School Foci and Their Potential Ramifications in Urban High Schools

Abstract

The study examined the relationship among students’ focus in urban schools and three educationally relevant psychological factors: school engagement, achievement goals, and possible future self. A 1-year study at two urban high schools with a total of 212 participants suggested that academically focused students are more highly engaged with mastery-approach goals, whereas students with a social focus had less optimal engagement and more performance goal orientations. Both academic and social focus indicated strongest relationships with academic future self and social future self, respectively.

Keywords

engagement motivation urban possible selves

Academically focused students receive higher grades, are more likely to graduate, and earn higher salaries (Attewell, Heil, & Reisel, 2011; Miller, 1998). Still, some students prefer to talk with friends during class time or worry about the upcoming football game instead of the lecture in math class. Students choosing to socialize over studying may actually worsen their academic regulation skills and lower their achievement (Grund, Brassler, & Fries, 2014; Wentzel & Wigfield, 1998). At other times, socializing may help improve students’ academic motivation and school engagement when associating with academically successful friends (e.g., A. M. Ryan, 2000). Hence, there are both academic benefits and negative consequences for students having an academic or social focus toward school.

Extant research excludes some ramifications of having an academic or social focus toward school in urban settings. This may be particularly detrimental given that classmates alter each other’s self-conceptions of future academic ability (possible selves; Oyserman & Fryberg, 2006), affect school engagement (Hughes & Kwok, 2007), and can lead to higher or lower academic motivation (Jones, Audley-Piotrowski, & Kiefer, 2012). Longitudinally, befriending academically successful peers improves later school engagement (Véronneau & Dishion, 2011), especially during adolescence (Brown, 2004). Still, little research examines the longitudinal confluence of academic and social foci toward school within urban schools, especially with other academically important constructs.

Students’ focus in school should align with their school engagement, possible selves, and achievement goals given the tenets of social cognitive theory. Social cognitive theory suggests reciprocal relationships between individuals’ self-beliefs, their behaviors, and their environment (Bandura, 1986). The theory suggests that students hold a variety of self-beliefs pertaining to their environment, such as their purpose for attempting academic tasks (achievement goals) and whether they might be successful in the future (possible selves). In addition, students hold self-beliefs about their environment, such as perceiving school as a place to learn or to spend time with friends (academic or social focus), which also manifest in their behaviors (i.e., behavioral engagement in school). As such, the reciprocal interactions between self-beliefs, behaviors, and the environment are apparent in how students’ focus in school corresponds with achievement goals, possible selves, and school engagement. These are theoretically plausible relationships, but not yet empirically examined. The current study hopes to address this gap in the literature by examining the scholastic benefits and consequences of having an academic and social focus toward school for students in urban schools.

Academic or Social Focus Toward School

School settings are not strictly places of learning. Rather, students mutually engage in social relationships (e.g., friends) and social pursuits (e.g., playing sports), while also taking classes and gaining an education (Wentzel, Barry, & Caldwell, 2004). Previous research shows that students hold implicit orientations and desired outcomes when socially engaging with peers at school (A. M. Ryan & Shim, 2008). Concurrently, students have academic goal orientations toward their schooling, with students desiring to pursue deeper learning or demonstrating academic competency (Ames, 1992). At times, students’ academic and social goal pursuits may conflict, such as when students choose to cut class to spend the afternoon with friends (Grund et al., 2014). Students with an academic focus toward school perceive their education as the major reason for schooling, whereas students with a social focus emphasize their peer relationships and nonacademic pursuits inside school.

Students having a social focus toward school endanger their academic success (Grund et al., 2014). Less is known concerning the effects of having an academic or social focus toward school in urban schools. In addition, little work examines whether students’ focus toward school may have a developmental component, which may be particularly important given previous research showing motivation changes across time (e.g., Véronneau & Dishion, 2011).

