An Ecological Analysis of School Engagement Among Urban,Low-Income Latino Adolescents

Abstract

This study examined a multidimensional model of school engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004) among low-income, urban Latino adolescents. Ecological theory suggests that students’ school, family, and peer contexts influence their behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Using qualitative methods of inquiry, this study examined how these various microsystemic factors influenced the school engagement of 32 Latino adolescents. Participants between 18 and 20 years of age participated in interviews focused on their retrospective experiences in high school. Participants identified school, family, and peer themes that facilitated or hindered various components of school engagement. Youth discussed how school and peer factors affected all three dimensions of school engagement, while family affected behavioral and cognitive engagement. Understanding processes involved in high school completion will aid in designing effective policies and programs to reduce dropout rates among Latino youth.

Keywords

Latinos education qualitative

School engagement has attracted growing interest as a way to promote academic achievement (Wang & Degol, 2014), particularly for Latino students (Boutakidis, Rodríguez, Miller, & Barnett, 2014) because of their lower educational attainment compared with other racial/ethnic groups (Kena et al., 2014). Interventions aimed at preventing school dropout would benefit from a more nuanced approach to examining the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive processes associated with Latino students’ school success. The current study seeks to understand the ways in which school, family, and peers facilitate and hinder multiple dimensions of school engagement among inner-city Latino youth through a qualitative lens.

School Engagement

School engagement is generally defined as a commitment to school (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004) that evolves from complex transactions between personal and family characteristics and the school environment (Furlong et al., 2003). School engagement has been touted as the primary mechanism for promoting motivation, academic achievement, and successful school completion (Wang & Degol, 2014).

Fredricks and colleagues (2004) proposed the multidimensional model of school engagement, which includes behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Behavioral engagement has three defining characteristics: (a) positive conduct, such as following rules and adhering to classroom norms, as well as the absence of disruptive behaviors, such as skipping school and getting in trouble; (b) learning and academic tasks, such as effort, attention, and contributing to class discussion; and (c) participating in school-related activities, such as athletics or school governance. Emotional engagement refers to students’ affective reactions in the classroom, such as interest, boredom, and happiness, and connectedness to and enjoyment of school. Cognitive engagement focuses on investment in learning and academic self-regulation. Investment in learning includes a desire to go beyond the requirements and a preference for challenge. Self-regulation includes problem solving, planning and goal setting, and positive coping in the face of failure.

Past researchers have used various definitions of school engagement among Latino youth, and assessment of school engagement has often not been as comprehensive as Fredricks’ framework would suggest. For instance, studies of engagement include one or two types (i.e., behavior and emotion) but do not consider all three (e.g., Plunkett, Behnke, Sands, & Choi, 2009; Woolley, Kol, & Bowen, 2009). Furthermore, some components of school engagement may interact or influence one another in predicting achievement (Suárez-Orozco, Pimentel, & Martin, 2009; Woolley et al., 2009). For instance, in a quantitative study of newcomer immigrant youth, the majority of whom were Latino, researchers found that cognitive engagement was predictive of behavioral engagement, and in turn, predictive of grade point average (GPA; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009). Suárez-Orozco and colleagues highlighted the different, yet both influential, roles of cognitive and behavioral engagement in students’ academic achievement. Thus, examining only one or some components of engagement in isolation provides a limited picture of how school engagement develops and influences school success. The current study takes a comprehensive approach by examining all dimensions of school engagement and how they relate to one another, as well as the various ecological influences on each component of engagement.

An Ecological Perspective to School Engagement Among Latino Youth

In a comprehensive review of multiple contexts of school engagement, Furlong et al. (2003) identified four primary contexts of school engagement: student, classroom, school environment, and peers. Each of these contexts interacts to shape the development of school engagement in students. Consistent with this literature, the current investigation is guided by ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 2005), which stresses the developmental importance of reciprocal interactions between the individual and a person, object, or symbol within his or her environment at multiple levels. Within a youth’s microsystem (settings/people that you interact with on a regular basis), these interactions may include the social support of a friend, family member, or teacher, as well as school and family environments. This study focuses on school relationships and school environment as well as family and peer relationships.

