Management of Legal and Ethical Issues

bundet

Promotion of a Safe and Respectful School Climate Given numerous acts of school violence and fed- eral mandates for safe and drug-free schools, profes- sional school counselors must promote a safe and respectful school climate. Bullying is the most com- mon form of school violence. Sexual harassment is another major concern of the majority of students. According to Carolyn Stone and Carol Dahir, risk fac- tors for this type of violent behavior include alien- ation, depression and anxiety, destructive behavior, gang involvement, bias and prejudice, and use of drugs. In order to address this, professional school counselors provide guidance lessons on respect and bully prevention, train teachers to be sensitive to alienated and troubled students, ask all stakeholders to contribute to a respectful environment, and build positive relationships with students who are victims and perpetrators. In addition, the U.S. Department of Education stated that positive school climates can be created by (a) building a solid foundation for all chil- dren, (b) identifying and providing intensive interven- tions for at-risk students, © involving community members and agencies in creating a safe school environment, and (d) integrating character educa- tion across the content area. Professional school counselors are leaders in convening stakeholders in developing a schoolwide anti-bullying policy that includes clear deﬁnitions and disciplinary actions. This policy should be frequently communicated to students, parents, teachers, and administrators. Both teachers and parents should be trained in early warn- ing signs and involved in school violence prevention programs. Accountability Rather than asking, ‘‘What do school counselors do?’’ the more important question is, ‘‘How are stu- dents different because of what school counselors do?’’ To answer this question, professional school counselors highlight the success of their school coun- seling program through result-based accountability. For example, professional school counselors may report that as a result of their anti-bullying program, 90 % of the student population can recite the school anti-bullying policy, and as a result of their peer mediation program, 30 % more students used peer mediators to resolve conﬂicts. Professional school counselors also use critical data elements, such as attendance rates, discipline referrals, graduation rates, and standardized test scores, to demonstrate the effec- tiveness of their programs. Stone and Dahir recom- mended that professional school counselors use the following six-step accountability process: 1. Connect the school counseling program with the school’s mission and improvement plan. 2. Identify and examine critical elements of available data to the school’s mission. 3. Analyze critical data elements to establish baseline and set goals. 4. Involve stakeholders in deﬁning target results and strategies to improve the data. 5. Reanalyze the data to see if target goals were met and to reassess strategies. 6. Educate internal and external stakeholders by dis- seminating the data. Management of Legal and Ethical Issues Professional school couns elors must manage numer- ous legal and ethical issues. Laws dictate minimum standards of behavior tol erated by society, whereas ethical standards, establis hed by the ASCA, represent ideal aspirations of counse lors. Frequently, laws and ethical codes contradict each other. For example, pro- fessional school counselors a re required by state law to report child abuse to designa ted authorities. This law supersedes the ethical standard of maintaining conﬁ- dentiality (i.e., respecting clients’ right to privacy). In this example, professional school counselors balance adherence to laws and ethics by providing students with informed consent (i.e., ensuring that students understand the legal limits of conﬁdentiality before counseling begins). Other pertinent legal codes that professional school counselors must follow are (a) Public Law (P.L.) 94–142, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, which ensures the free, appropriate pub- lic education of all children in the least restrictive environment; (b) Title IX of the Education Amend- ment Acts of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender; © Title II of the Education Amendment Acts of 1976, which ensures equal access to vocational education to both men and women; (d) P.L. 93–380, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (Buckley Amendment), which gives parents and students access to their entire School Counseling 871 educational record; and (e) the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which states that all students will reach highstandardsofproﬁciencyorbetterinreading/ language arts and mathematics and will be taught by highly qualiﬁed teachers. Professional school counse- lors must also be familiar with state laws regarding issues such as privileged communication, HIV report- ing, parental consent for abortions, and so on. The ASCA has established ethical standards for pro- fessional school counselors (available at http://www .schoolcounselor.org) that address issues such as conﬁ- dentiality, dual relationships, student records, parent rights, professional relationships, and so on. Common ethical dilemmas that professional school counselors encounter are (a) maintaini ng students’ conﬁdential- ity while respecting parents’ rights for information, (b) stressing the importance of conﬁdentiality to stu- dents in group counseling but informing them it cannot be guaranteed, © following the duty to warn or protect when others report that a student made suicidal or homicidal ideations, (d) responding to a student’s request to get an abortion when she states that her par- ents are against it, and (e) intervening when a student alleges sexual harassment or racial discrimination by a teacher who states that it did not happen. In order to resolve such ethical dilemmas, profes- sional school counselors use an ethical decision- making model that typically includes the following steps: 1. Identify the problem by gathering information and examining facts. 2. Consider state law, the ASCA Code of Ethics, stan- dard of practice, school district policy, and the best interests of the client. 3. Determine the nature and dimensions of the prob- lem in light of moral principles of autonomy, beneﬁcence (doing good), nonmaleﬁcence (doing no harm), justice, and loyalty. 4. Generate a potential course of action. 5. Consider the consequences of all options. 6. Evaluate the selected course of action and seek consultation. 7. Implement the course of action. Professional Development Because professional school counselors are entrusted with a demanding role and numerous responsibilities, they must renew themselves through professional devel- opment and personal wellness. They regularly partici- pate in professional development activities such as joining professional organizations (e.g., the American School Counseling Association and the American Counseling Association), rea ding professional journals (e.g., Professional School Counseling or Journal of Counseling and Development ), attending state and national conferences, obtai ning advanced training via workshops or graduate courses, and seeking supervision from a seasoned school counselor. Professional school counselors also promote their personal wellness by nur- turing family relationships, taking vacations to rest and relax, developing friendshi ps with positive colleagues, exercising regularly and eating healthy, engaging in spiritual rituals such as prayer or meditation, and read- ing for fun. Professional school counselors fulﬁll a crucial role in promoting students’ academic, personal/social, and career achievement. They possess positive attitudes, knowledge, and skills to provide developmental guid- ance lessons, counseling, consultation, coordination, leadership, advocacy, and accountability. School coun- seling is an exciting, demanding, and fulﬁlling pro- fession for energetic, compassionate, and organized professionals who desire to have a positive impact on students, school personnel, and the community. Jennifer Baggerly See also Eating Disorders; Gifted and Talented Students; Individual Differences; Personality Tests Further Readings American School Counseling Association. (2003). American School Counseling Association National Model: A framework for school counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved September 12, 2007 from http://www .schoolcounselor.org Baker, S. B., & Gerler, E. R. (2004). School counseling for the twenty-ﬁrst century (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Gladding, S. T. (2004). Counseling: A comprehensive profession (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Herr, E. L., Cramer, S. H., & Niles, S. G. (2003). Career guidance and counseling through the lifespan (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Stone, C. B., & Dahir, C. A. (2006). The transformed school counselor. Boston: Lahaska. 872 School Counseling Stone, C. B., & Dahir, C. A. (2007). School counselor accountability: A measure of student success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. S CHOOL D ESIGN School facilities—the physical settings that contain and support teaching and learning—play an important and underappreciated role in providing effective con- ditions for learning. National and international reports on the current state of the physical infrastructure of schools make it clear that the deteriorating quality of the physical environment is affecting the quality of educational delivery. Because of their age, now well over an average of 42 years, school buildings do not always contain what is now considered the essential components for a good learning environment. There is arguably an ample body of evidence that school environments inﬂuence a number of student behaviors and attitudes that inﬂuence educational outcomes. Although there is some skepticism about the rela- tionship between building condition and educational outcomes, recent studies have found signiﬁcant correlations between building condition and academic achievement. Systemic, schoolwide educational reforms place urgent demands on school buildings originally designed for an industrial-age disciplinary mass institu- tion. Other factors include the needs of a growing ethnic diversity of the student body, ever-present overcrowd- ing, community education, and information and commu- nications technology. The 1960s witnessed one of the most dramatic educational reform moveme nts in U.S. history with the experimentation of open education, community education, middle schools, and alternative and magnet schools, with innovations in school design led by the Educational Facilities Laboratory, or EFL. One of EFL’s most inﬂuential innovations was the develop- ment of the open plan school design, a concept that inﬂuenced the design of thousands of schools from the late 1950s through the early 1970s. Schools were planned with large, open, ﬂexible spaces adaptable to team teaching and small gr oup and individualized instruction that charact erized open education. Open education, it was argued, provided more educational opportunities for children, provided freedom and auton- omy for self-directed stu dy, required less guidance by the teacher, and helped foster self-responsibility. Almost immediately, however , teachers complained of noise and visual distractions in these open plan schools. Hundreds of educational research studies were per- formed to determine the validity of open plan schools with inconclusive and controve rsialresults.Thisperiod marks the most extensive empirical research conducted on educational environments and as such is a starting point for understanding the role of physical environ- ments, good or bad, on teaching and learning. The middle school concept, ﬁrst conceived of in the 1960s, was a philosophy that challenged the junior high school model and advocated for the developmen- tal needs of young adolescents—a balance of child- centered, supportive instruction of the elementary school with the subject-oriented teacher specialization of the high school. Middle school teachers formed a small interdisciplinary team that comprised a family of between 100 and 120 students. Gaining popularity in the 1980s and 1990s, the middle school concept spawned a whole new generation of school design that attempted to group students in ‘‘families’’ con- tained in ‘‘pods’’ or ‘‘houses.’’ Pod plans were ﬁrst developed in the 1960s, whereas the house plan has amorerecenthistory,beingmostfullydevelopedin the late 1980s. House plans, it is argued, foster a sense of community for academics while providing larger common spaces such as libraries; media centers; administrative functions; and gymnasia and special programs such as art, music, computer instruction, and language arts. The house may include anywhere from four to eight self-contained classrooms oriented toward a centralized resource center and supported with a specialized classroom, teacher ofﬁces, small seminar rooms, and other support spaces. Currently, the house plan concept is being applied to secondary environments as well, as a response to advances in self-directed learning, interdisciplinary instruction, and the desire to form smaller learning communities in very large high schools. The residential metaphor of the house has been extended to include the ‘‘neigh- borhoods’’ and ‘‘main streets’’ in high school design, thereby extending the notion of a community of learners. School designs continue to respond to changes in education. Some innovations in school design, such as self-directed learning environments, are just now ﬁnd- ing acceptance in education. Other innovations, such as wireless computing, are completely unprecedented and, in many ways, are driving a new set of changes. The characteristics of a new 21st- century school facility are School Design 873 starting to emerge as a school that intentionally sup- ports academic achievement, is personalized to the needs of the learner, is designed for multiple intelli- gences of learners, authentically engages the commu- nity, is ﬂexible to adapt to multiple pedagogies, is sustainable and high perf ormance, acts as a three- dimensional textbook, supports outdoor learning, is technology-rich on site and at a distance, and is contin- uously monitored through evaluation. Several of the emerging and interconnected themes in school design that are covered here include the advent of school designs for smaller learning communities, collaborative learner-centered environments, the role of community partnerships and joint-use agreements in school plan- ning, the impact of technology on school design, and a trend toward high-performance schools. There is an intense interest and rapid growth in the creation of smaller school environments in the United States, either by building smaller school buildings or by restructuring larger school buildings into a number of schools-within-a-school. The literature on the effect s of school size on a vari- ety of school outcomes indicates that participation in school activities, extracurricular activities, student satisfaction, number of classes taken, and community employment have all been found to be greater in small schools relative to large schools. Smaller schools may have a positive inﬂuence on achievement, school climate, and student connectedness, thereby reducing disciplinary problems, incidents of vandalism, truancy, drug use, and drop out rates. Deﬁning what con- stitutes the optimal organiza tional size and structure for schools-within-a-school is still an open question. School size research most often refers to the size of the student body, with large being deﬁned as anywhere from 1,000 to 2,000 or more students in secondary schools, and small being considered anywhere from 100 to 600 students in elementary and even secondary settings. The school design that emerged out of the middle school movement, the house plan (e.g., putting a small family of 100–120 students and their teachers into groupings of classrooms), serves as the core model for what is now called the ‘‘neighborhood’’ plan for the learning ‘‘community.’’ The goal is the same, to break down the scale of the school or ganization into manage- able groups of learners to create a natural sense of belonging, connectedness , and caring. An important characteristic of schools-within-a-school is that each school has a distinct administrative entity. Several models that are emerging i nclude vertical houses, ninth-grade houses, and sp ecial curriculum houses. The vertical house plan assigns several hundred students and their teachers, grades 9–12, to a single house. The ninth-grade house plan provides an environment for ninthgraderstoeasethetransitionintohighschool. The special curriculum house plan organizes students into houses based on special interests or needs. Another educational trend to which school designers are beginning to respond i s classroom environments that emphasize active, self-directed, project-based, collaborative, or cooperative learning strategies over traditional, lecture-oriented, discipline-focused, teacher- centered instruction. Coll aborative learning is a peda- gogy that prepares learners for the changing learning expectations in the real worl d through an active learning process that teaches thinking critically, solving pro- blems, working in teams, negotiating, reaching consen- sus, using technology, and taking responsibility for one’s own learning. Self-dir ected learning, or the pro- cess of learning on one’s own, has long been seen as a natural and primary mode of adult learning in which personal growth is the primary goal. Growth outlines the stages of the student–teacher relationship leading to self-directed learning: from dependence on the authority of the teacher; to interest, with the teacher as motivator; to involvement, with the teacher as facilitator; to fully self-directed, with the teach er as consultant or delegator. Public school educators who espouse self-directed learning tend to use teaching tools such as individual- ized, or personalized, lear ning plans; contracts; and advisories to frame either i ndividual learning method. School planners and archi tects have developed a variety of school designs that support personalized, self-directed learning. Wo lff identiﬁes a number of design features that may support learning in groups, including variable-sized spaces that are easy to change to support several learning activities within the same space and to encourage integration of courses and programs; individual work s paces that can be personal- ized, thus providing a sense of ownership and responsi- bility for one’s own learning; and faculty team spaces with adjacent material preparation areas and meeting space that encourages team teaching, mentoring of faculty, and collaboration. Functional spaces could include presentation spaces for individuals and teams to demonstrate their learning and share knowledge acquired within the larger learning community; class- room spaces for direct instruction of concepts, content, and skills; process galleries or studios that allow for the display of ongoing projects to showcase concept 874 School Design development; project space that provides a variety of work surfaces, storage space, and access to technology to encourage critical thinking, problem solving, and teamwork; a home base for the gathering of learners and faculty to seek assistance and resources or hold group discussions; informa l, nonclassroom learning spaces such as study spaces, lounges, and outdoor spaces to provide areas for socializing and serendipi- tous meetings that can foster creative thought and solu- tions to problems; and a collaboration incubator or idea generation space to support c reativity, teamwork, and prototyping of concepts, activ ities that can also encour- age the involvement of local employers in the develop- ment of projects. Another trend, that of high-performance schools (e.g., green, or sustainable), aims to support students and teachers to perform at their highest potential by being comfortable, healthy, safe, environmentally sound, and economically operational. The concept of the high-performance school integrates the environmen- tal sustainability and build ing performance movements, which are concerned ultimately with the sustainability of the human species and the impact of our species on the planet. Ninety percent of our lives are spent indoors, with students and teachers spending more than 2,000 hours a year in school buildings alone. Designing high-performance buildings can have a direct inﬂuence on learning through designing and maintaining a healthy and safe indoor environment, providing acoustical comfort, optimizing natural light, sharing community resources, and using the school building as a learning tool. Children are the most vulnerable population with regard to the quality of the indoor environment because of their physical and cognitive developmental needs. Problems with indoor air quality and ventilation in con- cert with temperature and humidity can have profound effects on student and teacher physiology and psychol- ogy. Poor indoor air quality has been associated with the rise of a variety of pollutants, mold growth, and chemicals that can spread disease and result in a worst- case scenario of sick building syndrome. Increases in carbon dioxide simply from human respiration as well as other contaminants, if not ventilated, can cause sleepiness, increased mental fatigue, and decreased alertness, leading to a lack of concentration and focus on learning. According to the American Lung Associa- tion, more than 4.8 million school-aged children suffer from asthma in the United Sta tes. Prolonged exposure to these contaminants in a poorly ventilated building may lead to allergies, headaches, dizziness, and asthma, resulting in increased absenteeism. It is esti- mated that students are absent nearly 10 million school days/year due to illness caused by indoor environmen- tal quality problems in schools. Providing proper venti- lation, by designing increased ventilation rates as well as providing operable windows in every space, alone may improve many of the health concerns as well as performance and teacher retention concerns in many schools. Acoustics are well known to inﬂuence student performance. Children who are still developing their speech perception have a more difﬁcult time hearing than do adults, with nearly 20 % of children experienc- ing hearing loss. Heating, ventilation, and air condi- tioning equipment is known to be one of the biggest contributors of noise pollution in buildings. Excessive noise both inside (other students, other classrooms, hallways, and equipment) and outside (street noise) the classroom can cause stress in students, as measured by increased blood pressure, creating the inability to con- centrate on cognitive tasks. The cumulative effect of excessive noise can result in decreased achievement on reading and other tests, as well as increased issues with behavior, attention, and concentration. Recommenda- tions of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers as well as the Acousti- cal Society of America, Working Group on Classroom Acoustics,suggestnomorethan35decibels(dB)back- ground noise and 0.6–0.7 reverberation times with the teacher voice at 50–65 dB means a target signal to noise ratio of at least 15dB. It is well known scientiﬁcally that natural light can have positive psychological and physiological effects on humans. Natural daylight stimulates hormones that regulate various body systems and mood. Brighter, continuous-spectrum light within a building can increase visibility, enhance alertness, reduce eyestrain, and improve mood. These physiological and psychology effects have been found to lead to better performance in a few recent studies. A very small investment in ﬁrst costs of building can have an enormous impact on the cost of running an organization by decreasing absenteeism due to various building-related sicknesses that may lead to better student and teacher health, satisfaction, teacher retention, and student performance. Jeffrey A. Lackney See also Charter Schools; Learning Style School Design 875 Further Readings Bingler, S., & Quinn, L. (2000, April). Schools as centers of community: A citizen’s guide for planning and design. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Brubaker, C. W. (2002). Planning and designing schools. New York: McGraw-Hill. Duke, D., & Trautvetter, S. (2001). Reducing the negative effects of large schools. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse on Educational Facilities. Evans, G. W., Kliewer, W., & Martin, J. (1991). The role of the physical environment in the health and well-being of children. In H. E. Schroeder (Ed.), New directions in health psychology assessment (pp. 127–157). New York: Hemisphere. Lackney, J. A. (2002, May). Thirty-three educational design principles for schools and community learning centers. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Nathan, J., & Febey, K. (2001). Smaller, safer, saner, successful schools. Minneapolis: Center for School Change, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota. Sanoff, H. (2002). Schools designed with community participation. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Schneider, M. (2002, November). Do school facilities affect academic outcomes? Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Schneider, T., Walker, H., & Sprague, J. (2000). Safe school design: A handbook for educational leaders. University of Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Tanner, K., & Lackney, J. (2006). Educational architecture: Planning, designing, constructing, and managing environments for learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. S CHOOL R EADINESS School readiness can best be deﬁned as a psychological state in which the child is prepared for or ready to engage in and beneﬁt from the formal and informal learning experiences, both academic and social, that organized education provides. Determining exactly what this preparedness enta ils, the extent to which it is active or passive, and where speciﬁcally it originates, however, introduces considerable complexity into the deﬁnition of readiness. For some, readiness is a function of the school environment and expectations, academic and otherwise, that schools have for children as they begin formal elementary educ ation. For others, school readiness is determined by c hildren’s social skills and ability to interact in appropriate and meaningful ways with peers and teachers in the school environment. For yet others, school readiness is dependent on children’s knowledge, including verbal ability, letter and number knowledge, and other aspect s of acquired information important for learning in school. And for yet others again, school readiness is deﬁned primarily in terms of children’s cognitive and emoti onal self-regulation abili- ties; the ability to focus attention, to take turns, and to regulate behavior in various ways. Each of these perspectives on readiness has merit and has been validated to some extent in studies of children’s progress in school. Studies examining school expectations indicate that when enrolled in schools that implement strategies to introduce children and families to schooling prior to school entry, children achieve at higher levels and are better adjusted to school than are comparable children in schools without transition prac- tices. Similarly, studies of social skills as aspects of readiness have indicated relations between children’s social competence, friendshi p quality, relationships with peers and teachers, and children’s academic progress and social-emotio nal adjustment to school. As well, studies of cognitive abilities such as general intelligence, knowledge of letters and numbers, and language comprehension and production indicate asso- ciations between these aspect s of cognition, particularly language development, and academic achievement in the early elementary grades. And studies of cognitive and emotional self-regulatio n skills, including aspects of temperament, attention, and emotion regulation, have shown that children who are better regulated both prior to and following school entry achieve academi- cally at higher levels and are perceived by parents and teachers to be well adjusted to school. Given evidence in favor of multiple perspectives on school readiness, the construct is best understood as a complex developmental phenomenon, the product of multiple interacting systems or levels of inﬂuence. Within the systems approach to complex phenomena, characteristics of the child that predispose to high or low levels of attributes important for school readiness, such as basic knowledge or cognitive and social- emotional competence and self-regulation abilities, are the product of interacting genetic, physiological, and family variables that in turn inﬂuence and are inﬂuenced by characteristics of the early school envi- ronment and children’s experiences in that environ- ment. Accordingly, readiness is an emergent process 876 School Readiness that must be uniquely considered for each individual child, rather than as an abstract standard or level of attainment that is universally applicable to all children. Although the systems view provides an accurate conceptual depiction of the nature of school readiness, the complexity of the approach limits its applicability to speciﬁc efforts to promote school readiness among children at risk for early school failure. The promo- tion of readiness is essential if children are to beneﬁt from a free and universal public education. At the turn of the 21st century, however, more than one half of a representative sample of U.S. kindergarten teachers reported substantial concerns about the readiness of their students. Furthermore, in a similar survey, tea- chers reported that they believed the primary obstacle to children’s progress in kindergarten and the early elementary grades to be difﬁculty with paying atten- tion, following directions, taking turns, and becoming meaningfully engaged in learning activities. The emphasis in readiness that teachers voice reﬂects a concern with the psychological processes by which children are engaged in and motivated by learning experiences. The emphasis concerns the maintenance of an optimal level of arousal through which children are able to appropriately sustain and shift attention, to regulate both positive and negative emotions, and to engage in meaningful interpersonal interactions with teachers and fellow students. Signiﬁ- cantly, it should be noted that a focus on motivation and engagement in readiness assumes that experiences in the classroom are motivating and engaging. Meet- ing this assumption, the priority of all early elemen- tary classrooms, allows for a focus on processes internal to the child that can, to some extent, encom- pass emphases on social-emotional and cognitive abil- ities as aspects of school readiness. In theory, children who exhibit effective self-regulation are more likely to engage in purposeful social interaction with tea- chers and peers, acquire and apply information con- veyed in learning situations, and develop a sense of self as an efﬁcacious and successful student. Such a propitious cycle of regulation, interaction, knowl- edge acquisition, and sense of agency or efﬁcacy as a student can perhaps serve as a schematic for the type of experience for which children should be ready and should and frequently do encounter in the early elementary grades. A focus on readiness as self-regulation also offers the possibility for a deﬁnition of the phenomenon that allows for the recognition of inﬂuences ranging from the neurobiological to the neighborhood and community. Neurobiologically speaking, the age at which children typically enter formal schooling is one in which there is considerable change in the neural basis for self-regulation. Areas of the brain associated with complex reasoning and with emotional arousal, emotion regulation, and motivation are developing rapidly and in interaction during the preschool and early school years, and as such they are inﬂuenced by the types of experiences that children encounter in social and learning environments. Logically speaking, of course, school entry occurs at a time in which chil- dren are, on average, developmentally ready for the expectations of formal schooling—for sustained inter- actions with others on speciﬁc topics and activities that require the application of diverse cognitive and emotion regulation skills and abilities. Such develop- mental readiness, however, can be capitalized on only if schools provide the types of environments and experiences that support children’s developing self- regulation abilities and nascent attempts at engaged and purposeful learning. In particular, such develop- mental readiness can perhaps be capitalized on only if children have adequate opportunity for self-direction in early school experience, including the opportunity for adequate amounts of play, including rough-and- tumble play. Given the multidimensional nature of school readiness, any