School Engagement

Students with strong school engagement feel more connected with teachers and classmates as well as having greater achievement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Engagement consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral associations with one’s schooling (Fredricks et al., 2004; Wang, Willett, & Eccles, 2011). The cognitive factors of school engagement can include achievement experiences and beliefs about school’s relevancy (Betts, Appleton, Reschly, Christenson, & Huebner, 2010). Emotional engagement can consist of having positive or negative feelings toward teachers and classmates (Estell & Perdue, 2013; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). That is, engaged students feel that teachers and classmates are academically supportive of their learning. These emotional connections with others may be particularly important in mitigating negative achievement and enhancing academic motivation (Hughes & Kwok, 2007).

Achievement Goals

Achievement goals describe students’ a priori academic intent as well as help explain students’ self-evaluation following academic achievement (Ames, 1992; McGregor & Elliot, 2002; Pintrich, 2000). Current theory posits two overarching and somewhat orthogonal achievement orientations: mastery and performance goals. Students with mastery goals are more likely to undertake academic activities due to a desire for increased self-competence. In contrast, performance goals are motivated by demonstrating competence to others. The dichotomous nature of mastery and performance goals is now understood to be more complex, and includes approach and avoidance elements (e.g., Elliot, 1999).

Mastery-approach goals describe students’ desire to enhance their own abilities (Ames, 1992; Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Mastery-approach goals often align with higher academic achievement and a variety of academically beneficial motivational beliefs and classroom behaviors (Huang, 2012; Shim, Ryan, & Anderson, 2008). In contrast, performance-approach and performance-avoid goals require some form of interpersonal interactions. Performance-approach goals occur when individuals feel the desire to outperform others or socially demonstrate their competency to other students, whereas performance-avoid goals include individuals’ fears of appearing inadequate or incapable (Ames, 1992; Senko, Hulleman, & Harackiewicz, 2011).

Future Academic and Social Selves

Possible selves are future self-representations of what we hope to become, what we are afraid of becoming, and what we expect to become (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Oyserman & Fryberg, 2006). Possible selves relate to a variety of outcomes, including academic achievement (e.g. Oyserman, Bybee, & Terry, 2006), achievement motivation (e.g. Anderman, Anderman, & Griesinger, 1999), self-regulation (Hoyle & Sherrill, 2006), and delinquency (Oyserman & Markus, 1990). In addition, as Anderman et al. (1999) suggest, better understanding how possible selves influence motivation and achievement may also lead to better classroom practices as teachers play a strong role in their students’ future self development.

Additional Factors to Consider

Several interpersonal and intrapersonal factors affect students’ motivational beliefs and scholastic experiences. For example, students’ gender sometimes affects academic motivation and social interactions in school (Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Age often corresponds with a student’s motivation, such that older students have lower academic motivation (Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005). As such, intrapersonal and interpersonal factors are relevant to examining students’ academic motivation and school engagement.

The Present Study

The current study’s overarching purpose was relating urban high school students’ focus toward school with scholastically relevant psychological factors. Little previous research examines how students’ academic and social focus in school might alter their academic motivation, school engagement, and future possible selves, with even less work being conducted among urban student populations (Grund et al., 2014; Hughes & Kwok, 2007). Building from social cognitive theory, we propose that students’ focus toward school as being a place for learning (academic focus) or a place for peer interactions and extracurricular activities (social focus) should concurrently and longitudinally correspond with school engagement, achievement goals, and possible future selves. We hypothesize that students’ academic focus should align with greater academic engagement, adoption of mastery-approach goals, and perceiving oneself as academically successful in the future. In contrast, we hypothesize that students’ social focus should parallel lower academic engagement, adoption of performance goals, and being socially successful in the future. If such hypotheses are true, then results might help explain why urban students’ focus in school could undermine or enhance their academic motivation, scholastic engagement, and self-perceptions of future success.