Past studies of Latino adolescents provide a roadmap of how ecological factors lead to more or less engagement in school. Indeed, a great body of psychological, sociological, and educational literatures have expounded on the role microsystems play in shaping school experiences and outcomes of urban Latino students (e.g., Alfaro, Umaña-Taylor, & Bámaca, 2006; Denner & Guzman, 2006; Leadbeater & Way, 1996). Narrowing the focus more closely on the psychological construct of school engagement, several studies have shown that supportive relationships between Latino students and individuals in the student’s school, home, and peer contexts positively influence dimensions of school engagement (Brewster & Bowen, 2004, Garcia-Reid, 2007; Hayes, Blake, Darensbourg, & Castillo, 2015; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009; Woolley et al., 2009). Qualitative studies examining these supportive relationships have noted the importance of specific messages from school staff, family members, and peers that promote goal setting (cognitive engagement) in Latino high school students (e.g., Barajas & Pierce, 2001; Ceja, 2004). Other studies have highlighted the relevance of school structures, practices, and curricula, noting schools that are safe and sufficiently academically rigorous tend to facilitate all dimensions of engagement (Conchas, 2001).

It is clear that relationships between the student and school, family, and peer contexts influence Latino youth’s engagement in school. What is unclear is how these microsystems influence each component (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive) of school engagement. Questions, such as do certain types of parental messages influence behavioral engagement (e.g., increased school participation), or do parental messages promote cognitive or emotional engagement (e.g., academic motivation), must be answered to provide a comprehensive understanding of how each component of school engagement can be systematically targeted in interventions to increase students’ overall engagement and, ultimately, school success. Our study builds on previous research by examining how ecological factors facilitate or hinder behavioral, emotional, or cognitive engagement.

The Current Study

Students who are not engaged in school are likely to drop out of high school, leaving them susceptible to deleterious life outcomes, including a greater likelihood to experience unemployment, to receive welfare, to have lower lifetime earning potential, to engage in delinquent or criminal behavior, and to suffer mental health problems (Finn, 2006). School engagement is especially important among Latinos, as Latino youth report less engagement in school and stronger relationships between school engagement and academic performance than other ethnic groups (Woolley & Bowen, 2007). The current study employs qualitative methods to provide a rich portrait of Latino youth’s experiences with school engagement and to illustrate the complex dynamics that affect multiple dimensions of school engagement. Our research questions are as follows:

Research Question 1: What are the school, family, and peer factors that are related to school engagement among urban, low-income Latino adolescents?

Research Question 2: How are these school, family, and peer factors related to behavioral, emotional, and cognitive school engagement among urban, low-income Latino adolescents?

Method

Participants

Participants were 32 youth who were part of a larger study, in which they were recruited from a public high school in a metropolitan city in the Midwest. The school was predominantly low income with 85% of the student body eligible for free lunch and had a 53% graduation rate. More than half of the participants (n = 19; 59.4%) were female; the mean age was 18.80 years (range = 18-20 years). The racial/ethnic background of the participants was Puerto Rican (n = 10; 31%), Mexican (n = 9; 28%), Central American (n = 5; 16%), biethnic (e.g., Mexican and Puerto Rican; n = 5; 16%), or biracial (e.g., White and Mexican; n = 3; 9%). Forty-four percent (n = 14) of the participants were first generation (born outside the United States as well as their parents) and 38% (n = 12) were second generation (born in the United States and at least one parent was foreign born). Thus, the majority of participants came from immigrant families. Nine percent (n = 3) were third or fourth generation, whereas 9% (n = 3) had unknown generational status because they did not know the birthplace of one of their parents. Seven (22%) participants revealed that they were undocumented immigrants. Forty-seven percent (n = 15) of participants’ mothers and 41% (n = 13) of their fathers had less than a high school education.

Measures

A phenomenological approach was used, which involves capturing the meaning behind the lived experiences of several individuals about a particular phenomenon (Reitz, 1999). A semi-structured interview protocol was used to gather information from low-income, urban Latino youth. The interview began with introductory questions to build rapport and gain a sense of what participants were currently doing (e.g., whether they were working or in college). Next, questions were asked about participants’ experiences in high school, the main focus of the study. For instance, participants were prompted thus: “Tell me about what your experiences were like at [your] School.” They were specifically asked about participation in extracurricular activities, academic track in school, what it was like to be a student at their high school, and how they felt about the school. In the third section of the interview protocol, participants were asked about their adjustment to life after high school. In the last section, researchers asked about participants’ aspirations and expectations for their future regarding school, work, and life outside of school/work.

Procedure

University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and school approval were obtained. Participants were a part of a larger group of students (N = 150) who participated in a previously conducted quantitative study. Of the 150 original participants, 80 (53%) were interested in a follow-up study and provided their phone numbers. Of the 80 participants who expressed their interest and provided contact information, 33 youth participated in this study. One participant did not identify as Latino and was excluded from analyses. Thus, the final sample size was 32.

Informed consent was obtained before the interview began. Interviews ranged from 30 to 120 minutes and were conducted in either English or Spanish. Participants were compensated US$20 for the interview session. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were verified against audio-recordings. All names and any other identifying information were removed from the transcripts to ensure confidentiality.