attempt to deﬁne the phenome- non narrowly and to promote it through the imple- mentation of speciﬁc strategies in isolation from other inﬂuences, such as a focus on academic but not social aspects of readiness, is unlikely to be successful. Clancy Blair See also Individual Differences; Learning; Maturation Further Readings Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of child functioning at school entry. American Psychologist , 57 , 111–127. Panksepp, J. (1998). Attention deﬁcit hyperactivity disorders, psychostimulants, and intolerance of childhood playfulness: A tragedy in the making? Current Directions in Psychological Science , 7 , 91–98. Pianta, R., Cox, M., & Snow, K. (Eds.). (2007). School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. School Readiness 877 Pianta, R., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. (2006). The social ecology of the transition to school: Classrooms, families, and children. In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood development (pp. 490–507). Malden, MA: Blackwell. S CHOOL R ESOURCES School resources are inputs into the education pro- cess, such as staff, buildings, and materials. This entry examines the deﬁnition of resources, their allocation and use in schools, and the relationship between resource use and outcomes. Resources and Their Role in Learning Real resources are the human and physical inputs used in education; monetary resources are the ﬁnances used to purchase real resources. A common indicator of national effort in providing education is the pro- portion of gross domestic product (GDP) spent on schools. In 2002, on average, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries spent 3.8 % of GDP on primary, seco ndary, and postsecondary nontertiary institutions. This ranged from a maximum of 5.7 % in Iceland to 2.6 % in Turkey. There is a tendency for poorer OECD countries to spend a smaller percentage of GDP on schools than richer countries. The average for 19 OECD partner countries (18 middle-income devel- oping countries plus Russia) was very similar in 2002 at 3.9 %, but the range was much wider, from 1.2 % in Indonesia to 8.7 % in Jamaica. Commonly used, real, comparative resource measures are pupil-staff ratios, average class size, and students per computer. Resources are used to provide teaching and learn- ing for pupils and therefore are judged in relation to pupil outcomes. These outputs or outcomes of school- ing are pupils’ cognitive attainment measured by tests and examinations, pupils’ progress to further levels of education, and earnings over their working life attrib- utable to their education. In addition, school education can produce nonmonetary beneﬁts for individuals and society, such as better health, better parenting, reduced crime, more active participation in commu- nity life and democratic politics, and greater social cohesion. Some of these beneﬁts are private, as they accrue to the individual alone, whereas others are public beneﬁts accruing to society as a whole. Thus, resources are analyzed as inputs into the schooling process and studied as part of an input-output system. The relationship between real resources and school outputs is mediated by schoo l context and processes of social interaction within schools. Contextual variables include the policy and governance framework within which schools operate, the locality and community the school serves, and the characteristics of its student body. Pupil characteristics, both inherent and those acquired through family upbringing and any previous schooling, determine a larger proportion of a pupil’s cognitive attainment than the effects of the school itself, which also depend on the characteristi cs of the peer group. Thus, an additional and very important resource is the school’s pupils as well as the characteristics—both individual and collective—that they bring to the school. When schools’ outputs are measured after controlling for pupils’ prior attainment and/or family characteristics and school con- text, this measure of output is known as ‘‘value added.’’ Criteria for Assessing Resources Four main criteria are applied in assessing resources— adequacy, transparency, equity, and efﬁciency. An adequate amount is sufﬁcient resources to pro- vide a speciﬁc standard of education. One way of assessing adequacy is to determine if per-pupil fund- ing in one area is less than the average in other areas. More speciﬁcally, adequate funding is deﬁned as the amount required to achieve deﬁned standards for chil- dren with speciﬁc learning needs, because those with greater learning needs—often, but not exclusively, associated with social disadvantage—require more resources to achieve a given standard. Transparency requires publicly accessible informa- tion on the resources each school receives and how it uses these resources for educating speciﬁc groups and individuals. Absence of transparency is associated with lack of accountability for the use of public funds and also with corruption, a particul ar problem in many develop- ing countries. The World Bank has promoted Public Expenditure Tracking Surv eys, which track the ﬂow of resources from central gover nment through the adminis- trative layers down to school level. This reveals the extent to which corruption a nd mismanagement divert resources intended for publ ic schools into private uses. Equity refers to the fairness, as judged by impartial observers, with which resources in education are allo- cated and used. Horizontal equity is the equal resour- cing of pupils with similar characteristics or learning 878 School Resources needs, whereas vertical equity refers to the unequal funding of students according to differences in their needs. For example, vertical equity requires students with learning difﬁculties to have disproportionately more resources devoted to them. Efﬁciency is the relationship between inputs and out- puts and can be assessed only by comparing schools. A school is internally efﬁcient in comparison with other schools if, for a given cost, it produces the highest fea- sible educational attainment for its pupils. To obtain an accurate and fair measure of efﬁciency, inputs must include pupils’ prior attainment and/or family charac- teristics. Internal efﬁcie ncy compares the inputs used by schools with measures of output, but does not attempt to assess the social value of schools’ outputs. In contrast, external efﬁci ency is the relationship between the social value of school outputs and input costs. Given that school outputs in the public sector are not sold in markets and hence do not have market prices, there is no direct measure of their value, apart from the increase in earnings of schools’ graduates that can be attributed to their schooling and not to other factors, such as ability or family background. Resource Allocation Resources are allocated to schools by either the public or the private sector. Public funding is mainly for state schools, but it is also provided for private-sector schools, often those with religious afﬁliations. Private schools may be funded by charities, but most raise the majority of their ﬁnances by fees. In developed coun- tries, public schools are free to parents, although countries vary in charging for uniforms, equipment, and textbooks. In some developing countries, where public funds are inadequate, parents are charged fees for public schools. Clearly, the extent to which par- ents have to supply the resources required by schools affects demand for school places and makes it difﬁcult for poorer parents to afford schooling. Hence, the pro- vision of free public schooling of reasonable quality is vital for ensuring access for all social groups. In coun- tries where weak states cannot secure adequate tax rev- enues or run moderately efﬁcient school systems so as to provide universal access to schools of reasonable quality, it is argued—controversially—that private pro- vision can ﬁll the gap for low-income children. In OECD countries, on average, 18 % of total expenditure on schools was raised by the private sec- tor, varying from zero in Sweden to 68 % in South Korea—which Programme for International Student Assessment data show is a country with relatively high educational attainment equity. In the 19 partner countries, an average of 28 % of spending was pro- vided by the private sector, ranging from 95 % in Indonesia to 10 % in Malaysia. Resource allocation to public schools varies from being highly centralized to largely decentralized, with a movement toward greater decentralization in the past 20 years. In a highly centralized system, a central or regional government allocates resources in kind to schools. The government appoints staff, provides physical resources such as books and equipment, directly pays for utilities, and maintains school build- ings. In a decentralized system, the school is allocated ﬁnancial resources as a lump sum budget, usually determined by a formula in which the number of stu- dents is a major, but not sole, element. The school principal or school council, advised by the principal, is responsible for allocating the school budget for educational purposes. The school decides on its stafﬁng establishment; appoints and dismisses staff; and pays for all building operation costs, learn- ing resources, and other services, such as educational psychology. Decentralized school ﬁnance systems are likely to be more efﬁcient than centralized ones. Per-student funding gives schools incentives to improve quality in order to attract parents. Resource utilization decisions at the school level provide incen- tives for schools to save on unnecessary expenditures and switch money into resources that will better serve the educational needs of their students, about which schools have superior information than more distant education authorities. However, social equity can be undermined by schools skimming off more able stu- dents, leading to greater social stratiﬁcation between schools with reduced access to higher-quality schools for socially disadvantaged pupils. Resource Utilization Internal efﬁciency depends on selecting the best mix of resources—that is, for a given expenditure, select- ing the combination of teachers, nonteaching staff, and learning resources that achieves the highest out- comes for pupils. Private schools and public schools with school-based ﬁnancial management are able to make resource mix decisions. Otherwise, they are made for schools by an education authority. Monop- oly power on the supply side of the labor market School Resources 879 constrains the achievement of efﬁcient resource mixes in schools. Such constraints can be due to teachers having lifetime tenure as civil servants; to political power, whereby teachers are a more inﬂuential clien- tele for politicians than parents; or to powerful teacher unions. In such situations, teachers are likely to have inadequate incentives to work efﬁciently, whereas schools are constrained in their ability to divest them- selves of poorly performing teachers or excess numbers of teachers. Using evidence from studies in developing countries, Pritchett and Filmer found that marginal increases in student attainment due to increases in nonstaff resources were considerably higher than those due to extra teachers; hence, there was an overuse of teachers relative to learning resources. The average percentage of total current expendi- ture on staff was similar in OECD and the 19 partner countries—81 % and 84 %, respectively. These data give a rough indication that an 80:20 spending split between staff and nonstaff items is appropriate. The Input-Output Relationship in Schools Research over the past 40 years on education produc- tion functions (the relationship between school inputs and outputs) has not yet resolved whether additional school resources increase pupil attainment. A major reason it is difﬁcult to obtain robust statistical esti- mates of this relationship is that most data come from natural settings rather than social experiments where the amount of resources is varied independently of the characteristics of schools and pupils. When using data from natural settings, the quantity of school resources is likely to be partly determined by the quality of the students so that there is causation in both directions—from resources to student outcomes and from student outcomes to school resources. This endogeneity in resources may occur either because governments practice compensatory funding so that lower-attaining students have more per capita spent on them or because socially advantaged parents with higher-attaining children choose better resourced schools. There is no general consensus on the interpretation of evidence on the effects of additional resources on attainment. Leva  ci  c has noted that the available evi- dence for developed countries indicates that additional marginal resources allocated to a general reduction in class sizes or pupil–teacher ratios has, at best, a small positive effect in some countries. However, additional resources targeted at particular subjects, such as math and science, and particularly at less able or more socially disadvantaged pupils, are likely to be more effective than a general increase in spending given current levels. There is limited evidence that school autonomy, if combined with external examinations, has a favorable impact on pupil attainment. For devel- oping countries, there is clearer evidence that addi- tional material resources, such as blackboards and textbooks, improve attainment. In developed countries, crea ting incentives for more efﬁcient use of the existing quantity of resources and targeting them more effectively at raising the perfor- mance of currently low-atta ining students appear to be the most promising resourcing policies. In developing countries, increasing the overall volume of resources remains essential for expanding access and raising quality, provided that bureau cratic inefﬁciency and cor- ruption can be curtailed. Rosalind Leva  c i  c See also Cultural Diversity; Culture; Learning; School Design Further Readings Leva  ci  c, R. (Ed.). (2007). The relationship between school resources and pupil attainment. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook on school effectiveness and improvement (pp. 395–410). Dordrecht: Springer. OECD. (2005). Education trends in perspective: Analysis of the World Education Indicators. Paris: UNESCO Institute of Statistics. Pritchett, L., & Filmer, D. (1999). What education production functions really show: A positive theory of education expenditures. Economics of Education Review , 18 , 223–239. S CHOOL V IOLENCE AND D ISRUPTION Concerns over school violence in the United States date from the late 1970s, with the issuance of the 1978 report, Violent Schools—Safe Schools: The Safe School Study Report to Congress. That report found that (a) about 25 % of U.S. schools experienced van- dalism, (b) 1.3 % of students were victims of personal 880 School Violence and Disruption attack, © 11 % of students were victims of theft, and (d) 8 % of secondary students missed a day of school per month out of fear for personal safety. Widespread dissemination of these statistics led to increased pub- lic and policymaker focus on school violence. A sub- sequent federal report in 1984, Disorder in Our Public Schools , cited continuing problems with school disorder nationally, leading to the passage of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act of 1986. By the early 1990s, school violence in the United States was per- ceived to have reached epide mic proportions. National attention was riveted on increasingly disturbing statis- tics in the early 1990s showing rising school violence, and seemingly endless school shootings throughout the 1990s, culminating with the Columbine High School shootings of April 1999. These developments, as well as events in the ﬁrst 6 years of the new century, may be considered in terms of a complex nexus of issues and inﬂuences. This entry begins with an overview of data on school violence from the early 1990s through the early 2000s. Issues of data collection and measurement are discussed with primary attention to national-level data. Dimensions of school violence and disruption (e.g., bullying) are examined, followed by a summary of research on school violence prevention. The entry concludes with a discussion of key controversies and ongoing challenges to the ﬁeld. Trends in School Violence and Disruption There has been a pronounced decline in several mea- sures of school violence and disruption from the mid- 1990s through the early 2000s according to several measures, including data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (see Figure 1). Some indicators suggest that a new, albeit lower level of violence has been reached. Other measures suggest a lesser decline over the years. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) reports a signiﬁcant reduction from 1993 to 2005 in students ﬁghting in school and bringing weapons to school (see Figure 2). A slightly different picture of stable, or slightly increasing, trends emerges, looking at the percentage of students who reported being threatened or injured with a weapon at school, and missing school due to safety concerns (see Figure 3). In sum, the data suggest that school violence and disruption diminished over the period of 1993–2005, but that serious problems remain. Violent Crime: At and Away From School 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Rate per 1,000 At School 48 59 56 50 43 40 43 33 26 28 24 28 22 Away From School 71 70 69 58 55 59 48 39 34 28 26 32 21 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Figure 1 Rate of Student-Reported Violent Crimes Against Students at and Away From School Source: Indicators of School Crime and Safety 2006, National Center for Education Statistics. School Violence and Disruption 881 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Year In Fight at School (12 mos.) 16.2 Weapon to School (30 days) 11.8 15.5 9.8 14.8 8.5 14.2 6.9 12.5 6.4 12.8 6.1 13.6 6.5 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Percent of Respondents 95% C.I. Figure 2 Percentage of Respondents Reporting Fights at School or Weapons Brought to School Source: Youth Risk Behavior Survey (1993–2005): Fights at School; Weapons Brought to School. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Year Percent of Respondents 95% C.I. Threatened or Injured With Weapon at School (12 mos.) 7.3 8.4 7.7 8.9 9.2 7.9 Missed School for Safety Concerns (past 30 days) 4.4 4.5 7.4 4 5.2 6.6 5.4 6.0 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Figure 3 Percentage of Respondents Reporting Being Threatened/Injured With a Weapon or Having Missed School Due to Safety Concerns Source: Youth Risk Behavior Survey (1993–2005): Threatened/Injured With Weapon; Missed School Due to Safety Concerns. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 882 School Violence and Disruption Data Collection and Analysis Data collection and analysis addressing school violence is challenging. Multiple agencies (e.g., Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI; CDC; U.S. Department of Education) collect and diss eminate school violence data using agency-speciﬁc d eﬁnitions and measurement tools. Some data address vic timization experiences, whereas other data look at commission of crimes. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program gathers crim- inal activity data from state agencies based on arrest counts, which can include innocent persons and may result in biased indicators. Self-report data used in vic- timization surveys are prone to errors with sampling frame, instrumentation, poor respondent comprehen- sion and recall, and telescoping effects, as well as difﬁ- culties with nonresponse. National-level data collection instruments have unique foci, design, and implementa- tion, resulting in differing results based on technical deﬁnitions, time frames, and speciﬁc questionnaire content. Despite differences in data collection, analysis, and reporting, school violence data are informative when linked to knowledge of school violence pro- cesses. In the next section, several core dimensions of school violence are discussed. Dimensions of School Violence and Disruption School violence and disruption can be conceptualized as a function of their frequenc y, intensity, duration, per- sons affected, and overall impact on the school environ- ment. Although there has been considerable national attention to highly publiciz ed school shootings, and the public developed a perception of schools as dangerous during the 1990s, data on serious violent crime show that schools are relatively safe compared to surrounding communities. Students have less than a one in a million chance of being shot at school, an event less likely than being struck by lightning. School violence and disrup- tion can be viewed relative to overall student behaviors at school. Figure 4 provides a conceptual depiction of School Violence and Disruption Outsider Shootings at School (e.g., Amish) Serious Violent Crime Personal Attack Theft Overall School Behaviors Marginally Acceptable Behaviors School Violence and Disruption Bullying, Intimidation, IncivilityAppropriate, Positive, Engaged Behaviors School-Associated Shootings (e.g., Columbine) Figure 4 Conceptual Representation of School Violence as a Component of Overall Student Behaviors School Violence and Disruption 883 school violence, clearly showing the relatively small proportion of overall school behavior it comprises. This conceptual framework provides an avenue for con- sidering multiple dimensions of school violence and disruption. Bullying, intimidation, and incivility collectively represent much of the antisocial behavior that occurs on a daily basis in schools. Research has focused more on bullying than on more broad indicators of inti- midation and incivility. Bullying is generally deﬁned as a function of three characteristics: (a) intentional behaviors toward another that are harmful physically, socially, or emotionally; (b) a relationship where an imbalance of power exists; a nd © repeated negative interactions. Data from the federal report Indicators of School Crimes and Safety , 2006 , showed that in 2005, 28 % of middle and high school students reported being bullied at school during the previous 6 months. Students in earlier grades are generally more prone to being bullied, and the most common forms of bullying are (a) being made fun of, insulted, or called names; (b) being the subject of rumors; and © being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on. Approximately one fourth of those reporting being bullied were injured as a result of the bullying experience, where males were almost twice as likely to be injured as compared to females. These more recent data parallel earlier ﬁndings in a 2001 study of a nationall y representative sample published in the Journal of the American Medical Association , where approximately 30 % of students were involved in bullying as bullies, victims, or both. That research found that those students who were most lonely, according to self-report, were more than 33 times more likely to be bullied, compared to students who were least lonely. Several research reports have documented near-term and longer term social and psy- chological harm to bully victims, including difﬁculties making and keeping friends and increased loneliness while in school, lower levels of self-esteem, and increased likelihood of de pression as young adults. Bullies demonstrated poorer school adjustment with concomitant academic problems, were more likely to engage in drinking and smoking while in school, and were more likely to engage in criminal behavior as young adults. These data as a whole suggest the need for continued prevention programming in schools to address bullying. Related research on intimidation and incivility, including s exual harassment at school, has demonstrated linkage to psychosocial adjustment problems, including fear and anxiety, and avoidant behaviors, also indicating a need for continuing pre- vention measures. Theft is the major form of school-based crime. There were approximately 55 million preschool–12 students during the 2004–2005 school year in the United States. According to National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data, there were approxi- mately 1.4 million school-based crimes, of which about 863,000 (62 % ), or 33 per 1,000 students, were theft and 583,000 (42 % ), or 22 per 1,000 students, were violent crime (simple assault and serious violent crime). Approximately 107,000 cases, or 4 per 1,000 students, involved serious violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault). Despite theft being more common, students’ con- cerns focus more on fear of attack. Data from the 1999 Metropolitan Life Survey of the American Teacher report indicate that approximately 15 % of stu- dents in public schools were worried about being vic- tims of physical attack at or near school. More recent data from the NCES report Indicators of School Crime and Safety 2006 mirror this ﬁnding, but to a lesser degree, showing that in 2005, about 6 % of secondary students feared attack at school, about half of the 12 % ﬁgure found in the 1995 NCES survey. Fear among minority secondary students was greater than for Whites, with approximately 9 % of African American and 10 % of Hispanic students fearing attack at school. Students’ fear translates into actions, including missing school and avoiding places in and around school per- ceived as dangerous. For example, in 2005, according to the CDC Youth Risk Behavior Survey, approxi- mately 6 % of students in Grades 9–12 missed school at least once during the 30 days prior to the survey because of fear for their personal safety. This repre- sented an increase from a ﬁgure of 4.4 % in 1993. Much attention has focused on school shootings over the past decade. Despite public perception to the contrary, school shootings are relatively rare events. According to NCES data, during the 2004–2005 school year, nationally, there were 21 school-related homi- cides. Although varying from year to year, during the early to mid-1990s, there were 28–34 school shooting deaths per year, compared to 11–21 per year during the early 2000s. The United States witnessed a dramatic change in the national experience with school shoot- ings during the fall of 2006, where in two separate incidents, adults perpetrated shootings of students at schools in episodes that w ere not school-related in origin. These varied experiences with school violence 884 School Violence and Disruption have led prevention researc hers to pursue multiple ave- nues of effective prevention responses to school vio- lence and disruption. Research on School Violence and Disruption Prevention General Research Syntheses on Prevention Three major research syntheses on school-based violence prevention, published between 2001 and 2006, provide broad yet informative guidance. Julie Mytton and colleagues published a Cochrane Collabo- ration review in 2006 of a wide variety of school- based interventions to reduce student violence at the secondary level, ﬁnding an overall effect size of –0.41 for prevention programs to reduce anger, aggression, violence, bullying, and interpersonal conﬂict. T

bundet

his effect size translates to the average treatment group member (at the 50th percentile of that group) being better off than 66 % of the control group as a result of the prevention program. In 2001, a more focused meta-analysis by David Wilson and colleagues of 165 research studies of school-based interventions to reduce substance abuse, dropout rates, and conduct p roblems reported that non-cognitive-behavioral approaches resulted in nega- tive outcomes or no demonstr able effectiveness. How- ever, cognitive-behavioral and behavioral modiﬁcation programs using modeling an d rehearsal demonstrated low to moderate effect sizes of 0.12 to 0.37. In another important meta-analysis in 2003, David Wilson and colleagues Mark Lipsey and James Derzon analyzed 221 studies of school-based anger reduction interventions. Effect sizes for demonstration and routine practice programs were 0.25 and 0.10, respectively. Academic, behavioral, and counseling programs showed the highest effect sizes. In sum, these syntheses suggest that violence prevention pro- gramming works, but that effect sizes are modest and varied, and that more needs to be understood as to what types of interventions best address speciﬁc needs for different groups in varied school-based contexts. More focused violence prevention research has addressed areas of threat assessment, controlling the physical environment, and whole-school approaches. Threat Assessment As a result of the perceived epidemic of school violence in the early 1990s and the pattern of school shootings throughout that decade, there was increased national attention on developing improved methods of school-based threat assessment, especially proﬁling. Early work by the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Department of Education, and researchers in the ﬁeld demonstrated that proﬁling approaches designed to predict individual perpetrators of deadly violence do not work and instead inappropriately target a relatively large number of innocent indi viduals as suspects. Two other approaches to threat assessment are mental health assessment and automated de cision-making approaches based on actuarial, artiﬁcial intelligence, and expert systems theory. Neither of these approaches has been developed to the point of dem onstrating eff ectiveness. Dewey Cornell has develope d protocols for school- based threat assessment t hat show promise, based on preliminary ﬁeld test research using 35 schools. That approach uses a systematic, decision-tree process, where trained teams gather and evaluate an array of threat- related data. Another approach to threat assessment, articulated by Peter Leone and Matthew Mayer, differed from the preceding methods by focusing on overall school characteristics rather than individual students. Leone and Mayer described an unhealthy schools syndrome , conducive to school violence and disruption, where the ﬁt between students and school was poor. Five tar- geted areas contributing to poor ﬁt were (1) academic missions that did not meet at-risk students’ needs and marginalized large numbers of students; (2) heavy reliance on zero tolerance and generally punitive approaches to discipline; (3) entrenched, noncolla- borative systems of control that excluded students, staff, and families; (4) racial and cultural disconnects; and (5) disconnects with students with disabilities. Controlling the Physical Environment Efforts to control the physical school environment have centered on equipment - and personnel-based approaches. Equipment-related approaches typically have involved using technology such as security cameras and metal detectors. There is little effective- ness research on such measures. For example, Sandia National Labs, under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Justice, pub lishedareportin1999on appropriate use of security technology in schools, but the report contained no documentation of research sup- porting the recommendations. There has been little or no extant research on security cameras in schools over School Violence and Disruption 885 the past two decades. The limited body of research has focusedonmetaldetectors.Twostudiesfromthe 1990s demonstrated that handheld and walk-through metal detectors could lower the number of weapons brought into schools, but such measures did little to change levels of violence and disruption in schools. A larger body of research exists for the most prevalent personnel-based measure: School Resource Ofﬁcers (SRO). SROs are typically certiﬁed law enforcement personnel assigned to schools with three general areas of responsibility: (a) law enforcement, (b) law-related counseling, and © law-related educa- tion. There have been 10 noteworthy studies of SRO programs during the period from 1995–2006, of which one was national in scope, and the others were local and regional. One of the 10 studies employed moderately rigorous quantitative methodology, exam- ining outcomes related to program characteristics, whereas the others primarily reported descriptive data from survey administrations. Although no study to date has demonstrated a causal linkage between SRO programming and reduction of school violence, the majority of studies have reported increased parent and school staff satisfaction as a result of SRO programs in local schools, with mixed reactions from students. Several studies have reported on reductions of school violence and disruption, concurrent with ongoing implementation of SRO programs, but these results have been correlational. In summary, research on physical and personnel-based measures to manage the school environment has been relatively sparse, and most studies have been methodologically limited. Whole-School Approaches The most common whole-school prevention approaches are (a) security and discipline-oriented approaches, as previously examined; (b) broader inter- vention programs comprising multiple integrated components (e.g., Second Step); © systems-change