No abstract

This study uses a mixed-method sequential exploratory design to examine influences on urban adolescents’ engagement and disengagement in school. First, we interviewed 22 middle and high school students who varied in their level of engagement and disengagement. Support from adults and peers, opportunities to make choices, and external incentives aligned with greater engagement. In contrast, a strict disciplinary structure, an irrelevant and boring curriculum, disengaged peers, and lack of respect by adults coincided with greater disengagement. From these interviews, we tested whether these factors were statistically significant predictors of engagement and disengagement in a sample of 611 middle and high school students. In the majority of models, these predictors were significantly related to engagement and disengagement in the expected direction. Implications of findings for educational practice are discussed.

Although minor misconduct is normative in adolescence, such behavior may be met with punishment in American schools. As part of a punitive disciplinary approach, teachers may give adolescents official infractions for minor misconduct—that is, a minor infraction—presumably to deter future problem behavior. This article investigates three arguments that challenge the wisdom of this assumption and considers the potentially detrimental effects of minor infractions: (a) minor infractions increase, rather than deter, adolescents’ defiant behavior; (b) these effects are exacerbated among adolescents who are highly attached to school; and (c) teachers’ punishment of minor misconduct may be racially biased, resulting in African American students receiving more minor infractions than White students. To test these hypotheses, 729 adolescents’ school disciplinary records were analyzed over 1 academic year. Longitudinal multilevel analyses were conducted to assess (a) if receiving minor infractions predicted later increases in infractions for defiant behavior at the within-student level, (b) whether adolescents’ attachment to school moderated this association, and (c) if a disparity existed between African American and White students’ average level of minor infractions. Results indicated that minor infractions predicted subsequent rises in defiant behavior, and this link was exacerbated for adolescents who reported initially high levels, but not low levels, of school attachment. Furthermore, African American students received more minor infractions than White students, controlling for a host of risk factors for school misconduct. Findings are discussed in relation to American school discipline policies and African Americans’ persistent overrepresentation in school discipline and the criminal justice system.

Praise for process, which includes praising students’ level of effort and effective strategies, has shown promise in improving students’ motivation to learn. However, parents and teachers may interpret this to mean that solely praising students’ effort level is sufficient. Although praise for effort is effective in some respects in early childhood, it often stops working and even backfires by adolescence. In this article, we explain these findings developmentally. We suggest that effort praise can communicate that effort is a path to improving ability, but can also imply that the student needs to work hard because of low innate ability. We propose that adolescents are at greater risk for interpreting the praise in the second way because secondary schools often value innate ability more than effort and adolescents are conscious of ability stereotypes. We conclude with implications for theory and research.

This daily diary study examined how adolescents’ institutional and teacher‐specific trust predicted classroom behavioral engagement the day after being disciplined by that teacher. Within mathematics classrooms, adolescents (N = 190; Mage = 14 years) reported institutional and teacher‐specific trust and then completed a 15‐day diary assessing teacher discipline and behavioral engagement. The results indicated that, among adolescents with low teacher trust, discipline was unrelated to next‐day behavior. Contrastingly, adolescents with high teacher but low institutional trust became less engaged following discipline, whereas those with high teacher and institutional trust became more engaged. These findings suggest that adolescents interpret discipline within the social context of trust, and adolescents’ trust in the institution and teacher are important for discipline to improve behavior.