Data Analysis

Inductive coding techniques (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014) guided the analysis to identify school-, family-, and peer-level factors that were related to school engagement. Inductive coding allowed themes to emerge from the recurrent, dominant, or significant themes inherent in the raw data (Miles et al., 2014). Any interview text related to school factors, including institutional figures (i.e., teachers, coaches, or counselors), practices, programs, or policies, relevant to school engagement was coded. In addition, text about family and peer interactions relevant to school engagement was coded for analysis. Inductive approaches (Miles et al., 2014) were used to develop codes that simplified the data into relevant themes. As interview transcripts were coded, initial codes were collapsed or revised, and new codes were added. Interview transcripts were coded multiple times until a solid set of themes that reflected school, family, and peer factors relevant to school engagement was developed. Two research assistants individually coded transcripts and addressed disagreements until interrater reliability of at least 80% was obtained. NVivo 7.0, a qualitative software program (2008), was used to support data analysis.

After the school, family, and peer themes were developed, analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between these themes and the three types of school engagements. Specifically, matrices were developed in NVivo in which specific school, family, or peer themes (e.g., teacher support, family relations) were presented in the rows and the components of school engagement (e.g., behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement) were displayed in the columns. The interview data relevant to a particular theme (e.g., a peer theme—bullying) and type of school engagement (e.g., behavioral) appeared in each cell of the matrix. This allowed the researchers to determine which themes were related to a component of school engagement.

Enhancing the credibility of findings

To ensure trustworthiness, or rigor, of the data analysis, steps to enhance credibility of findings were employed. Credibility is the extent to which research findings accurately represent participants’ perspectives (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). We used triangulation, peer debriefing, and negative case analysis to ensure credibility.

Triangulation involves cross-checking data by using multiple investigators throughout the research process (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). We used multiple members of the research team to assist in analysis. Peer debriefing involves relaying information about potential themes to a disinterested peer to reduce bias of the researcher. In this study, we sought feedback from peer researchers who were not involved in this study. Finally, we conducted negative case analysis, which is the active search for negative or contradictory instances that do not confirm conclusions. For example, many participants talked about how the overall school environment was detrimental to their engagement in school, so we specifically looked for instances in the data where school environment was talked about positively. This process aided in reducing overgeneralization due to our biases (Lincoln & Guba, 1986).

Results

Participants spoke about school, family, and peer themes that facilitated or impeded their high school engagement. Table 1 summarizes the findings and illustrates the positive and negative roles of each microsystemic factor in students’ school engagement.

Table 1.

Positive and Negative Roles of Ecological Factors in School Engagement.

	Behavioral engagement	Emotional engagement	Cognitive engagement
School factors	Teacher relations: +Constructive −Antagonistic	Teacher relations: +Constructive −Antagonistic	Teacher relations: +Constructive −Antagonistic
	−Academic struggles	−Academic struggles	−Academic struggles
	School environment: +Reputation −Overcrowding −School violence −Unruly classrooms	School environment +Reputation −Overcrowding −School violence −Unruly classrooms
	Academic norms+Academic rigor−Lack of academic rigor	Academic norms+Academic rigor−Lack of academic rigor	Academic norms+Academic rigor−Lack of academic rigor
Family factors	Family relations:+Supportive−Unsupportive		Family relations:+Supportive−Unsupportive
			+Family values toward education
			+Affiliative achievement
Peer factors	Peer relations:+Hanging with the good kids−Hanging with the bad kids	Peer relations:+Hanging with the good kids	Peer relations:+Hanging with the good kids−Hanging with the bad kids
Peer factors	−Peer victimization	−Peer victimization	−Peer victimization

Note. The “+” sign denotes positive role, and “−” sign denotes negative role.

School Themes That Influence School Engagement

School themes that had either a positive or negative influence on school engagement were teacher relations, academic struggles, academic norms, and school environment. Teacher relations is defined as faculty–student interactions. Many participants described reciprocal relationships with teachers as either positive or negative in nature. Positive teacher relations consisted of participants getting along with their teachers and their teachers reciprocating by providing further support. Angela¹ said, “I was like the best student. All my teachers, they liked me. They used to help me out in the study group.” Her high behavioral and cognitive engagement, as exemplified by her self-reported on-task behavior and effort, elicited a positive response from teachers that furthered her on-task behavioral engagement (i.e., helping her study). Yesenia described how she became more cognitively engaged in school because of her teachers, who helped her understand the benefits of going to college:

My teachers helped me, they helped me understand why I should go to college and what benefits I could get from college and working and how far I can make it in life.

These teachers instilled investment in learning and helped Yesenia recognize the link between education and larger goals.

