spending.
2. Elements of Intimacy
Loss without Intimacy?
- Health; relieves stress (men dying earlier if spouse dies); value of self; more indep of family; sol to problems; Getting INFO; How to be social; BUFFERS against Peer Pressure: later adol it is more important whether a few you select dp vs. quant; Relating to peers as critical to adult func.
4. Development of capacity for intimacy over time
- Childhood friendship based on shared activities vs values, empathy. Qualitative change; perspective taking skills improve. - Attached to peers as for parents; will have to eventually replace.
5. Sullivan’s vs. Erikson’s views of the development of intimacy
- Not really opposing. - Sulivan: Devel int rel to dev sense of identity; discuss values; deeper friendships: easier to devel iden. Erikson: Need to have a sense of iden to dev intimacy. Gradually devel in adol leading to intimate friendships.
6. Gender & Ethnic Differences
Gender: How bonding is different. Study:
Importance/Amount of disclosure greater for girls. Ask to discuss problem and researchers rate disclosure: no diff. Girls report disclosing more. 1) Labeling more overt. 2) Are disclosing more b/c of want vs capacity. Ex. Not preferred activity. 3) Part pseudo-disclosure. Appears disclosure when actually common topics (worried about test, dance) Amount in studies for European Am vs Af Am, same levels. Diff cultural vs capacity. [Men have less intense friendships in adol -> bball vs personal. Or, react diff to same tension]
C. Dating
1. Functions of Dating for Adolescent Development
Girls to express intimacy and boys to develop; same capacity but girls disclose more (Boys, homophobia vs girls in rel) A) Overcome gender seg B) Well Defined pattern - Mixed sex groups chosen (12-13 G, 13-14 B) 6,7 grade. Age norms fo school vs maturation as early or late is more important.
1. Functions of Dating for Adolescent Development
- Pseudo intimate: Appearance of romance vs real connec; identified as a couple; activities; kissing. Group mixed-sex experience (ex to movies), little pressure. - Actual dating: one on one time. - Serious: Months to yrs. - Practice being in intimate relationsips - Enjoyable
XI. Dating, Sex, & Gender Roles Part 1
Starting Dating "Early" vs. "Late" Correlates or Effects?
Girls before age 15: stunting effect in devel, less mature soc, less imaginative, artificial. Girls later: excessively dep on parents, more insecure, delay in soc devel. Moderate levels from 15-17 best. Less info about boys (parrents more worried about girls; no lit about boy dangers for dating)
Parallels with Interaction Patterns at Home.
1. Durability of adolescent dating relationships
High conflict homes tend to get in high conflict romantic relat.
1) Most high school rel do not last (normal) Predictors of breakup in college (and adol): Levels of 'felt' intimacy; strong like/love. - Unequal levels of: committment (vs both not committed is ok). AGE diff; Educ plans; SAT scores (educ background and intelligence; 100 SD at UVA); Physical attractiveness (enjoy imbalance while it lasts...)
1. Durability of adolescent dating relationships
Factors not mattering:
Religion, soc class, attitudes (polit, etc) (Once in relat). Women get OUT quicker and men get IN quicker (love, relat).
2. The Role of Adolescent Sexuality in Society
D. Historical vs. Modern Perspectives on Sex in adolescence
- Researchers conflicted. Research in more minute detail vs other aspects of adol. Romance not tracked vs sex.
2) A. Hist view (Sex began in adol) Latency period through childhood. B. Modern (Greater continuity, lower forms in children (dr, truth or dare), recog but labeled diff, prior to adol, sex has diff meaning and intensity.
E. Societal Practices and Patterns of Sexual Development
1) Contin vs discontin. Discon for devel sexuality (adult: denied adol sex, 1950s, 60s.) Pre-sexual beings to adults. Becoming more contin but ambivalent (ex masturbation lectures) Media: range of beh inc (vs not and having sex).
2. Lack Of Markers Of Transitions To Adult Physical Status
3. Societal Restrictiveness
Boys: Adult like physical jobs in history; sex becoming rite of passage. Girls: sex less positive.