Method

Participants

Participants were part of a larger study on urban students’ educational experiences. A convenience sample of 212 urban high school students participated in both the fall and spring semesters (87% participation rate between semesters). This included 112 girls (53%) and 100 boys (47%) in Grades 9 through 12. Of the 212 participating students, 174 self-reported as African American/Black (82%), 11 “Other” (5%), 10 multiethnic (5%), eight White (4%), five Hispanic/Latino/a (2%), and four Asian American (2%). Ages ranged from 13 to 19 years (M = 15 years, 6 months; SD = 1 year, 3 months).

Students came from two small high schools within a low socioeconomic area of a large Southern city. Each high school had 106 students. High school A included 93% of students self-reporting ethnicity as African American, whereas High School B was 71% African American. All participants at both high schools were eligible for free lunches.

Measures

Academic or social focus in school

Eight items examined students’ academic and social focus toward school. Four items measured students’ academic focus in school (e.g., “Coming to school, I’m excited about something that I might learn today”; fall semester α = .76; spring semester α = .80). Four items measured students’ social focus in school (“My favorite part of school is hanging out with friends”; fall semester α = .65; spring semester α = .65). Students responded to each item on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree).

The academic and social focus scales came from a separate study on Midwestern and Southern high school students from urban (n = 257), suburban (n = 150), and rural (n = 207) areas. These 614 students responded to an open-ended question regarding their peer interactions with school. Responses led to the creation of 10 items measuring whether students focused on the academic or social aspects of school. These 10 items were pilot tested with an additional urban high school (n = 111). After pilot testing, two questions were removed as they did not load with the other items. This left eight total questions regarding students’ academic and social focus toward school (see the Appendix).

School engagement

Three scales measured students’ engagement with school (teacher–student relationships, relevance of schoolwork, and peer support for learning) from the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI; Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006; Betts et al., 2010). Nine questions measured students’ perceptions of their teacher–student relationships (e.g., “My teachers are there for me when I need them.” fall semester α = .84; spring semester α = .88). Eight items asked about the relevancy of schoolwork (e.g., “Most of what is important to know you learn in school”; fall semester α = .82; spring semester α = .81). Six items examined students’ perceived support for learning from their friends and classmates (e.g., “Students at my school are there for me when I need them”; fall semester α = .87; spring semester α = .89). SEI validation and reliability comes from multiple studies on its application among diverse populations (Appleton et al., 2006; Betts et al., 2010).

Achievement goals

Students’ achievement goals came from the Pattern of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS; Midgley et al., 2000). Students responded to 14 questions regarding their math achievement goals on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all true, 5 = very true). The scales measure three achievement goals: mastery-approach (fall semester α = .88; spring semester α = .94), performance-approach (fall semester α = .92; spring semester α = .94), and performance-avoid (fall semester α = .85; spring semester α = .85). We chose to assess math goals because mathematics is a core academic subject that all students at both high schools must take each year. The PALS’s achievement goal scales have sound validity and reliability (Huang, 2011, 2012; Midgley et al., 1996).

Future selves

Participants responded to two scales regarding their future possible selves (Anderman et al., 1999). One scale measured participants’ perceived future academic self, whereas the other scale examined perceived future social self. Questions asked students to imagine what they would look like and what they would be doing in the future. Seven items pertained to future academic self, such as “In the future . . . I will be a good student” (fall semester α = .84; spring semester α = .86). The future social self scale had four items, which asked questions similar to, “In the future . . . I will be popular” (fall semester α = .80; spring semester α = .78). Responses were on a 4-point Likert-type scale (4 = very true, 1 = not at all true). Prior research suggested that the scales were both reliable and valid measures of students’ future selves (Anderman et al., 1999).

Procedure

Data collection occurred twice within the same school year approximately halfway through the fall and spring semesters. During data collection, two trained researchers were present to answer questions. All surveys were completed within 45 minutes, with less than 1% of participants not answering all items. Students did not receive an incentive for study participation or completion.

Results

Three sets of analyses illustrate whether urban adolescents’ focus in school relates with school engagement, achievement goals, and future possible selves. For each section of results, path analyses tested for possible relationships among the fall and semester variables. Multigroup path analyses also tested for differences between the two high schools and genders.