Highlighting the interaction between multiple components of engagement, many youth admitted that they were more likely to attend classes (behavioral engagement) of teachers they liked (emotional engagement). Andres explained how he stopped cutting class as a result of having a teacher he respected and who seemed to be supportive of him: “So [my teacher] wasn’t like no punk . . . he loved me a lot because he saw a lot of potential in me. So for him I stayed [in class].” Accounts such as Andres’s illustrate how improving one aspect of school engagement may lead to improvements in other aspects of engagement more central to outcomes important for school educators (e.g., attendance).

In contrast, some participants and teachers were at odds with one another, which created negative and often antagonistic relationships, which led to less behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement:

If you didn’t teach me right or teach me well, I didn’t have any respect and I would change my class. I’ll tell them. I used to have been in an honors algebra or something, the teacher couldn’t speak regular. He had an accent problem, so I couldn’t understand anything. I kept on telling him I don’t comprehend what you’re saying. He’s like, he just started yelling at me, so I’m like, “You know something? I’m gonna change my class.” So then I took . . . my honors class and reduced it to a normal class. (Sonia)

Similar to Sonia, other students who had conflicts with teachers had negative outcomes, which typically included dropping a class, “cutting” class, or explicit lack of support from their teacher. Clearly, these antagonistic relationships were cyclical: Negative teacher behavior contributed to negative student behavior and vice versa. These cyclical antagonistic relationships detracted from students’ behavioral (e.g., skipping classes), emotional (e.g., disliking teachers or courses), and cognitive (e.g., academic motivation) engagement in high school.

Academic struggles, which involved participants’ difficulties in mastering or understanding coursework, also limited school engagement. Academic struggles entailed difficult courses, insufficient help with classes, not understanding material due to language barriers, or learning disabilities not being accommodated. For example, Blanca explained that she encountered difficulties because Spanish was her primary language:

I didn’t feel like going to school anymore. I felt like I was stupid. As the years went by, I mean, I, I learned. My mom told me, “You know it’s not your fault, English is your second language and you’re not the only child that goes through this.”

Blanca’s struggle with English made her not want to go to school (behavioral), and she felt badly about school (emotional). Blanca also alluded to less cognitive engagement, describing she was not “in the mood” to plan next steps for college while in high school. Blanca’s experience illustrates how unmet needs and academic difficulties contribute to less engagement.

Participants also discussed how school environment affected their engagement. School environment was defined as participants’ assessments of the general school climate, often described negatively and consisting of frequent fights, being overcrowded, having unruly classrooms, having a negative reputation, and having a gang presence. Notably, no participants spoke about the school environment as optimal for learning. Although participants described their school environment as negative, the environment positively and negatively influenced their school engagement. On one hand, several youth discussed that the overcrowded environment, which students disliked, hindered their behavioral engagement by encouraging students to skip classes. Participants described that it was difficult for security to keep track of all students, which made it easy to cut class. On the other hand, the school’s negative reputation was often discussed as promoting a sense of school belonging or pride, which facilitated emotional engagement. Students often mentioned that the school’s negative reputation influenced them to defy the low expectations of others and achieve in school. Thus, the negative school reputation facilitated emotional and cognitive engagement for some students. Students seemed to take ownership in creating a more positive view of their school, increasing their motivation and investment in learning goals:

You go to school and the first thing everybody else is gonna think is . . . that school has a bad reputation. You get your comments here and there and your opinions, but I liked it too because then that allowed me to show others that it’s not as bad as it looks, inside or, in the school or outside of the school. (Nelson)

In addition to the general school environment, students spoke explicitly about the academic norms affecting school engagement. Academic norms refer to perceptions about educational rigor and resources at school, particularly the extent to which school prepared them for higher education, the quality of academic courses, and the extent to which they were provided with adequate academic resources. Academic rigor promoted all aspects of school engagement, and the lack of academic rigor hindered all components of engagement.

Some youth expressed that their school provided them with quality academic training and/or resources relevant for successful learning at school. Some participants indicated that their school hosted college fairs and offered challenging advanced placement (AP) and Honors courses, and that select teachers challenged students intellectually. Generally, many participants expressed that the teachers they liked most were the ones who increased their cognitive and emotional engagement by intellectually stimulating them. Furthermore, rigorous teachers made students interested in academic subjects and increased their intrinsic motivation.