3. How open to acknow sexual beh. A) Restrictive (Not ackow, secrecy for adol, shameful, discouraged from assoc before marriage, adults do not disucss, Middle Eastern cultures.) B) Semi-restrictive: Against rules for adol but things happen, don't ask don't tell. Two diff messages -> problems.
3. Societal Restrictiveness
4. U.S. is in midst of change in sexual restrictiveness
C) Permissive societies: N Europe, Sweden, Netherlands; also England, France. Ex. Commercials, beaches; adol sex inevit, not hiding from parents (not nec sharing either), pregnancy (not nec sharing either), preg rates dramatically Lower; only a little more sex. 4) change beginning in '60s. Gender diff becoming more equal.
F. Sex Before Intercourse
1) Most research is on intercourse 2) Some subcultures in US have more gradual trans (European), less gradual trans (Af Am); speed of trans different (which is better?), 95-98% vs 1/2 of boys masturbated before 18, 1/2 by girls.
G. Rates Of Intercourse & Ages At First Intercourse
- Why these figures are misleading:
1. By 13: 12% boys 6% girls
2. By 15: 33% boys, 25% girls
3. By 19: 86% boys 80% girls
- Group Differences (Af Am twice as many as Hisp at 15 and Euro catching up as are girls; inner city/rural: earlier; educ)
5. No Single "Normal" Age
6. Historical Changes
- Age dec over time (1965: 20% of HS ack having sex, a bigger deal esp for girls, shameful. Statistis doubtful) May be going up in last 10-15 yrs (STDs).
7. Age At First Sex & Family & Peer Relationships
- High communic btwn mothers and daughters is correl with delay in sex. - Boys communic w/dads: dec age of first sex (what are they communic?) - Predictors more available for girls earlier vs boys; age 14,15 a risk for girls (pregnancy)
7. Age At First Sex & Family & Peer
Family Composition
Earlier if in a single-parent family (more true for girls vs boys w/ slight diff) 1) Single-par mothers modeling dating beh 2) single-parents monitor beh less closely (usu more worried about girls) 3) Seeking romantic partner when dad is absent (girls) Not much data for boys. 4) Hormonal changes (menstruate earlier esp if a step-father is around)
Predictors of early sex from Charlottesville study
- Not warm/supportive relat w/ mothres. How comfortable interaction delay sex longer the greate.
- Peer relat (w/ best friends, ask for advice, how statisfying is interaction; same gender best friend) Not having good friendships predicts having sex earlier (want intimacy, connec.) Not likely to fulfill role over time: break-up often unharmoniously. Also risky.
Predictors of early sex from Charlottesville study
- Older siblings sexually active makes you slightly more active. Modeling their age -> your starting age. Believing your close friends are having sex. (When males have sex younger->small number of girls (vs. older girls). Girls more likely to be impreg by boys 5+ yrs older.
H. Adolescent Sex As Normal Vs. As A Risk Factor (Confounded -> normal vs. healthy)
1. Early Sex Still Appears To Be A Risk Factor Associated W/ Deviance In Other Ways.
- Higher levels of drug use and delinquent beh. Until when? 15,16 (findings lowered) - Moral/relig/cultural diff asaid for det. healthiness. (After 16, over half had sex any way; det control group...) - Sex earlier for boys riskier today (STDs inc)
I. Gender differences in the meaning of sex
- Masturbation to sex (outside of soc context) (Boys) - Girls see sex as more soc - Role of biol vs culture? - Sex by age 17,18 status more so for boys.
J. Sexual-Developmental Tasks of adolescence
Alternative View. - Comfortable with body; accept feelings of arousal as normal; feel comfortable choosing level of sexual activity; understand req of safe sex; not suu studied: who is and isn't having sex...
XII. Dating, Sex, & Gender Roles, Part II
A. Marriage in Adolescence
1. Change in Median Age at Marriage:
Older ages no than 40 yrs ago. Lowest age 50 ya; 5 yr shift from 1950-2000 has huge implic->premarital sex concerns flow. Teenage preg (slightly more 50-60 ya but more were married) Single mother headed households.