Focus in School and School Engagement

The first path analyses examined the relationships among students’ academic and social focus in school and their teacher–student relationship, perceived relevancy of schoolwork, and peer support for learning. These relationships were tested in both the fall and spring semesters. Path analysis results suggested the model had adequate fit, χ²(26, N = 212) = 68.61, p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = .96, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .09. As seen in Figure 1, all fall semester variables related significantly with their spring counterparts, and academic and social focus in school were uncorrelated.

Figure 1.

Path analysis of focus in school and school engagement.

Table 1.

Correlations Among Residual Error Terms in Figures 1, 2, and 3.

	School engagement (Figure 1)
	Teacher–student relationships	Relevance of schoolwork	Peer support for learning
Teacher–student relationships	—	.29***	.31***
Relevance of schoolwork	.24***	—	.32***
Peer support for learning	.17*	.27***	—
	Achievement goals (Figure 2)
	Mastery-approach	Performance-approach	Performance-avoid
Mastery-approach	—	.27***	.19**
Performance-approach	.18**	—	.67***
Performance-avoid	.12^n.s.	.74***	—
	Future selves (Figure 3)
	Academic self		Social self
Academic self	—		.49***
Social self	.46***		—

Note. Fall semester correlations are below the diagonal, whereas spring correlations are above the diagonal.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In the fall semester, results suggested that academic focus related with the three engagement variables. Academic focus most strongly related with teacher–student relationship and relevancy of schoolwork. In contrast, students’ social focus in school corresponded strongly with their peer support for learning as well as corresponding slightly with teacher–student relationship and with year in school. In the spring semester, similar results occurred, with academic focus aligning most strongly with relevancy of schoolwork. Social focus only related with peer support for learning in the spring semester. These findings suggest that students focusing on the social aspects of school are feeling more peer support for learning, but little relevancy of schoolwork. Students’ academic focus relates with school engagement, but most strongly with their teacher–student relationship and relevancy of schoolwork.

Multigroup path analyses suggested no model differences between genders, χ²_diff = 29.28, Δdf = 22, p > .05. There was a significant model difference between the two high schools, χ²_diff = 40.71, Δdf = 22, p = .01. One parameter significantly differed between the high schools: fall academic focus to relevance of schoolwork. The first high school’s path coefficient was smaller than the other high school’s coefficient (β’s = .43, .71, respectively), but both path coefficients were positive and significant at p < .001. The final model fit the data, χ²(73, N = 212) = 128.00, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .06

Focus in School and Achievement Goals

We next examined how students’ focus in school might correspond with their achievement goals. Results of the path analysis suggested good model fit, χ²(25, N = 212) = 63.14, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .09. Findings for all pathways are presented in Figure 2. As in the previous model, all fall scores significantly related with their spring semester equivalents and academic and social focus in school were not related with each other.

Figure 2.

Path analysis of focus in school and achievement goals.

There are some marked similarities and differences in how focus in school related with achievement goals between fall and spring semesters. In both the fall and spring, academic focus in school aligned with mastery-approach goals, but this was the only consistent relationship between semesters. For instance, in the fall, social focus related with both performance-approach and performance-avoid goals, whereas these relationships did not appear in the spring. For academic focus, there were no relationships with either performance goal, but small relationships appeared in the spring.

Multigroup path analyses suggested no model differences between boys and girls, χ²_diff = 26.46, Δdf = 22, p > .05. We also tested for potential model differences between the high schools. The multigroup path analysis did not suggest any significant differences between the high schools, χ²_diff = 28.37, Δdf = 19, p > .05.

Focus in School and Future Selves

The final path analyses tested whether students’ focus in school might correspond with their perceived future academic and social success in the future (Figure 3). Path analysis results suggested a strong model fit, χ²(14, N = 212) = 14.72, p = .40, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .02. As with the previous two path analysis models, all students’ fall scores significantly related with their corresponding spring scores as well as academic and social focus being uncorrelated.