programs (e.g., Positive Behavior Supports); and (d) comprehensive programming (e.g., Safe and Responsive Schools). A brief discussion of exemplar programs mentioned will illustrate the nature of these approaches. Schools typically adopt multiple intervention pro- grams, some mandated by local school districts, and others selected by individual school governance bod- ies. Second Step is a well-researched, highly effective violence prevention program for students in pre-K to ninth grade. The core components of Second Step address areas of empathy, impulse control, problem solving, and anger management, with a supplemental, family-based component available. More than 27,000 U.S. schools used Second Step during 2006. Positive Behavioral Supports (PBS) uses a school- wide approach that systemically transforms the school environment to foster student success in academics and social interactions. PBS takes a balanced approach, developing whole-school b ehavioral expectations, proactively teaching and prompting students to employ prosocial behaviors, while also providing the necessary structure and discipline to respond to behavioral infrac- tions. PBS uses a team-based approach where decision making is based on ongoing data collection and analy- sis. Furthermore, PBS uses a three-tier system of pri- mary, secondary, and tertia ry intervention based on research in public health. Multiple studies have demon- strated signiﬁcant impro vements in academic and behavioral performance of students in PBS schools. The Safe and Responsive Schools Program (SRS) uses a comprehensive prevention framework based on three foundational elements: (1) creating a safe and responsive school climate that promotes student belong- ing and bonding to school; (2) early identiﬁcation and intervention for at-risk students; and (3) effective responses to disruption and cr isis that include policies and procedures that address more serious disciplinary infractions and crises, but th at use alternatives to suspen- sion and expulsion that help maintain a more positive trajectory of student engagement and improvement. Preliminary research has shown signiﬁcant reductions in school suspensions and high levels of stakeholder satis- faction based on implementation of SRS. Key Controversies With a perceived epidemic in school violence in the early 1990s, and the repeated school shootings of the mid- to latter 1990s, culminating in the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, educational stake- holders focused signiﬁcant attention on security mea- sures and school discipline, including zero tolerance. Several of these approaches re main controversial, espe- cially zero tolerance and rest rictive security methods. Zero tolerance is used to describe a variety of school-based responses to discipline. It refers to disci- pline methods that employ strict and inﬂexible pun- ishments for transgressors with no consideration of situational factors. Zero tolerance originated in the 886 School Violence and Disruption 1980s as part of U.S. military personnel drug policies and related antidrug legislation. Schools nationwide began adopting zero tolerance policies in the early 1990s, with increased public concern about rising juvenile crime and school violence. School-based zero tolerance originally addressed the most serious beha- viors (e.g., deadly weapons in schools), but in later years, it addressed a broad array of less serious stu- dent behavior. Out-of-school suspension is the pri- mary sanction used by schools, with expulsion in the most serious instances. Advocates of zero tolerance argue that it is a necessary tool for combating school violence, where many contributing factors are beyond the control of the schools. Critics of zero tolerance policies have noted that zero tolerance does not focus on methods for improving student behaviors, nor does it respond to causes of inappropriate misbehavior. Zero tolerance has also been implicated in contribut- ing to a downward spiral of academic failure and developing delinquency. Multiple research studies have shown that African American students have been disproportionately penalized by zero tolerance poli- cies. There are little or no data to support the effec- tiveness of zero tolerance policies, and none of the ﬁve national panels on school violence has supported zero tolerance as an efﬁcacious intervention. Restrictive security approaches refer to a set of policies and procedures that relies predominantly on physical control and contain ment measures in schools, where there is relatively little attention to proactive and preventive programming. M ultiple research reports have suggested that schools that rely primarily on metal detectors, security cameras, locked entrances, searches of student lockers, and security personnel reg- ularly patrolling hallways don’t reduce classroom vio- lence. Causal research demonstrating beneﬁcial effects of these methods is extremely rare. Researchers have repeatedly argued that schools whose programs depend almost entirely on school security measures may alien- ate students, making schools seem jail-like, and lead to increased behavioral problems . Recent statistical analy- sis of the School Crime Supplement data sets from 1995 through 2003 by Matthew Mayer demonstrate that in recent years, there has been a very limited rela- tionship between secure building strategies and levels of school violence and disorder. In sum, although such security measures remain popular, there is a limited evidence base supporting their use. As a follow-up to the Columbine High School trag- edy in Colorado in 1999, the report of the Governor’s Columbine Review Commission addressed the use of security equipment, as evidenced in this excerpt: Although security devices can effectively deter cer- tain forms of school crimes, including theft, grafﬁti, and gang violence, they have not yet been proven to be cost-effective in preventing major school vio- lence like that experienced at Columbine High School. Therefore, the Commission does not rec- ommend the universal installation of metal detec- tors, video surveillance cameras and other security equipment as a means of forestalling school vio- lence generally; for the present, such security devices can serve only to offer transient solutions to speciﬁc problems at individual schools. (p. xviii) Addressing Future Challenges Although school violence and disruption have declined over the past decade, they remain a serious concern. Research has shown that school violence reduction depends on the availability of well-coordinated, evidence- based programs that address ph ysical safety, educational practices, and the social-emo tional-behavioral needs of students. Studies demonstr ate that speciﬁc supports should be provided to address mental health needs, bully prevention, and anger management/conﬂict resolution using a three-tier approach of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Educational stakeholders have varying knowledge, perceptions, concerns, and agendas regarding school violence, and thus, local school communities some- times ﬁnd themselves in disagreement as to the opti- mal course of action with regard to school violence prevention. The increased national focus on educa- tional accountability, as exempliﬁed by the 2002 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, signaled a shift toward retooling schools to focus more on demon- strating academic results. As such, many schools have had to choose between devoting time and resources to support attainment of NCLB goals, or focusing on programming and supports that may address problems with school violence and disruption. Although there are no quick ﬁxes to the nation’s pro- blems with school violence, the knowledge base sup- porting school violence prevention has been reﬁned over the past decade, and initiatives on multiple levels seem to have helped to curb the once-growing tide of violence and disruption in schools. Experts agree that school violence is in part a reﬂection of deeper School Violence and Disruption 887 societal problems, and that long-term solutions require fundamental changes across society. Continued invest- ment in research to better understand ways to mini- mize school violence and disruption, coupled with broad stakeholder commitment to invest in evidence- based prevention approaches, appear to provide the best options for managing school violence in the immediate future. Matthew Jared Mayer See also Maturation; School Design Further Readings Columbine Review Commission. (2001). Report of Governor Bill Owen’s Columbine Review Commission. Denver: State of Colorado. Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E. F., Kena, G., & Baum, K. (2006). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2006 (NCES 2007–003/NCJ 214262). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofﬁce. Elliott, D. S., Hamburg, B. A., & Williams, K. R. (Eds.). (1998). Violence in American schools. New York: Cambridge University Press. Jimerson, S. R., & Furlong, M. J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Leone, P. E., Mayer, M. J., Malmgren, K., & Meisel, S. M. (2000). School violence and disruption: Rhetoric, reality, and reasonable balance. Focus on Exceptional Children , 33 , 1–20. Peterson, R. L., Larson, J., & Skiba, R. (2001). School violence prevention: Current status and policy recommendations. Law & Policy , 23 (3), 345–371. Skiba, R. J. (2000, August). Zero tolerance, zero sense: An analysis of school disciplinary practice (Policy Research Report No. SRS2). Bloomington: Indiana Education Policy Center. S CIENTIFIC M ETHOD Many methods are employed to generate and synthe- size knowledge. As such, no single series of steps could contain all the strategies that can be used to dis- cover and explain the universe. Thus, science is better viewed as a process than as a recipe or formula that can be used to create knowledge. For example, con- siderable knowledge is generated and passed along via careful observations and subsequent descriptions. Basic observations and descriptions contribute to the discovery and documentation of patterns, and each of these steps is fundamental to increasing our under- standing. However, the process known as the scien- tiﬁc method involves steps beyond observation and description. Speciﬁcally, these steps include develop- ment and testing of explanations for patterns derived from observations. Discovery and documentation of patterns rooted in careful observations and desc riptions certainly repre- sents science. However, the hypothetico-deductive method is not employed when s cience terminates with observation and description. As such, discovery and documentation, rooted in observations and descriptions, do not comprise the process commonly termed the sci- entiﬁc method. The ‘‘scientiﬁc method’’ depends on the generation and testing of sc ientiﬁc hypotheses, which are deﬁned as candidate explanations. Scientiﬁc hypotheses typically are derived from pat- terns because demonstration of a pattern often generates the question: ‘‘What process causes that pattern?’’ The response to the question is a scientiﬁc hypothesis, or a candidate explanation. Pr oviding a deﬁnitive answer to the question requires formulation and subsequent testing of potential explanations for the observed pat- terns; that is, it involves hypothesis testing. A hypothesis generated by a pattern should not be confused with a prediction; apredictionisastatement that is likely to be factual. Most predictions can be eval- uated via observation. Although the instruments used for evaluating predictions are variable and may be quite sophisticated, they should n ot be confused with hypoth- eses. The scientiﬁc method, as typically described, requires generation and tes ting of hypotheses. In con- trast, generation and evalu ation of predictions, which are fundamental to the gen eration of knowledge, are not part of the classically deﬁned ‘‘scientiﬁc method.’’ Indeed, if generation and eval uation of predictions rep- resent application of the scientiﬁc method, then the sci- entiﬁc method is not unique to science. Rather, it is used for everyday activities such as mowing the lawn (the grass is too tall in some spots, so I must have missed those spots), shoppi ng for groceries (I need car- rots, so I will look in the produce section rather than searching the entire store), and commuting to work (length of route and trafﬁc patterns dictate my path). In other words, science has lit tle to offer beyond everyday activities if observation and description are the only means by which we acquire knowledge. 888 Scientiﬁc Method Consider a relatively simple example of a predic- tion: Retention of information about human behavior is greater with inquiry-based methods than with lec- tures. This prediction can be (and has been) evaluated with observations of students in classrooms. It also can be (and has been) evaluated with well-designed and rigorously applied experiments (involving, for example, random assignment of students to groups that are taught material in different ways). Statistical hypotheses likely will be generated and evaluated, but we should take care to distinguish between these sta- tistical hypotheses and scientiﬁc hypotheses. Whether researchers employ observations or experiments, however, evaluation of the prediction does not involve candidate explanations. Generation of such explana- tions—that is, scientiﬁc hypotheses—is a logical next step in the conduct of research because it addresses the question of ‘‘why.’’ The ability to distinguish between predictions and hypotheses, and between statistical hypotheses and scientiﬁc hypotheses, allows us to describe a set of steps that has become known as the scientiﬁc method. First, observations are made. These observations may be formalized and synthesized in the form of general statements of patterns. The patterns often are evaluated for generality, and different patterns are determined to coincide with different events of phenomena. A typical question that emerges from patterns, especially patterns that vary with different phenomena, is ‘‘why?’’ The explanations—the answers to the ‘‘why’’ question—are hypotheses. Testing these hypotheses, typically by carefully controlling severa l variables and allowing one or a few variables to vary in an experiment, represents an attempt to generate knowledge. This series of steps, from observations to testing of hypotheses, commonly is termed the ‘‘scientiﬁc method.’’ Guy R. McPherson See also Descriptive Statistics; Experimental Design; Inferential Statistics; Statistical Signiﬁcance Further Readings McPherson, G. R. (2001). Teaching and learning the scientiﬁc method. American Biology Teacher, 63 , 242–245. Medawar, P. (1984). Pluto’s republic. New York: Oxford University Press. Popper, K. R. (1968). The logic of scientiﬁc discovery. New York: Harper and Row. S ELF -D ETERMINATION The term self-determination is a motivational concept that has been explicated primarily in relation to self- determination theory (SDT), proposed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan. To be self-determined is to endorse one’s actions with a full sense of choice and volition. When self-determined, individuals experi- ence a sense of freedom to do what is interesting, personally important, and vitalizing; they experience themselves as self-regulating agents of their own behavior. Thus, self-determination signiﬁes the expe- rience of choice and endorsement of the actions in which one is engaged. Autonomy and autonomous motivation are terms that are frequently associated with the concept of self-determination. Although autonomy is often equated to independence in the Western world, that is not the meaning it carries within SDT. Rather, it means concurring with one’s actions and feeling a sense of willingness and voli- tion. So, within the framework of SDT, people could be autonomous even when doing something for some- one else, if they fully endorsed doing so. Autonomy is one of the three basic and innate psy- chological needs proposed within SDT (the other two being competence and relatedness). As such, it has been found to be a valid need cross-culturally and to be understood similarly by individuals in countries as diverse as South Korea, Japan, Russia, and the United States. When a behavior is not autonomous, it is said to be controlled. To the degree that people are con- trolled, they are essential ly subjugated by external or internal forces that are pressuring them to behave, think, or feel in particular ways. In contrast to autonomous behaviors, controlled behaviors are experienced by indi- viduals as coming from outside their sense of self. These behaviors are experienced as alien to the self and con- trolled by external deman ds or internal pressures. Control Versus Autonomy In deﬁning what self-determination is, it seems very useful to also explore both what it is and what it is not in order to highlight its main components. As mentioned, self-determination involves being autono- mous, fully endorsing one’s actions, and doing what one wants to do because the activity is interesting and pleasurable (like ﬂying a kite) or because it is Self-Determination 889 perceived as valuable (doing an important work proj- ect). Being self-determined is associated with a sense of vitality, energy, happiness, well-being, and enjoy- ment. When self-determined, people often report feel- ings of ﬂow while engaged in the activity and display the capacity to stay involved and engaged with it. Self-determination contrasts with control, with feeling pressured, coerced, or seduced. Self-determination is not doing something because someone else makes you, nor is it doing something to get someone else’s approval. It is not doing something in order to get a prize, a reward, or some other external incentive, for those are all examples of being controlled. Being controlled or non-self-determined is associated with feelings of pressure, whether it comes from external demands or from internal threats of guilt. The total absence of self-determination is embodied in what is called amotivation, which represents a total lack of motivation for an activity. As part of SDT, Ryan and Deci proposed various types of motivation that can be aligned along a continuum of increasing self-determination or perceived autonomy in performing an activity. The various forms of motivation are pre- sented from left to right in increasing degree of self- determination, from the least self-determined (amotiva- tion) to the most self-determin ed (intrinsic motivation). External regulation and introjection are considered controlled forms of motivation and therefore not self- determined. In contrast, ident iﬁcation, integration, and intrinsic motivation are considered to be autonomous forms of motivation and therefore self-determined. This entry considers each of these concepts in turn. Amotivation When amotivated, people are alienated and lack the intention to do a behavior. They feel a complete lack of choice and volition, and often, they will not behave at all. If they do behave, it is without the intention to do so and they may not know why they are behaving. Amotivation is associated with disengagement and often with negative affect and self-disparagement. Individuals who are amotivated would endorse state- ments such as ‘‘I’m not sure why I’m taking this class anymore. I think that maybe I should quit.’’ Controlled Forms of Motivation External regulation and introjection are the two forms of controlled motivation on the continuum. External regulation is the ﬁrst type of extrinsic motivation and is the type that is commonly referred to as extrinsic motivation—that is, it is behavior done to get rewards or avoid punishments. In general, extrinsic motivation signiﬁes that a behavior is not done for its own sake but instead is a means to an end, and the external- regulation type of extrinsic motivation involves peo- ple feeling pressured and obligated to engage in the activities because of external contingencies. External regulation is not self-determined, and individuals who perform activities out of external regulation do not feel a sense of volition while engaging in these activi- ties. For example, individuals who are externally reg- ulated would agree with statements such as ‘‘I am doing my homework because I have to do it to pass the course.’’ External regulation is maintained by the presence of external contingencies, but people can internalize these contingencies and become somewhat more self- determined for the corresponding behaviors. Deci and Ryan argue that internalization and integration of aspects of one’s environment are natural human pro- cesses. With respect to extrinsic motivation, they are the means through which external contingencies can become the basis for more autonomous regulation of extrinsically motivated behaviors. Human beings are naturally inclined to strive for higher levels of self- determination, and internalization and integration are the processes that actualize this tendency. Then, as the external contingencies become increasingly inter- nalized within one’s self, they lead to different forms of regulation that are increasingly self-determined. Introjection is a form of motivation in which the external contingencies maintaining a behavior have been internalized, but only partially so. Basically, people take in a contingency or regulation without really accepting it as their own, so the contingency is controlling them even though the regulation is now within them. So, instead of being maintained by external pressures or rewards, introjected behaviors are now maintained by internal pressures such as ego involvement or the avoidance of feelings of guilt. Behaviors regulated by introjects are still experienced as controlled and thus are not self-determined. For example, individuals who are behaving out of intro- jected regulation would agree with statements such as ‘‘I am taking this class because I would feel bad about myself if I didn’t.’’ Although the level of self- determination a person experiences when he or she is behaving out of introjection is low, it is still greater 890 Self-Determination than the level experienced when one is externally regulated. Autonomous Forms of Motivation Identiﬁcation, integration, and intrinsic motivation are the three autonomous or self-determined forms of moti- vation. Identiﬁcation is the ﬁrst form of autonomous motivation on the continu um of self-determination. When behaving out of identiﬁcation, individuals feel volitional because they have accepted the regulation as their own. Therefore, the ac tivity is performed because it is personally valuable and important to the individual, and the person has a sense of endorsing his or her actions. For example, indi viduals who are behaving out of identiﬁcation would agree with statements such as ‘‘I am reading this assignment because it helps me to develop skills that are important to me.’’ Although iden- tiﬁcation is still a form of extrinsic motivation, it is nonetheless relatively self-determined because it is engaged in with a sense of choice and volition. Integration is an even fuller form of self- determined extrinsic motivation. The activity is still a means to an end—for example, people do it because it is instrumental for attaining some valuable, self- selected goal—but because they have integrated the identiﬁcation with other aspects of themselves, they do the behavior with a feeling of self-determination. Integrated regulation is the most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation. When an activity is regulated through integration, it is experienced as an important part of the individual’s identity. For example, indivi- duals who are behaving out of integration would agree with statements such as ‘‘I am studying these art history texts because learning about such things is part of who I am.’’ Intrinsic motivation represents the prototype of self-determination. When intrinsically motivated to do something, individuals engage in the behavior out of pure interest and for personal satisfaction. The activity is performed solely because it brings pleasure and sat- isfaction to the individuals while they are doing it. The activity is an end in itself rather than being a means to a goal or outcome. Because intrinsic moti- vation is based in people’s interest in the activity rather than in its instrumental value, intrinsic motiva- tion is inherent to the individuals and does not result from internalization of extrinsic motivation. Indivi- duals who are behaving out of intrinsic motivation would agree with statements such as ‘‘I am majoring in physics because I really ﬁnd it interesting and enjoyable.’’ Outcomes Associated With Self-Determination An abundance of empirical research has supported the importance of self-determination for human growth, development, and well-being. Social contexts that support individuals’ natural tendencies toward active engagement and psychological growth will serve to enhance their self-determination. For example, in situa- tions where people are provided with choices and options, offered a rationale for engaging in certain behaviors, and supported in their pursuits, greater feelings of self- determination are reported. In contrast, situations that are pressuring and controlling, where few choices are pro- vided, tend to lead to lower levels of self-determination. In sum, autonomy-supportive situations—that is, those that offer choices, options, and supports—lead to higher levels of self-determination and in turn to positive out- comes, whereas controlling situations lead to lower levels of self-determination and more negative outcomes. According to Ryan and Deci, the natural tenden- cies for healthy development and optimal functioning are deﬁned using the concept of basic psychological needs, which are deﬁned to be innate, universal, and essential for health, well-being, and growth. The basic psychological needs are a natural aspect of human beings, and therefore, they apply to all people regard- less of gender, group, or culture. To the extent that indi- viduals’ needs are continually satisﬁed by social contexts, people will experience self-determination, function effectively, have satisfying relationships, and develop in healthy ways. However, to the extent that individuals’ needs are thwarted by social contexts, peo- ple will experience lower levels of self-determination and show evidence of ill-being, poor relationships, and nonoptimal functioning. Chantal Levesque, Kelly J. Copeland, and Edward L. Deci See also Home Environment and Academic Intrinsic Motivation; Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Motivation; Motivation; Motivation and Emotion Further Readings Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and Self-Determination 891 independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural o rientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84 , 97–110. Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality , 62 , 119–142. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta- analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin , 125 , 627–668. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self- determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry , 11 , 227–268. Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy and competence in German and American university students: A comparative study based on self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology , 96 , 68–84. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist , 55 , 68–78. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality , 74 , 1557–1585. S ELF -E FFICACY Over the past several decades, educators and educa- tional psychologists have been interested in students’ self-perceptions. This concerted attention to students’ views of themselves is quite understandable. From the perspective of an educator, enhancing the positive self-perceptions of learners is an important educa- tional goal. Educators desire students to become autonomous individuals who have strong and positive feelings about themselves as they engage in the myr- iad responsibilities and demands of school and life. Educational psychologists too have been interested in student self-perception, particularly as such percep- tions may affect student motivation, persistence, and ultimately, classroom learning. The goal of the fol- lowing discussion is to examine research and theory relating to learners’ perceptions of self-efﬁcacy. Self-efﬁcacy is a central construct in Albert Bandura’s social-cognitive learning theory. It is deﬁned as an expectation that one holds regarding one’s cap- abilities to accomplish a particular task or goal. In a most general and perhaps somewhat rough sense, self-efﬁcacy might be thought of as a sense of conﬁ- dence to act successfully. Individuals who believe that they can overcome obstacles and achieve have what is often called by social-cognitive learning theorists a sense of personal agency. Self-efﬁcacy is an important part of one’s feelings of personal agency and a crucial element of agentic views of motivated learning. Although self-efﬁcacy may at ﬁrst glance be similar to notions of self-concept and self-esteem, it should be emphasized from the onset that it is quite separate from these other, broad self-perceptions. Self-efﬁcacy is an expectation that is related to a given task. As such, it is a speciﬁc self-perception that is directed toward accomplishing a goal. Self-efﬁcacy cannot be understood nor assessed without a task as the context of one’s self-appraisal. In contrast, self-concept refers to one’s collective self-perceptions across many different tasks and assembled from many different interactions. To be sure, self-concept is multidimen- sional, but it is referenced to broad domains, such as academic self-concept or physical self-concept. Self- esteem is also different from self-efﬁcacy. As usually deﬁned, self-esteem is a self-perception that refers to the judgment of worth that one places upon one’s self. Such judgments of worth rely heavily on social norms, social comparisons, and individual values; they do not rely on one’s task-related appraisals of one’s capabil- ities to execute the requirements of a task. Rather, self- esteem focuses on self-valuing. Self-efﬁcacy can be distinguished further from other kinds of expectations that have been the focus of psychologists who are interested in student motiva- tion. In particular, self-efﬁcacy is distinct from the psychological notion of outcome expectations. These expectations concern students’ beliefs regarding the consequences of achieving tasks. For example, stu- dents may fully expect a reward or other outcome when completing a task, but they may have grave doubts about their capacities to accomplish the task that would earn them such a reward. In other words, expectations of the consequences of behaviors are conceptually distinct from self-beliefs concerning enacting behaviors. The former is an outcome expec- tation; the latter is an efﬁcacy expectation. Self-Efficacy and School Learning A very large body of research literature demonstrates that self-efﬁcacy is an important predictor of human 892 Self-Efﬁcacy performance across a vast array of tasks and settings. Although this section is de voted to the relationship between self-efﬁcacy and learning in schools, it is note- worthy that self-efﬁcacy is of wide theoretical impor- tance and practical application. Indeed, research has examined the relationship between self-efﬁcacy and human change in clinical, counseling, sports, health, and other settings. The bulk of these studies has shown that self-efﬁcacy is a moderate predictor of performance across many different beha viors. These ﬁndings are particularly valuable becaus e they speak to the general- izability of the self-efﬁcacy construct and hence its widespread usefulness in und erstanding human change. Turning to the school context, self-efﬁcacy is a mod- erate predictor of academic achievement. Students with higher self-efﬁcacy tend to achieve more. Furthermore, heightened levels of self-e fﬁcacy are associated with longer persistence on classr oom tasks. The relationship between self-efﬁcacy and performance is a complex one. Self-efﬁcacy may reﬂect prior accomplishments, such as how one has done in the past on a particular kind of arithmetic problem, but it is not the same as simply knowing what one can do. Research in a number of different settings has dem onstrated that self-efﬁcacy predicts future performance even when past perfor- mance is controlled. Stated so mewhat differently, self- efﬁcacy provides information about student achieve- ment that is over and above information provided by students’ past accomplishmen ts. It is more than simply knowing what one has done previously. It is a motiva- tional belief concerning per sonal agency that energizes willful execution of knowledge and skill when students are confronted with aca demic challenge. Several studies have concluded that self-efﬁcacy is not just correlated with academic achievement, but that it mediates academic learning. Using complex mathe- matical models, these studies have suggested that stu- dents’ prior achievements enhance self-efﬁcacy, which in turn affects