1900: F: 22 M: 26
1950: F: 20 M :23
2000: F: 25 M :27
2. Age of first marriage is associated with divorce
3. Buffers Against Divorce in Adolescent Marriages
2) <18 four times likelihood of divorce than >25. Norm for the time (hist)
3) - Enough money inc likelihood to survive marriage - Had a long term relat before marriage - Delayign preg for at least a yr after marriage (marital sex dec after first yr if had a child) Big stressor - Higher levels of edu as buffers
B. Societal Gender Roles in Adolescence
1. Evidence of gender differences in gender identity
- Ex: Phrase 'Be a Man' vs Be a Woman... Men proving manhood, worried; womanhood is taken for granted; not lost. Affects beh
2. Sociological explanations
3. Nancy Chodorow on early socialization
4. Societal Markers of Masculinity
Men cannot have babies to reinforce gender. Can create babies but paternity not as easily est (15% of children randomly tested are not of the father)
3) Young children usu raised by mothers (primary model) Fine for girls, males need to grow up diff though. Affection, closeness for girls beneficial later too. Men want to move beyond that to est masculinity -> father a child,
4) A) Fatherhood B) Sexually Active
C. Gay/Lesbian fantasy, behavior and orientation
1. Distinction between fantasy, behavior, primary orientation, and Gender nonconformity
1) Distinc btwn fantasy, beh, prim orientation, gender. Fantasy: imagining, common (<50%) in adol. Not equal to being gay/lesbian.
Beh: sexual act (20% of boys had orgasms w/ other males by 16, group masturbation, contest; not like adults) Primary orientation: 3-5% gay or lesbian (Not an all or none concept) Gender nonconformity: Not acting typically male/female. Not nec gay/lesbian.
2. Origins of homosexuality?
(Not discussed of hetereosexuality - Implied abnormality) Biol factors; clear genetic evid (twin studies, > for iden than fraternal) Socialization factors. Family factors as cause (vs effect) questionable. Usu described as always known vs discovered in adol.
3. Homophobia
- Challenge to combat - Strongest in adol and young adulthood. 15 - least tolerant until 25 - not as important. - Fear, discomfort, esp for boys (violence; less harrassment for girls) - Higher levels of harr/discrim for gay/lesbian. Somewhat more likely to be sexually abused. (Some evidence for bigger corpus collosum; some brain effects for Anything however; not found in 3 yr olds for ex)
D. Adolescent Sex as a Problem Behavior:
(redux) More serious activity than in the past. Conservative feelings still dangerus. Adol reasoning.
1. 1 in 500 college students and 1 in 200 male college students test positive
2. The “geometry” of STD transmission
3. Why
2) W/ 1 - w/ 4 - w/4 - w/4 others. Odds of HIV in chain (college) is 25%. Very possible.
3) A) Few visual cues of conseq (vs car accidents for drunks) Time until symptoms appear usu after Adolescence. B) Invuln beliefs C) Balance of benefits vs costs of protec (hassle, embarrassment: delay factors are immed. Cost relatively invisible). A,B,C apply to college adol as well. Protec not much better and young adults not much better either. D) Lack of impulse control; esp likely for children at risk.
F. Rape
1. Frequencies
2. Date Rape
1) >10% white females vs >5% black girls before 18. Some not reported/defined; underrep. Fear of blame; sanctions against rape too harsh. 2) Most preval form for adol. Continuum allowing for denial (force, pressure, coercion) sometimes clear but disbelief.
3. Causes: (Males)
Cultural factors: sex as a right (less than 200-300 ya) Force of sex masculine and being denied feminine. Surveys of college men: if you could get away w/ it; 20-30% say possibly or yes. Under what cond is it ok, even w/ phs force? Lead on: 20-30% ok, used against him: 20-30% ok.
4. Causes; (Females) and “Blaming The Victim:
- Liv apart from parents. - More likely to be raped: Poverty, parents have substance abuse pro; phy/mental/emot impairment. -Char of women tracked vs. stolen car victims... Consent: statutory rape: 15,16,17?: even if consent. Alchohol?