Figure 3.

Path analysis of focus in school and future selves.

In both the fall and spring semesters, academic focus in school corresponded with academic future self, but not social future self. In contrast, social focus in school related with both academic and social future self. These findings were consistent across both the fall and spring semesters. It should be noted that the coefficients between students’ social focus in school and social future selves were approximately twice as large as the coefficients between social focus and academic future selves. In addition, fall semester social future self related with spring social focus in school, though a similar relationship was not present for fall academic future self and spring academic focus.

Multigroup path analyses suggested no model differences between genders, χ²_diff = 20.72, Δdf = 18, p > .05. Differences existed between high schools’ models, χ²_diff = 32.07, Δdf = 18, p = .02. Academic future self (fall semester) related with academic future self (spring semester), and was the lone differing parameter between high schools. This path’s coefficients were smaller for the first high school than the second high school (β’s = .49, .69, respectively). Both path coefficients were positive and significant at p < .001. The final model fit the data well, χ²(42, N = 212) = 49.13, p = .21, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .03.

We tested other potential models using students’ focus in school and possible future selves. For example, we tested whether fall semester academic future self related with spring social focus, and fall social future self aligned with spring academic focus. Another model investigated whether fall academic future self related with spring social future self, and fall social self related with spring academic future self. In both of these models, model fit was poor and proposed pathways were not statistically significant. Hence, the current study’s findings suggest that students’ academic focus relates with academic future self and social focus relates with social future self, but only social future self relates with later social focus toward school.

Discussion

The current study explored the academic and social focus among students in two urban high schools. The study expanded upon existing research on students’ academic and social focus by testing students’ foci toward school with three scholastically relevant psychological factors (school engagement, achievement goals, and future possible selves). In the study, we hypothesized that students’ academic focus would relate with more academic engagement, mastery-approach goals, and perceiving oneself as academically successful in the future. We also hypothesized that students’ social focus would align with lower academic engagement, performance goals, and perceived future social self.

Study results partially supported our hypotheses. Academic focus corresponded with greater teacher–student relationships, relevancy of schoolwork, mastery goals, and academic future self. Social focus toward school aligned with greater peer support for learning, performance goals, and perceived future social self. In contrast to our hypotheses, peer support for learning did not relate with students’ focus in school. Rather, peer support for learning was higher among those students with a social focus toward school. These findings provide further support that how students attune to the social or academic aspects of school can have scholastic ramifications.

School Focus and School Engagement

Across the school year, students’ academic focus in school consistently related with greater school engagement in both the fall and spring semesters. Academically centered focus corresponded with greater teacher–student relationships and higher perceived relevancy of schoolwork. These findings provide further credence to previous research showing that academically focused students hold scholastically beneficial attitudes, such as enhanced school engagement (Betts et al., 2010). Students who believe school is a place to learn should have stronger relationships with their teachers as well as believe schoolwork will enable future academic success.

Students’ social focus related positively with peer support for learning in the fall and spring semesters. Evidence suggested little relationship between students’ social focus in school and their connection with teachers or perceived relevancy of schoolwork. That is, socially focused students invest more time with their peer relationships in school than with their teachers or schoolwork. This aligns with social cognitive theory as well (Bandura, 1986). Social cognitive theory suggests that students’ social focus is likely an outcome of their own values, past experiences, beliefs, and interactions with environmental factors (i.e., peer relationships). Students focusing on the social aspects of school may not value their schoolwork, but might rather seek out classmate interactions. Therefore, socially focused students are at danger for less school engagement.

The role of school foci and school engagement are particularly important for students in urban high schools. Although friends can help students’ engagement, focusing on the social aspects of school may correspond with less than optimal school engagement. Instead, students in urban high schools would have greater academic achievement by having an academic focus toward school, which corresponds to greater school engagement (Fredricks et al., 2004; Skinner & Belmont, 1993), and having friends who help encourage greater school engagement.