subsequent achievement. In this way, the relationship between self-efﬁcacy and achievement is a reciprocal one. As learners master academic tasks, they experience heightened self-efﬁcacy. In turn, this heightened self-efﬁcacy enhances subsequent learning. Thus, self-efﬁcacy and lear ning are mutually enhancing as both intertwine across time. Enhancing Student Self-Efficacy With the importance of student self-efﬁcacy well established, researchers have turned their attention to examining how students gain a sense of self-efﬁcacy. Research and theory point to four main sources of efﬁcacy information. First, students can gain efﬁcacy beliefs by directly experiencing the mastery of classroom tasks. As students engage and successfully accomplish academic goals, they are imbued with ever-increasing beliefs of self-efﬁcacy. Self-efﬁcacy gleaned from mastery experiences is robust and reli- able. Success expectations build directly on repeated successful experience. A student may also witness the mastery demonstra- tions of others as they are engaged in academic work. Through a process of observational or vicarious learn- ing, students can experience enhanced perceptions that they too can successfully complete tasks. As efﬁ- cacy beliefs formed in this way are indirect, that is, rely on the observations of others’ task performances, they are necessarily less reliable sources of efﬁcacy information. After all, a student must identify with the skill level and abilities of fellow students before adopting a similar level of self-efﬁcacy. A third source of efﬁcacy information is found in the persuasive verbal comments of others. Students often hear the encouraging words of teachers and par- ents who exhort them to persist in meeting academic challenges. These statements of persuasion are used frequently to bolster student self-efﬁcacy. Once again, however, enhancing student self-efﬁcacy by exhorta- tive means is not as predictable as changes in self- efﬁcacy that arise from students’ direct mastery experiences. Students may discount the remarks made by supportive teachers and parents, particularly if such remarks are overdone. Finally, students’ efﬁcacy beliefs may be affected by their physiological state, that is, their perceptions of physiological agitation, heart rate, breathing rate, and so on. A student who feels agitated prior to and during a test, for example, may be instilled with a sense of dread and lowered self-efﬁcacy. Students who interpret their physiological arousal in such a way would be predicted to have lower motivation and achievement. On the other hand, another student may experience the same level of physiological arousal when confronted with a testing situation and interpret such arousal as normal. Indeed, this student may interpret test jitters as a harbinger of appropriate arousal. The important observation here is that physi- ological information may enhance or detract from efﬁcacious beliefs depending on one’s cognitive inter- pretation of the physiological state. Self-Efﬁcacy 893 Teachers can play a crucial role in setting learning conditions that can promote self-efﬁcacy in their stu- dents. Because mastery experiences are a dominant source of students’ efﬁcacy beliefs, teachers who carefully set mastery experiences in the classroom will produce students with a conﬁdent sense of their own capabilities. One way in which teachers can enhance student efﬁcacy is to provide learners with moderately challenging tasks. When students over- come moderate challenge, they experience heightened efﬁcacy expectations. On the other hand, students who accomplish easy tasks would not be expected to experience heightened self-efﬁcacy because such experiences would only conﬁrm prior capabilities. Similarly, students who are confronted with very difﬁ- cult tasks would likely experience failure and a resul- tant loss of efﬁcacy. Learners who take ownership of their achievement in the classroom are able to experience heightened self-efﬁcacy. Not all learners, however, take such ownership. Students who have experienced repeated failure may adopt a sense of learned helplessness. Even when successful, these students may attribute their successes to factors outside of their control, such as work being easy, teachers being lenient, or simply being lucky. Teachers can prevent and remediate such disabling thinking by providing students with feed- back that highlights that they are the origin of their successes. When teachers indicate to students that their successes are the result of their capabilities, tea- chers communicate a way of thinking to students that alerts them to take ownership of task mastery. Mastery experiences can be made more salient when learners are instructed to set goals for them- selves. Goal setting helps to initiate students’ self- appraisals as learners monitor their progress toward meeting clear endpoints of their efforts. Several stud- ies have noted that students who set small, short-term goals rather than one larger, long-term goal are more motivated and experience heightened self-efﬁcacy. The reason for this is easy to see. Setting a series of small and more proximal goals permits more opportu- nities for accomplishment. More frequent successes build more conﬁrmation of growing expertise and higher levels of self-efﬁcacy. As mentioned previously, vicarious experiences can boost self-efﬁcacy. Witnessing the skilled demon- strations of fellow students can imbue observers with an increased sense that they too can engage in the demonstrated actions. Teachers can improve learning andmotivationgleanedvicariouslybyusinganumber of strategies. For example, research indicates that tea- chers who use multiple models to demonstrate skills will increase the transmission of the demonstrated behavior and enhance self-efﬁcacy. Much more might be said about enhancing student self-efﬁcacy. However, the foregoing shows the impor- tance of putting motivational beliefs on the agenda of classroom teaching. Students learn a sense of their cap- abilities to tackle classroom work, and teachers play a crucial role in such learning. Teachers can build instructional experiences that produce students who are conﬁdent, persistent, and active in their engagement of classroom tasks. Future Promise of Self-Efficacy Research Self-efﬁcacy has become a central construct in under- standing human change and its promotion. With that said, several areas have received relatively less atten- tion. The means of promoting student self-efﬁcacy is becoming well understood, however, less well under- stood is how teachers’ sense of instructional efﬁcacy might be enhanced. Teachers, like the learners they teach, complete classroom work. Although their work is different from that of their students, it too is com- posed of numerous tasks completed with various self- beliefs regarding their perceived competence. How teachers develop instructional efﬁcacy, what supports teacher efﬁcacy, and how teachers’ self-efﬁcacy inﬂu- ences student learning warrant further explication. A second and particularly exciting area of self- efﬁcacy research concerns the notion of collective efﬁcacy. Social organizations in general and schools in particular might be thought of as having a collective sense of conﬁdence to act. This kind of efﬁcacy may be present when groups adopt goals, bring forth plans and strategies, and judge a collective sense of com- munity empowerment. How collective school efﬁcacy might inﬂuence both student and teacher self-efﬁcacy has not been established clearly. Such an analysis would require a complex, multilevel approach that would assess the unique and shared effects of collec- tive, teacher, and student levels of self-efﬁcacy on learning. Finally, studies of the developmental trajectories of students’ efﬁcacy beliefs should be conducted. In par- ticular, the factors that affect long-term development of these self-beliefs across schooling would provide 894 Self-Efﬁcacy a broad view of how children and adolescents acquire personal agency. John Walsh See also Learned Helplessness; Motivation; Self- Determination; Self-Esteem; Social Learning Theory Further Readings Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efﬁcacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology , 52 , 1–26. Bong, M., & Clark, R. (1999). Comparison of self-concept and self-efﬁcacy in academic motivation research. Educational Psychologist , 34 , 139–154. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efﬁcacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research , 66 , 543–579. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efﬁcacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research , 69 , 202–248. S ELF -E STEEM Self-esteem refers to one’s overall positive or negative evaluation of oneself and can be viewed in a variety of ways: as an enduring trait, as stable versus fragile, as speciﬁc domains of contingent self-worth, or as a goal that people pursue. Self-esteem is thought to develop in childhood and remains relatively stable over time. Although there are costs associated with different types of self-esteem, there are alternatives to pursuing self- esteem that may help to reduce the costs. There is tremendous emphasis in North American culture on self-esteem, with continuing discussion over whether self-esteem is a universal need or is unique to North American culture. In popular culture, thousands of self-help books and child-rearing man- uals have been written on this topic; in the scientiﬁc community, more than 15,000 journal articles have been published in this area in the past 30 years. Self- esteem has often been hailed as an antidote to society’s problems. The self-esteem movement of the 1990s assumed that raising people’s self-esteem could reduce social problems such as low academic achievement, high dropout rates, teenage pregnancy, domestic violence, and drug and alcohol abuse. A recent review of the literature by Roy Baumeister and colleagues, however, suggests that the effects of trait self-esteem may be limited. High self-esteem, once thought to predict a variety of positive outcomes, was found to be associated only with a tendency to experi- ence positive emotions and feelings of self-efﬁcacy. Low self-esteem, once thought to be a cause of nega- tive outcomes, was found to be merely a symptom or correlate of negative outcomes rather than a reliable cause. Overall, their review suggested that there may be more to self-esteem than whether it is high or low. This entry examines the multifaceted nature of self- esteem: how self-esteem affects people’s responses to self-threats; the stability of self-esteem; contingencies of self-worth, or the domains on which people base their self-esteem; and self-validation goals, or the desire to prove that one possesses certain qualities on which self-esteem is based. This entry concludes with a discussion of cross-cultural differences in self-esteem and ways to reduce the costs associated with pursuing self-esteem. Responses to Self-Esteem Threats High-self-esteem people possess favorable, conﬁdently held self-views. They are sk illed at maintaining and enhancing their self-esteem, especially in the face of self-threats. For example, f ollowing failure feedback, high-self-esteem pe ople, compared to low-self-esteem people, are likely to call to mi nd their strengths relative to weaknesses, persist longer on tasks, take more risks, and afﬁrm themselves in domains unrelated to the threat in order to boost their self-esteem. In addition, they are likely to deﬂect the threat away from them- selves and make self-serving attributions, such as by blaming others or dismissing the validity of the nega- tive feedback. Low-self-esteem people pos sess relatively less favor- able, less conﬁdent self-views and are highly concerned about the possibility of being rejected by others. When low-self-esteem people fail, they are quicker to call to mind their weaknesses rela tive to strengths, and tend to internalize and overgener alize the negative feedback to themselves, viewing the failure as conﬁrmation of their global inadequacy. Low-self-esteem people engage in self-protective strategies following failure to avoid further loss of self-esteem, such as reducing their task motivation, avoiding risks, and showing decreased desire to repair their negative moods. Low-self-esteem people possess contingencies of interpersonal acceptance; when they fail, they auto- matically associate failure with being rejected by Self-Esteem 895 others. Indeed, low self-esteem is related to personality measures reﬂecting insecurit y in relationships, such as rejection sensitivity, ins ecure attachment styles, and excessive reassurance-seeking in relationships. Follow- ing failure, low-self-esteem people become more inter- personally oriented, which leads them to be liked more by strangers. In interactions with strangers, low- self-esteem people may be more highly attuned to the possibility of rejection and thus likely to expend much effort to ensure that the other person likes them. How- ever, in the context of close relationships, low-self- esteem people show self-pro tective responses following self-threat; they distance themselves from their part- ners, devalue their relationships, and doubt their part- ner’s love for them—preemptive responses to avoid the possibility of being rej ectedbytheirpartners. High-self-esteem people are conﬁdent of their inter- personal acceptance and do not chronically worry about whether others will reject or accept them. In fact, high- self-esteem people become more independent following failure, focusing on their unique abilities and competen- cies rather than on their interpersonal qualities, leading them to be liked less by strangers. However, in close relationships, high-self-esteem people draw closer to their partners and afﬁrm the ir relationships following self-threat, thereby repairing their self-esteem. Research on high- and low-self-esteem people’s responses to success are mixed. Some studies show that both high- and low-self-esteem people show increased self-esteem and positive mood following success. However, other studies suggest that low-self- esteem people experience heightened anxiety follow- ing success, because positive feedback is inconsistent with their negative self-views. Indeed, low-self- esteem people are likely to dampen experiences of positive affect, whereas high-self-esteem people are likely to savor them. Such ﬁndings are consistent with William Swann’s self-veriﬁcation theory, which states that people are motivated to verify or conﬁrm their existing self-views, even if they are negative. Stability of Self-Esteem In addition to trait self-esteem, researchers have also investigated the stability of people’s self-esteem. In particular, Michael Kernis and colleagues have distin- guished between stable high self-esteem and fragile high self-esteem. People with stable high self-esteem show relatively few ﬂuctuations in feelings of self- worth over time, because their self-worth is less dependent on external feedback or circumstances. In contrast, people with fragile high self-esteem show dramatic ﬂuctuations in their feelings of self-worth; because they depend heavily on feedback from others and the external environment to determine their self- feelings, they experience instability of self-esteem and increased anger and hostility toward others upon receiving negative feedback. Indeed, narcissists are especially likely to have fragile high self-esteem— although they think highly of themselves, they pos- sess an underlying fragility of self-worth that leads to an insatiable quest to be continually validated and admired by others. Contingencies of Self-Worth Contingencies of self-worth reﬂect speciﬁc domains on which people base their self-worth. Jennifer Crocker and colleagues identiﬁed seven domains of contingency among college students: academic com- petence, physical attractiveness, others’ approval, competition, virtue, having support from one’s family, and having God’s love. Individuals differ in their bases of self-worth, with consequences for how they spend their time, their mental and physical health, and interpersonal outcomes. For example, people who base self-worth on attractiveness spend more time shopping, grooming, and socializing; people who base self-worth on virtue spend more time volunteering and attending church. Research has shown that certain domains of contingency incur more costs to mental and physical health than others. For example, basing self-worth on appearance is associated with depres- sive symptoms and eating disorders, whereas basing self-worth on virtue is associated with less