Other students were far less satisfied with their school’s poorer academic quality. These participants felt unprepared for college or life after high school due to their school’s lenient discipline, inadequately enforced rules, low teacher expectations, lack of resources, lack of relevant courses offered, and low standards of achievement. Youth reported that there were insufficient books in the classroom, which prevented them from completing assignments or fully participating in class. Efrain described, “There were not enough [books] to distribute them to each class. They couldn’t take them home, you know. It was not good for us. It was easy, you know, with no homework and stuff.” Lack of resources affected Efrain’s behavioral engagement by reducing required on-task behavior. Joshua added that he often turned in assignments late because of teachers’ lenient rules: “The teachers, like some of them were very loose, like uh, ‘Just turn it in tomorrow’.”

Family Themes That Influenced School Engagement

A dominant theme that influenced school engagement was familial support and relations. Some participants described supportive relationships, whereas others described negative relationships characterized by low expectations and a general lack of support.

Positive familial support involved specific types of support that facilitated behavioral and cognitive engagement. Family members provided instrumental support, such as helping with homework or providing rides to college fairs. Other youth discussed that older family members were exemplars. Oscar set his goals on college because of his cousin: “Knowing that somebody has a degree in this family made me say I gotta be next.”

Other participants described less supportive interactions with family, which negatively influenced their cognitive engagement. Some family members transmitted discouraging messages about participants’ academic potential or had low to no expectations for them. Maribel, a C student, reflected on not reaching her full potential in high school:

I blame myself because I didn’t focus on getting myself up and it’s not [the teachers’] fault in a way but some of it is my mother’s fault. Because if she would have focused on me she would have motivated me and I would have done better.

Although Maribel takes some responsibility for her performance in high school, she felt her mother could have given her more attention and direction to facilitate her cognitive engagement. Maribel’s experience also suggests that her lack of motivation may have contributed to poor school behaviors. Youth who talked about lack of support from parents expressed similar sentiments related to low expectations and overall absence of support from family.

In addition, youth discussed a variety of family values toward education that positively influenced their cognitive engagement. Family values included messages specifically about school and education that family members transmitted to participants. Lupe’s statements reflected this theme when she described why she decided to go to college:

Because my parents did not go to college and they worked in factories, they always talked to me. They always told me and my other brother we should study, that we should go to college and . . . I said, “Yes, I want to go because I think someday I will get married, have kids, and yes, I want to have a beautiful life.” I did not want for it all to end after high school, and look for a job and just leave everything up to see what could happen. I wanted to plan it. I wanted to come to college and get my career, and work, and do it all that way. (Translation from Spanish)

Lupe’s family influenced her cognitive engagement by solidifying her educational aspirations. Her parents specifically helped her determine that education was important to her future goals.

Another family factor that participants discussed at length was affiliative achievement. Affiliative achievement is the desire to succeed in life to please family members or make the family proud (Suárez-Orozco & Todorova, 2006). Affiliative achievement was a strong facilitator of cognitive engagement for many participants, increasing their motivation to succeed:

[My father] kinda motivated me ’cause he came to this country very poor and he was poor in his country. And I seen how he got ahead in life and I’m like, I wanna get ahead in life too, and make my father proud for all this suffering he has done. (Anthony)

Peer Themes That Influenced School Engagement

Two peer-related themes emerged from participant interviews: peer support and relations and peer victimization. As shown in Table 1, peer support and relations either facilitated or impeded school engagement, whereas peer victimization was entirely negative.

Analysis revealed two subthemes of peer support and relations. Hanging with the “good kids” meant associating with peers who elicited a positive influence on participants, particularly in behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement, whereas hanging with the “bad kids” tended to have a negative effect on participants, particularly behavioral and cognitive engagement.

Participants who discussed hanging with the “good kids” talked about peer relations that facilitated on-task behavior, school satisfaction, and educational aspirations. “Good kids” encouraged youth to attend classes, aided participants with homework, promoted enjoyment of school, and supported educational aspirations through shared goals. Joshua’s high school friends influenced him to go to college:

I mean the friends that I hang out with they all have the same interest that I do . . . We are all into computers and I’m into art and it’s like we all wanted to go to school.”

Conversely, hanging with the “bad kids” impeded school engagement. The “bad kids” often encouraged participants to cut classes, discouraged focus on schoolwork, and pressured them to fight other students or join a gang. For instance, Ashley stated,

I didn’t have no cuts my freshmen year. After I started knowing people they’re like come on, come on lets go and this and that and I’m like I can’t cut. So after that I start cutting I most likely broke the record they said, they said I broke the record of 300 and something cuts.

Associating with this particular peer group led Ashley to cut class, which is an example of less behavioral engagement. Similarly, other students claimed that their peers influenced them to engage in negative behaviors. Camila stated, “I used to hang out with the wrong crowd. I used to do what they do.” However, “hanging with the bad kids” was not detrimental to youth’s emotional engagement in school. Youth stated that regardless of whether their friends were considered good or bad kids, they enriched their enjoyment of school.