School Focus and Achievement Goals

In the fall and spring semesters, academic focus corresponded with mastery-approach goals, whereas social focus in school related with both performance-approach and performance-avoid goals. The relationship changed from fall to spring in how social focus in school corresponded with performance-approach and performance-avoid goals. It may be possible that students’ academic focus leads to multiple achievement goal adoption across the school year. Results might also suggest that students expand the number of achievement goals in relation to how much they value learning, such that students who focus on learning begin to adopt multiple achievement goals over time. The opposite process occurred with students’ social focus toward school. Results suggested that students with more of a social focus had fewer associations with achievement goals in the spring than the fall semester. A social focus may lead to fewer achievement goals as students focus away from learning and toward the social facets of schooling.

Results were more consistent that academic focus in school would align with more mastery-approach goals in math. This finding may particularly impact students in urban schools. Students in urban settings have greater academic success when adopting mastery-approach goals (Kaplan & Maehr, 1999; Shim et al., 2008). Results of the current study suggest that mastery-approach goals may develop by partially orienting students toward the academic aspects of schooling. In turn, mastery-approach goals could then enhance the students’ academic achievement (Ames, 1992; Huang, 2011, 2012). Students in urban schools might garner more optimal academic motivation and better achievement by having a more academic focus toward school.

School Focus and Possible Selves

Previous work found that students’ perceived future self often relates with achievement and academic motivation (e.g., Anderman et al., 1999). In the current study, results suggested that future selves related with current school focus. Specifically, students’ academic focus aligned with greater academic future self. These results occurred in both the fall and spring semester.

The model also tested whether students’ future self aligned with later focus in school. Results suggest only future social self aligned with later social focus; however, social focus related with academic future self in both the fall and spring semesters. Hence, students’ focus in school may be a particularly strong aspect of how students perceive their future selves. This may be supported as adolescence is a time where social relationships are highly valued (Brown, 2004). Hence, adolescents in urban high schools are often particularly attuned to social relationships.

Additional Contextual Factors

Several contextual factors can alter students’ scholastic performance, such as differences between schools, age, and gender (Eccles, 2009; Rose & Rudolph, 2006). The current study examined these factors, but found little support for their presence within the models. Study results suggested little differences between schools. Differences that did exist were merely the degree of a relationship between variables, and not the significance of the pathways. These results likely occurred as both schools were in the same school district with similar student populations.

Other interpersonal and intrapersonal factors had similarly little relationship with the models’ results, such as students’ gender and age. The current study did not find any model difference between genders, though gender can alter social relationships and academic experiences (Eccles, 2009; Rose & Rudolph, 2006). These results may be due to the fact that gender differences are not always consistent across academic and social experiences (Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Age corresponded with one variable within the model. Results suggested that older students had lower social focus toward school. This aligns with other work suggesting age differences in school (Lepper et al., 2005), though this was not a particularly large coefficient. It may be that older high school students become less socially focused as they near graduation and begin thinking about a career, or that more socially focused students withdraw from school as they age. More longitudinal studies are needed to further clarify these potential rationales.

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study expands extant research by examining how urban adolescent students’ focus in school relates with their school engagement, achievement goals, and future selves. The study has several limitations that additional work can address in future research. Foremost, the study could not gain access to the school district’s reports on students’ current and past academic achievement as the school district chose not to disclose this information. The study cannot, therefore, comment on how students’ social and academic focus pertains to their classroom grades or standardized test scores. Instead, results offer a deeper understanding for how students’ foci in school align with aspects of students’ academic motivation, school engagement, and future selves. Additional work could examine how students’ achievement might mediate or in other ways affect the relationship between students’ school focus and their engagement, achievement goals, and future possible selves.

Further research should also examine achievement goals across multiple academic domains because achievement goals vary by academic disciplines (e.g., Ames, 1992). The study’s use of math helps potentially generalize results as students learn math across grade levels, school districts, and around the world. Still, using a single domain limits generalizability. An open question remains whether certain domains align differentially with students’ foci in school, which future research could examine for replicability across content areas.