G. Sexual Abuse
1. Incidence
2. Consequences
25% of all females before 18, 1/10 of males.
2) Murder likelihood higher if sexually abused (although 1/4 have been abused) Running away from home for >1 night mostly sexually abused (chronic runaways) Low self-esteem. Anxiety (esp in sexual situations or potentially) Fear (worrying thatit will happen again) Depression; Engaging in risky beh including risky sex (ex sudden onset often due to sexual abuse. Avoided at all costs for some; gain weight to be unattractive for some.)
3. Recovered memories
Likely to be false: Fragile mem; easy to implant; ex lost in a shopping mall study for children; therapy: symptoms fit with profile for victim... Likely to true: clear evid that abuse really occurred (attachment processes also repressed possibly) Not thinking usu recovered in day to day lives vs therapy.
School Colors Film
AP: 85% white, asian
Lower level: 85% black, chicano. Af Am studies depart w/ 15 courses; 85% Af Am; form of seg. Low drop out rate; 60% nonwhite; blackcs x2 likely to drop out. Teaching staff becoming less white. Prejudice reduc workshops. The only public HS in city. Seg soc geography.
Off-Track Film
Multicultural texts. All held to high espectations; 'experiments' (ony 9th grade English).
XIII. Schooling in America
A. History & Societal Functions
1) Multiple functions of schools. Why have HS, esp if not going to college? - Socializing, responsibility, adhere to a schedule, interact w/ adults, failure, grades (Rewards and conseq; future jobs and schooling; SORTING FUNC -> Distinct from learning func; societal; Japanese -> single test every few yrs vs every test/course)
A. History & Societal Functions
1. Multiple Functions of Schools
2. The enormity of the school experience
2) Keep adol out of work force (labor union's efforts) Protect for difficult jobs; Keep off of streets; roaming free; require of schools (sort, discipline, educ)
Different Faces of Educational Achievement
4) Rich get richer and the poor get poorer:
1. School performance (grades) (Future; schools)
2. academic achievement (standardized tests such as SOLS, Regents; diff from grades) MOST linked to IQ of these three.
3. educational attainment (years completed). LEAST influenced by IQ, most important for career success. Finishing college will x2 income vs HS. (Learning->IQ, Sorting->Jobs) 4) Do well beg 6th grade inc and vice versa. Gap of success vs failure inc. Am ideal...same equipment in beginning while school places people further apart.
Components of Achievement motivation (for school success) 1. Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation.
1) Int: learning desire vs external rewards; enjoy; optional work. Ext: solely for rewards (ex req for major) K-1st graders have much int; 3-6thgrade treated as if they have zero intrinsic. The more extrinsic rewards provided the lower intrinsic (Drowns out intrinsic)
2. Temperament:
3. Confidence/self-efficacy.
Least malleable; A) Persistent vs. B) Not distracted; focus.
3) Self-ef: Belief that you can accomplish a task if you try; effort. Very helpful in school; buffres against setbacks. Determines persistence. What does a challenging school do to self-eff? Good: challenge, quality, learn from peers. Bad: dec confidence for new situations, feel average.
L. Mastery vs. Peformance Motivation (Carol Dweck)
1. Negative Consequences of a Performance Motivation
2. Adolescent teachers become more performance oriented.
Mastery: learen to understand/master material. Perf: effort to do well/get good grades. Lead to diff goals. 1)Avoid tough situations (ex 500 level course) More discouraged by failure/setback; what was the point from effort? Less open to challenge. Where will I do well?
2) 1st grade report cards (adject; how far gotten vs above/below median) College: relative to other people.
M. Influences on Achievement: Home environment
1. Parental Standards
2. Authoritative Parenting
3. Intergenerational Effects
4. Cultural Capital
1) Higher -> More success, better grades (vs learning...) 2) inc perf; warm yet demanding. 3) Best predictors of success in school. Whether dropped out; IQ link as well. 4) Exposure to art, music, lit. Effects Over parental educ/income. Benefits of exposure to higher end of culture; not nec only for higher income families.