Several participants also described peer victimization, which involved being the victim of bullying, teasing, or other forms of harassment from peers. Peer victimization hindered behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Youth were harassed for various reasons, including their interest in school, involvement in gangs or “crews,” and style of dress. The severity of peer victimization varied from minor incidents of teasing to physical assault and harassment. Ashley revealed that she was in constant conflict with other girls throughout high school, which impeded her behavioral engagement: “I used to be in volleyball but then I quit because there was girls that didn’t like me and I couldn’t handle it no more.”

Summary

Overall, findings illustrate how ecological factors facilitated or impeded behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Participants also described how dimensions of school engagement related to one another. For instance, youth who were more cognitively engaged stated their motivation influenced them to attend classes (behavioral engagement). Taking together participant accounts of school, family, and peer microsystemic factors, results suggest that the more proximal the factor was to the school setting, the more likely it was to influence explicit school behaviors. Participants described aspects of the school context, school personnel, and peers at school to be most influential to key behaviors necessary for school success, such as attendance and participation, whereas family members were overwhelmingly described as being key to cognitive engagement in the form of goal setting and motivation to achieve.

Finally, though most participants described some aspects of the school context as negatively influencing their overall engagement, these same students also described supportive teachers, family, and peers as protective factors. Illustratively, when queried by study interviewers how he was able to set his goals on going to college in the context of a negative school environment, participant, Andres, replied,

I just look at my dad because it was hard for him because he wasn’t able to go to school. So for him I wanna drive myself.

Discussion

Guided by Fredricks et al.’s (2004) multidimensional model of school engagement, the current study sought to systematically examine microsystemic factors and processes associated with behavioral, emotional, and cognitive components of school engagement among Latino youth. This is the first study to unpack and apply Fredricks et al.’s model to a sample of urban, low-income Latino youth and to examine the specific microsystemic ecological factors that are related to each component of engagement. Participants’ accounts of the factors that influenced each component of engagement provide avenues for intervention innovation to enhance school engagement among urban Latino high school students.

The school environment and academic climate were related to all three components of high school engagement. Participants discussed more negative than positive themes associated with their school. Overcrowded classrooms, inadequate supervision, inferior academics, and a range in academic rigor are all too typical of poor urban schools (Whitman, 2008). Each of these negative school themes that emerged from participant interviews has been linked to lower academic achievement and reduced school engagement (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009). These characterizations of school are not surprising, given that schools with predominantly poor students of color often suffer from lack of resources and other educational disadvantages (Kozol, 2012; Whitman, 2008).

Previous researchers have indicated that school “engagement is about relationships” (Yazzie-Mintz, 2007, p. 1). Our results provided evidence for the critical importance of students’ relationships with school personnel, family, and peers in the development of their school engagement. These findings are consistent with previous studies examining the role of social support and positive relationships in school engagement and achievement among Latino adolescents (Brewster & Bowen, 2004; Garcia-Reid, 2007; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009; Woolley et al., 2009). Our study adds to this literature by noting the ways in which specific dimensions of engagement are affected by aspects of school, family, and peer relations.

Supportive relationships with teachers influenced all dimensions of school engagement among youth, from increasing attendance rates to inspiring them to graduate and go to college. Participant interviews demonstrated the reciprocal nature of student–environmental relations and school engagement. Students’ individual characteristics interacted with key factors within the school context, further influencing school engagement. For instance, many youth who had academic struggles also indicated that they had negative teacher relations. Students’ difficulty mastering coursework often led to frustrating and antagonistic relationships with teachers. These interactions illustrate the important links between individual students, their microsystems, and school engagement.

Family members were overwhelmingly identified for their ability (or inability) to help youth set college goals (cognitive engagement). These findings are consistent with previous qualitative studies examining Latino students’ educational aspirations (e.g., McWhirter, Valdez, & Caban, 2013). Fewer participants discussed family in terms of their influence on behavioral engagement in the form of parental monitoring and schoolwork support. However, none of the participants discussed parents promoting their emotional engagement in school (e.g., sense of belonging, enjoyment of school). A closer examination of generational status sheds light on these findings. Eighty-two percent of the current study’s participants were first-generation or second-generation immigrants. Numerous studies have discussed that many immigrant parents place great importance on the academic success of their children (e.g., McWhirter et al., 2013; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009). Our findings align with this research, suggesting that immigrant parents’ value of education for their children may be the most important way these parents influence their children’s education.