Teacher and classroom-level factors likely affected the study’s motivational and school engagement variables. The current study was unable to examine the nested nature of these effects. The study could not test for nested data as the number of math teachers did not meet suggested guidelines for conducting multilevel analyses (Maas & Hox, 2005). Furthermore, a latent factor structural equation modeling (SEM) approach might be preferable to a path analytic approach. We ran SEMs, but found path analyses had slightly better model fit. This may be due to the underlying structure of the academic and social foci instruments. Future research should examine whether the scales could be further improved.

Additional and more diverse populations would corroborate and expand the study’s results. The study’s participants were predominately Black, which could be a factor not fully examined in the study. We did not examine differences by ethnicity due to the small number of non-Black study participants. The unequal sample sizes among ethnicities decreased the statistical capability to detect potential differences among ethnic groups. Instead, the study’s results should be understood within the context of predominately Black and low socioeconomic high schools. Future research could explain whether the unique ethnic experiences may alter how students’ focus toward school affects their self-beliefs. These further analyses might offer greater understanding for how students of all ethnicities become successful at school.

Application

The current study provides evidence that academic focus aligns with factors aiding academic success. Teachers and parents can use these findings to help reorient students having a social focus. Reorientation can happen by using situational interest to develop students’ intrinsic motivation (Schraw, Flowerday, & Lehman, 2001). Situational interest includes educational practices that “hook” students on a school lesson, which sometimes leads students to develop a purpose or enjoyment of learning. Another way to change focus includes parents and teachers emphasizing the importance and enjoyment of studying and learning each day. Consistently highlighting the gratification of learning could help students adopt a more academic focus. In turn, the academic focus can improve school engagement, achievement goals, and possible selves.

Footnotes

Appendix

Items for Academic or Social Approach to School Measure.

Academic focus items

I think school is great because I like learning.

Coming to school, I’m excited about something I might learn today.

My favorite part of school is learning something new.

The worst part of school is being in class. (Reverse coded)

Social focus items

Coming to school, I’m excited about seeing my friends.

My favorite part of school is hanging out with friends.

The worst part of school is seeing my friends. (Reverse coded)

I think school is great because of extracurricular activities (e.g., sports, band, and school clubs).

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Katherine Wright for data collection and entry. The authors greatly appreciate the help and hard work of the studies’ participants, teachers, and school representatives.

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: Funding for this research came from an anonymous gift to the University of Memphis Foundation.

Author Biographies

Martin H. Jones, PhD, is an assistant professor of Educational Psychology focusing on how peers affect academic motivation and academic achievement, especially among under represented youth. Dr. Jones leads the SMAART research lab at the University of New Mexico.

Christian E. Mueller, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Research at the University of Memphis. Dr. Mueller’s work is on the motivational, psychological, and social processes that help students transform educational potential to achievement, particularly for gifted youth.

Krystal L. McCutchen is a PhD candidate at the University of New Mexico in the Educational Psychology program. Her research focuses on motivation related to college-level students. She centers on the self-regulation factors and mindsets of professional doctoral students.

References

Ames

(1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Anderman

E. M.

Anderman

L. H.

Griesinger

(1999). The relation of present and possible academic selves during early adolescence to grade point average and achievement goals. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 3-17.

Appleton

Christenson

Kim

Reschly

(2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427-445.

Attewell

Heil

Reisel

(2011). Competing explanation of undergraduate noncompletion. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 536-559.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Betts

J. E.

Appleton

J. J.

Reschly

A. L.

Christenson

S. L.

Huebner

E. S.

(2010). A study of the factorial invariance of the student engagement instrument (SEI): Results from middle and high school students. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 84-93.

Brown

(2004). Adolescents’ relationships with peers. In Lehrer

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 363-394). New York, NY: Wiley.

Eccles

(2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44, 78-89.