E. Age Grouping and Dropoff in Student Motivation
1. Film Seventeen.
1/4 students in Am go to 4yr colleges & graduate in 4 yrs. W/out college, grades are not important, only passing. No ext motivation. Not firmly in control: is film natural beh for classroom? Effect of school struc?
2. Junior High vs. Middle School vs. K(indergarten)-8
2) Most common k-5, 6-8, 9-12; then jr: k-6, 7-9, 10-12; then k-8, 9-12 the oldest and replaced; the latter best for motivation than the above. 7-8 graders treated as most mature and responsible in school vs young adol; not ready for HS; students live up to treatment.
3. Eccles’ Theory - The role of Autonomy
4. Self-Fulfilling Prophecies -Pygmalion In The Classroom
5. Simmons & Blyth
3) k-8: Get more freedom, autonomy; vs unsupervised time restricted (boring, dislike school) 4) (Carved person he wanted to marry in Greek myth) Teachers create their expectations. Troublemakers vs need inspiraton; evoke beh. 1960s exper told teachers they chose students of high IQ...
Influences on Achievement: Peers
Enhance motivation-> compete, soc. Start to value educ less; 9-10th grade vs 4th grade. Feel pressure not to do well.
The ongoing “Crisis of Schooling in America"
1) School Dropouts
2) Predic by:
1924: 2/3 of 5th graders eventually drop out; 2004: 1/4. Steady over last 20 yrs. GED helps.
2) Parents dropping out, low SES, low achiev test scores; repeating a grade early in school (graduate later/older); no friends in school. (Drop out: lower level of delin though more likely; the Act of dropping out. More criminal beh when school in session. Frustrating school esp. Teachers hostile.)
Influences on Achievement: Poverty and Inner City Schools
In some schools it is nearly impossible to do well. Ex. No student passing an AP test in 3 yrs; Do not settle on teachers for first 3 months because unsure of number needed; Not allowed to bring txtbks home, b/c stolen often.
School and class size
1. Big schools vs. small schools
2. Over and undermanned settings theory.
1) Big: More varied instruc; likelihood to take Latin... Small: Opportunities to partic. 2) Bigger-> Must be really good to be on athletic team vs NEED students; easier not to partic in large schools.
3. Big vs. small classes
A. Achievement in the Real World: SES & Ethnicity
3) W/in a range; beyond 15; btwn 20-40 not much diff.
A) 1) Correl btwn achievement, ses, and ethnicity. Why? Mediating var? 2) Stress (ex after 9/11 news) Distraction. At-risk leads to more stress which reduces motivation.
5. Claude Steele’s research: The Stereotype-Threat Effect
Af Am and Hisp achieve less in school. 40% of diff to income (more similar for same income); Stress effect. What else? IQ not predictor lower class/minority vs middle class and white. (IQ heritable for mc/wh vs high poverty/risk, unrelated b/c environ effects override.) - Assess Af Am college students w/ a cog ability test (say IQ test and performance dec 1/2 SD. Or have them indicate their ethnicity will dec performance 1/2 SD) Effects of racism. - This and income accounts for achiev. diff. - Counter ex: diff mirrored for Cath/Protest in N Ireland (same achiev diff like blacks and wh; same size effects for Palest vs Jews)
School Desegregation and Detracking
- Need to let students be in same school sys: Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas (first time sup ct used soc sci research) Deseg battle happened over next 50 yrs; Charlottesville (shut down public schools in city and reopened for wh children outside. Genderation around 45 age group not going to school for 2,3 grades.
De facto Segregation
Org schools by neighborhoods-> seg geog. themselves. Ex. Charlottesville geog shift. Educ sys also to sort -> more importatn for career; films.
Effects of deseg/detracking
- Low end children do better - More adv children? Questionable. Can do just as well, sometimes dec. Gain outweighs loss... What soc would you want if you did not know your status? Most fair: detrack.