Participants revealed the role of peers in behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. The literature suggests that peer relationships in school play a particularly crucial role in promoting socially competent behavior in the classroom and in fostering school engagement and achievement (Fredricks et al., 2004). By valuing positive academic outcomes and by modeling specific academic behaviors, peers establish the norms of school engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004). Interestingly, even school-based friendships with “bad kids” promoted emotional engagement, albeit detracted from behavioral and cognitive engagement. This finding may explain why emotional engagement, in some quantitative studies, has been unrelated to academic achievement (e.g., Wang & Eccles, 2012).

The negative effects of bullying on academic achievement among students are well known (Rothon, Head, Klineberg, & Stansfeld, 2011). However, few studies have examined how peer victimization in high school affects behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Our results show processes involved when students are bullied at school, including reduced attendance and participation in school activities, and negative feelings about school, and as a result, less motivation to engage academically. These findings add to the robust literature (e.g., Rigby, 2000) on the emotional toll bullying has on students, while highlighting the school engagement processes at play.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study was not without limitations. The first concern simultaneously represents both a limitation and a strength. All participants in this study had graduated from high school. Thus, these youth may be considered among the most engaged students in their high school, given the 53% graduation rate. This sampling bias provided a limited range of experiences related to school engagement. Although participants spoke at length about their negative experiences in high school, it is likely that these participants had more positive experiences that led them to stay relatively engaged to graduate. Despite this limitation, a growing body of literature stresses the importance of studying successful and resilient youth to promote positive youth development (Larson, 2000). Another limitation is the retrospective nature of this study may have compromised the accuracy of participants’ memories of high school. Finally, school engagement components were not specifically queried or probed for in the interviews, and explicit probing regarding school engagement would have improved this study. Despite these limitations, this theory-driven study explicitly examines the multidimensional model of school engagement, illustrating the roles of multiple ecological contexts in school engagement among urban, at-risk, Latino youth.

An important direction for future research is to examine processes involved in school engagement across generational status among Latino adolescents. In this study, 83% of the participants were raised by immigrant parents. Several studies have noted the unique school engagement experiences of newcomer immigrant youth and youth raised by immigrant parents (e.g., Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009). There are likely differences across generational statuses in processes involved in school engagement. An obvious difference between first- and second-generation youth and youth from third generation and later would be the powerful messages from parents about their experiences coming to the United States and struggling to gain economic stability without education. These stories influenced youth’s cognitive engagement. It is unclear how the role of the family, or other ecological factors, may differ in meaningful ways across generational statuses.

Conclusion

Participant interviews illustrated how microsystemic factors influenced behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement in ways important to student success that may be of interest to interventionists. One promising strategy for promoting school engagement among low-income, urban Latino adolescents includes building and maintaining positive, supportive relationships between students and school personnel, family, and peers. These relationships could be fostered through school-based teacher–student or peer mentoring programs and targeted efforts for youth most vulnerable to lower levels of engagement (e.g., those who evidence antagonistic relationships with teachers). Strengthening school–family relationships may aid educators in encouraging Latino parents to instill engagement in their adolescents, by sharing positive messages about students’ educational goals and monitoring schoolwork. Although many school interventions exist to leverage supportive relationships in an effort to promote school success (e.g., Check & Connect; Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, & Lehr, 2004), few school-wide programs simultaneously target school, family, and peer relationships in an effort to increase school engagement.

However, even in ideal settings in which teachers, families, and peers are utilized to increase school engagement, lack of resources in underfunded schools still presents a monumental challenge to students’ behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Parkway High School, a racially segregated, majority Latino student population school with its inadequate learning environment, is reminiscent of the characterization of Kozol’s (2012) schools in his ethnography reporting inequalities within the U.S. school system nearly 25 years ago. The implications of this study expand beyond students’ microsystems and emphasize the role of broader ecological contexts, such as social policies and systems, that place low-income youth at a disadvantage for academic success.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This article is based on the master’s thesis of the first author in partial fulfillment of the master’s degree at DePaul University.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by a grant from the University Research Council at DePaul University. Manuscript preparation by the first author was partially supported by the National Institute of Mental Health postdoctoral training grant (2T32MH018261-31).

Notes

Author Biographies

Katrina D. Roundfield is a National Institute of Mental Health Clinical Services Research Training Program postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, San Francisco in the Department of Psychiatry. Her research focuses on school-based interventions to improve students’ educational and mental health outcomes.

Bernadette Sánchez is a professor of Psychology at DePaul University. Her research interests are positive youth development, mentoring, education and race/ethnicity.

Susan D. McMahon is a professor of Psychology and associate dean for Research and Faculty Development in the College of Science and Health at DePaul University and president-elect for the the Society for Community Research and Action (Division 27 of APA). Her research focuses on understanding risk and protective factors at multiple levels, school-based intervention and evaluation, teacher and student experiences with violence, violence prevention, and enhancing our educational systems.