Elliot

A. J.

(1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.

10.

Elliot

A. J.

McGregor

H. A.

(2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.

11.

Estell

D. B.

Perdue

N. H.

(2013). Social support and behavioral and affective school engagement: The effects of peers, parents, and teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 325-339.

12.

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.

13.

Grund

Brassler

N. K.

Fries

(2014). Torn between study and leisure: How motivational conflicts related to students’ academic and social adaption. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 242-257.

14.

Hoyle

R. H.

Sherrill

M. R.

(2006). Future orientation in the self-system: Possible selves, self-regulation, and behavior. Journal of Personality, 74, 1673-1696.

15.

Huang

(2011). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology, 23, 359-388.

16.

Huang

(2012). Discriminant and criterion-related validity of achievement goals in predicting academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 48-73.

17.

Hughes

Kwok

(2007). Influence of student-teacher and parent-teacher relationships on lower achievement readers’ engagement and achievement in the primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 39-51.

18.

Jones

M. H.

Audley-Piotrowski

S. R.

Kiefer

S. M.

(2012). Relationships among adolescents’ perceptions of friends’ behaviors, academic self-concept, and math performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 19-31.

19.

Kaplan

Maehr

M. L.

(1999). Enhancing the motivation of African American students: An achievement goal theory perspective. The Journal of Negro Education, 68, 23-41.

20.

Lepper

M. R.

Corpus

J. H.

Iyengar

S. S.

(2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 184-196.

21.

Maas

C. J. M.

Hox

J. J.

(2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1, 86-92.

22.

Markus

Nurius

(1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.

23.

McGregor

H. A.

Elliot

A. J.

(2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 381-395.

24.

Midgley

Kaplan

Middleton

Maehr

M. L.

Urdan

Anderman

L. H.

. . . Roeser

(1996). The development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 113-131.

25.

Midgley

Maehr

M. L.

Hruda

L. Z.

Anderman

Freeman

K. E.

. . . Urdan

(2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

26.

Miller

S. R.

(1998). Shortcut: High school grades as a signal of human capital. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 299-311.

27.

Oyserman

Bybee

Terry

(2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 188-204.

28.

Oyserman

Fryberg

(2006). The possible selves of diverse adolescents: Content and function across gender. Race and national origin. In Dunkel

Kerpelman

(Eds.), Possible selves: Theory, research and applications (pp. 17-39). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

29.

Oyserman

Markus

H. R.

(1990). Possible selves and delinquency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 112-125.

30.

Pintrich

P. R.

(2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92-104.

31.

Rose

A. J.

Rudolph

K. D.

(2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of females and males. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98-131.

32.

Ryan

A. M.

(2000). Peer groups as a context for the socialization of adolescents’ motivation, engagement, and achievement in school. Educational Psychologist, 35, 101-111.

33.

Ryan

A. M.

Shim

S. S.

(2008). An exploration of young adolescents’ social achievement goals and social adjustment in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 672-687.

34.

Schraw

Flowerday

Lehman

(2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 211-224.

35.

Senko

Hulleman

C. S.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(2011). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46, 26-47.

36.

Shim

S. S.

Ryan

A. M.

Anderson

C. J.

(2008). Achievement goals and achievement during adolescence: Examining time-varying predictor and outcome variables in growth-curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 655-671.

37.

Skinner

E. A.

Belmont

M. J.

(1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.

38.

Véronneau

Dishion

T. J.

(2011). Middle school friendships and academic achievement in early adolescence: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31, 99-124.

39.

Wang

Willett

J. B.

Eccles

J. S.

(2011). The assessment of school engagement: Examining dimensionality and measurement invariance by gender and race/ethnicity. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 465-480.

40.

Wentzel

K. R.

Barry

C. M.

Caldwell

K. A.

(2004). Friendships in middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 195-203.

41.

Wentzel

K. R.

Wigfield

(1998). Academic and social motivational influences on students’ academic performance. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 155-175.