References

Alfaro

E. C.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Bámaca

M. Y.

(2006). The influence of academic support on Latino adolescents’ academic motivation. Family Relations, 55, 279-291.

Anderson

A. R.

Christenson

S. L.

Sinclair

M. F.

Lehr

C. A.

(2004). Check & connect: The importance of relationships for promoting engagement with school. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 95-113.

Barajas

H. L.

Pierce

J. L.

(2001). The significance of race and gender in school success among Latinas and Latinos in college. Gender & Society, 15, 859-878.

Boutakidis

I. P.

Rodríguez

J. L.

Miller

K. K.

Barnett

(2014). Academic engagement and achievement among Latino and Non-Latino adolescents. Journal of Latinos and Education, 13, 4-13.

Brewster

Bowen

G. L.

(2004). Teacher support and the school engagement of Latino middle and high school students at risk for school failure. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21, 47-67. doi:10.1023/B:CASW.0000012348.83939.6b

Bronfenbrenner

(2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ceja

(2004). Chicana college aspirations and the role of parents: Developing educational resiliency. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3, 338-362.

Conchas

G. Q.

(2001). Structuring failure and success: Understanding the variability in Latino school engagement. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 475-505.

Denner

Guzman

(Eds.). (2006). Latina girls: Voices of adolescent strength in the US. New York: New York University Press.

10.

Finn

J. D.

(2006). The adult lives of at-risk students: The roles of attainment and engagement in high school (NCES 2006-328). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

11.

Fredricks

J. A.

Blumenfeld

P. C.

Paris

A. H.

(2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.

12.

Furlong

M. J.

Whipple

A. D.

St. Jean

Simental

Soliz

Punthuna

(2003). Multiple contexts of school engagement: Moving towards a unifying framework for educational research and practice. The Californian School Psychologist, 8, 99-113.

13.

Garcia-Reid

(2007). Examining social capital as a mechanism for improving school engagement among low income Hispanic girls. Youth & Society, 39, 164-182.

14.

Hayes

Blake

J. J.

Darensbourg

Castillo

L. G.

(2015). Examining the academic achievement of Latino adolescents the role of parent and peer beliefs and behaviors. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35, 141-161.

15.

Kena

Aud

Johnson

Wang

Zhang

Rathbun

Kristapovich

(2014). The condition of education 2014 (NCES 2014-083). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch (8 March 2015).

16.

Kozol

(2012). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY: Broadway Books.

17.

Larson

R. W.

(2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55, 170-183.

18.

Leadbeater

B. J. R.

Way

(Eds.). (1996). Urban girls: Resisting stereotypes, creating identities. New York: New York University Press.

19.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 30, 73-84.

20.

McWhirter

E. H.

Valdez

Caban

A. R.

(2013). Latina adolescents’ plans, barriers, and supports: A focus group study. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 1, 35-52.

21.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22.

Plunkett

Behnke

Sands

Choi

(2009). Adolescents’ reports of parental engagement and academic achievement in immigrant families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 257-268.

23.

NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software; QSR International Pty Ltd, Version 7, 2008.

24.

Reitz

R. R.

(1999). Batterers’ experiences of being violent: A phenomenological study. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 143-165.

25.

Rigby

(2000). Effects of peer victimization in schools and perceived social support on adolescent well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 57-68.

26.

Rothon

Head

Klineberg

Stansfeld

(2011). Can social support protect bullied adolescents from adverse outcomes? A prospective study on the effects of bullying on the educational achievement and mental health of adolescents at secondary schools in East London. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 579-588.

27.

Suárez-Orozco

Pimentel

Martin

(2009). The significance of relationships: Academic engagement and achievement among newcomer immigrant youth. Teachers College Record, 111, 712-749.

28.

Suárez-Orozco

Todorova

I. L.

(2006). Projecting the voices of Mexican-origin children. Research in Human Development, 3, 211-228.

29.

Wang

M. T.

Degol

(2014). Staying engaged: Knowledge and research needs in student engagement. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 137-143.

30.

Wang

M. T.

Eccles

J. S.

(2012). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement trajectories in school and their differential relations to educational success. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 31-39.

31.

Whitman

(2008). Sweating the small stuff: Inner-city schools and the new paternalism. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation & Institute.

32.

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.

33.

Woolley

M. E.

Kol

Bowen

(2009). The social context of school success for Latino middle school students: Direct and indirect influences of teachers, family, and friends. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 43-70.

34.

Yazzie-Mintz

(2007). Voices of students on engagement: A report on the 2006 High School Survey of Student Engagement. Bloomington: Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, Indiana University. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495758.pdf (accessed 6 January 2016).