alcohol use and higher grade point average (GPA). Basing self-worth on academics, although associated with more time spent studying, does not predict GPA; one explanation is that staking self-worth on academics leads to increased stress and anxiety, which, in turn, interferes with optimal performance. Although contingencies are highly motivating, they are also a source of vulnerability because people are likely to experience negative events in domains of contingency that threaten their sense of self-worth. For example, people who base self-worth on aca- demics report more negative self-evaluative thoughts following failure than those who are less contingent on their academic competence. Furthermore, low-self- esteempeoplewhobaseself-worthonacademicsand 896 Self-Esteem experience failure are likely to disengage from the goal to appear competent and be quicker to associate themselves with failure than with success. Finally, research has shown that among college seniors apply- ing to graduate schools, those whose self-worth was highly contingent on academics showed dramatic ﬂuctuations in self-esteem and mood in response to acceptances versus rejections from graduate schools, which, in turn, led to instability of self-esteem and an increase in depressive symptoms over time. Interpersonally, research has shown that high- self-esteem people who base self-worth on academic competence and receive an academic self-threat become less responsive to others’ personal problems and ultimately become less likeable. In contrast, low- self-esteem people who are contingent on academics and experience academic threat become more sup- portive toward others’ personal problems and thus are more liked by others. Self-Validation Goals People are likely to adopt self-validation goals aimed at proving and validating that they possess those qual- ities on which their self-esteem is based. Research has shown that students who base self-worth on aca- demics are likely to possess academic self-validation goals aimed at proving their competence to others. Although self-validation goals are motivating, when students focus on validating their ability, they are likely to experience more academic anxiety, show less intrinsic motivation, make more negative ability- based attributions, and perform more poorly on tasks following failure than those who are not as focused on demonstrating their ability. Culture and the Pursuit of Self-Esteem Although some researchers have proposed that self- esteem is a fundamental need, others have argued that self-esteem is not universal but, instead, a cultural construction unique to cultures emphasizing individu- ality and personal achievement. For example, Steve Heine and colleagues have shown that in East Asian cultures such as Japan, there is more focus on self- improvement and self-criticism, whereas in North American culture, the focus is on protecting and enhancing self-esteem. Recently, self-esteem has been conceptualized as a goal pursuit, in which people adopt the goal to pro- tect, maintain, and enhance their self-esteem. In North American culture, people spend much of their time and energy pursuing self-esteem. This pursuit is highly motivating because when people succeed, they experience boosts to their self-esteem and increases in positive mood. However, because success is not guar- anteed, people are also likely to experience threats to their self-worth, leading to drops in self-esteem and increases in negative affect. Over time, the pursuit of self-esteem may interfere with the fulﬁllment of psy- chological needs such as competence, autonomy, and relatedness with others. For example, when people are focused on protecting self-esteem, they are less open to learning from their mistakes or examining areas that they need to improve. An alternative to pursuing self-esteem may be to shift from goals focused on protecting and enhancing self-esteem to goals that are larger than the self and include others, such as adopting learning goals aimed at making a contribution to one’s ﬁeld. Along these lines, research has shown that students who ad

bundet

opt mastery goals in the classroom show deeper cognitive processing and more intrinsic interest than those with performance-oriented goals. Lora E. Park See also Goals; Motivation; Self-Efﬁcacy Further Readings Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 4 , 1–44. Blaine, B., & Crocker, J. (1993). Self-esteem and self-serving biases in reactions to positive and negative events: An integrative review. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 55–85). New York: Plenum. Brown, J. D., & Dutton, K. A. (1995). The thrill of victory, the complexity of defeat: Self-esteem and people’s emotional reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 68 , 712–722. Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin , 130 , 392–414. Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review , 108 , 593–623. Self-Esteem 897 Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review , 106 , 766–795. Kernis, M. H. (1993). The roles of stability and level of self-esteem in psychological functioning. In R. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 167–182). New York: Plenum. Swann, W. B., Jr. (1996). Self-traps: The elusive quest for higher self-esteem. New York: W. H. Freeman. Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2001). Self-esteem and threats to self: Implications for self-construals and interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81 , 1103–1118. S EX E DUCATION Sex education maybedeﬁnednarrowlyasareproduc- tive health curriculum delivered to young people by public school teachers. This limited view can be considered problematic because it focuses only on sexual functioning or behavior. A more current term— sexuality education —conveys a broader meaning that includes attitudes, roles, and relationships, as well as social and cultural aspects of being female or male. Also, sexuality concepts are learned throughout life from a range of people and resources in a variety of settings. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) deﬁnes sexu- ality education as a lifelong process of acquiring information and forming attitudes, beliefs, and values about identity, relationships, and intimacy. Sexuality education addresses the sociocultural, biological, psy- chological, and spiritual dimensions of sexuality by providing information; exploring feelings, values, and attitudes; and developing communication, decision- making, and critical-thinking skills. For sexuality education to be comprehensive, it should be included at every school grade level. Educa- tional psychology guides the determination of age and developmental appropriateness for both content and methods. Curriculum design uses theories involving motivation, social and cognitive learning, and behavior change. In addition to developmental and theoretical foundations, programs should be sensitive and respect- ful toward community values and beliefs as well as the cultural background of students. SIECUS believes that parents are their children’s primary sexuality educators, but programs that are school-based, originate in reli- gious or community groups, or come from health care professionals can complement and augment the educa- tion children receive in their families. Although the speciﬁc content and focus of sexual- ity education varies and may be contentious, research polls have consistently demonstrated that the vast majority of U.S. parents (87 % –94 %)wantschoolsto provide education on topics including growth and development during puberty, sexual abstinence, sexu- ally transmitted infections (STIs), HIV/AIDS, contra- ception, and disease prevention methods. Students have also been polled and express strong support for sexuality education that includes coverage of health risks, birth control, abortion, and how to handle sex- ual feelings. Whatever the speciﬁcs, the primary goal of sexuality education is the health and well-being of learners. The purpose, history, and challenges of sexu- ality education are addressed in this entry. Purpose The goal of providing balanced and accurate informa- tion is based on the premise that some sources of information are incomplete or misleading. When chil- dren between 10 and 12 years old are asked, 38 % say they get ‘‘a lot’’ of information about sex from TV, movies, and magazines and 31 % say they get ‘‘a lot’’ from friends. Among teens (13 to 15 years old), friends are ranked highest (64 %) and media are next (61 % ). The Internet (40 % ) falls above mothers (38 % ) but below schools and teachers (44 %)asasourceof information about sex. In school-based sexuality edu- cation, factual information that emphasizes realism and the connection between sexuality and positive human relationships can counteract distortions and misrepresentations. Reducing the harmful effects of sexual behaviors is a goal espoused by many. The targets are most often reducing unwanted pregnancy rates; limiting the spread of STIs, including HIV; restricting sexual activity (sometimes based on marital status, age, or sexual orientation); and addressing sexual harassment, assault, and child sexual abuse. It is understandable that some of these concerns make sexual health an obvious goal among public health priorities; they formed the basis of a report titled The Surgeon Gener- al’s Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior. However, changing behavior may be asking more from an educational intervention than is warranted. Evaluations of various sexuality education programs demonstrate changes 898 Sex Education in knowledge and, in some cases, altered attitudes. Impacts on behavior are complicated; documentation shows that sexuality education does not increase sex- ual activity, and there is evidence that protection is used more consistently following certain programs. On the other hand, signing virginity pledges and hear- ing about condom failure rates rather than effective- ness seems to increase the likelihood of broken pledges and unprotected sexual intercourse. Efforts to deﬁne what is normative and expected sexual behav- ior and problems with such efforts are discussed in the ideological segment that follows. Preparing students to become sexually healthy adults with all the skills, attitudes, and values that that entails is another goal of sexuality education. The focus on health involves moving away from an emphasis on harm, danger, and secrecy. Instead, young people are given opportunities to develop rela- tionship insights; they can then recognize what to seek rather than what to avoid. Sexually healthy rela- tionships are honest; consensual; nonexploitative; mutually pleasurable; safe from harm, both physical and psychological; and protected from unwanted pregnancy and STIs. Sexuality education aimed at ful- ﬁlling this purpose helps students understand their obligations and responsibilities; develop interpersonal skills including communication, decision making, and assertiveness; and form caring, supportive, and nonco- ercive relationships. The central purpose of sex educa- tion has not always been viewed this broadly. History A variety of lenses can be used to examine how the past inﬂuences the present. Inventions and research topics reﬂect the concerns of the time. Antisex crusa- ders Sylvester Graham in the early 1800s and John Harvey Kellogg in the late 1800s both introduced pro- ducts (graham crackers and corn ﬂakes) intended to improve health by calming children and preventing masturbation. Examples of varied research methods to learn about sexual behavior include Alfred Kinsey’s interviews of thousands of men and women in the mid-20th century, William Masters and Virginia Johnson’s physiological study of human sexual response in the second half of the 20th century, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) administration of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBS) to students across the nation. All of these examples mirror societal views throughout history of what is important to know and respond to. Ideological Dennis L. Carlson frames his historical overview as four distinct ideologies, each covering about a quar- ter of the 20th century, but all still present in sexuality education today to varying degrees. These ideologies incorporate a relatively coherent set of values and beliefs that appears to represent the society as a whole but is based on the interests of one group or class. The ﬁrst ideology is traditional and is based on an essentialist theory that sexuality must be repressed for the survival of civilization because it represents sick- ness and sinfulness. In the classrooms of today, the traditional ideology is represented by the ‘‘just say no’’ approach and characterized by slogans such as ‘‘pet your dog, not your date’’ and ‘‘control your urgin’ and be a virgin.’’ A central aim is to enumerate the social and emotional risks of sexual intimacy, to censor and repress sexual expression for the overall good of society. A second ideology is progressive. It is a rational, science-based reaction in which the secular state man- ages sexual and social problems. The sexual ethic of this ideology is grounded in limited expression rather than repression. Both contraception and abortion serve a social function (limit population and poverty) with access under state control. This ideology can be cri- tiqued today for its almost unquestioning support of government initiatives to solve social problems and its implicitly racist and elitist view of society. The third ideology is called radical Freudian and is based on the recapture of pleasure and love. It is not surprising that the curriculum that represents this ideology moves far beyond issues of biological func- tioning. The sexual libertarianism of Herbert Marcuse is central to this approach, and creativity in work and play, for example, are reactions to an earlier emphasis on hard work and discipline. Finally, the fourth ideology is libertarian; sexual diversity and individual sexual rights are primary. This perspective moves beyond the conventional views of sexuality as vice or virtue, normality or per- version. Individuals are the ultimate judges of their own behavior; ethical codes are based on reciprocal granting of freedom of choice and consensuality. The earlier description of a sexually healthy relationship based on mutuality, consent, and nonexploitation is an Sex Education 899 example of sexuality education components based on this libertarian ideology. Inclusion of the range of sexual orientations and gender identities is another example of the afﬁrmation of diversity as opposed to emphasis on conformity. Pedagogical Several educators and authors (Evonne Hedgepeth, Joan Helmich, and Douglas Kirby) have divided the recent history of sexuality education into generations according to the pedagogy employed. The ﬁrst gener- ation is knowledge-based; telling is the main method and the cognitive domain is the only one addressed. The underlying philosophy is, ‘‘If they know it, they will do it.’’ A second generation put greater emphasis on values clariﬁcation and skill building, especially com- munication and decision making. This approach incorporates the affective domain and leads to greater personal self-awareness and tolerance of the values of others, but impact on behavior is limited. A para- phrase of this method might be, ‘‘If they believe it is right, they will do it.’’ Sexuality education of the third generation arose in reaction to the ﬁrst two. Speciﬁc moral messages focus on restricting sexual activity to heterosexual marriage. Providing information about prophylaxis is rejected because of the belief that it gives a double message; ‘‘If they don’t know about it, they won’t do it but if we tell them about it, they will do it.’’ The fourth generation recognizes the strengths and weaknesses of the previous methods, focuses upon behavior change and learning theories, and does affect behavior. The theme of this generation is, ‘‘If they practice what they know and apply what they believe, they will be equipped to make wise choices.’’ The ﬁfth generation of sexuality education is still to come. Its development emphasizes integration of theory, research, and health promotion; it is com- prehensive, positive, and proactive as opposed to reactive. As with previous generations, there are chal- lenges to be addressed. Challenges If the effectiveness of sexuality education is based upon outcomes, including the rates of unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and incidence of STIs, then the United States is far down the list compared to other developed countries, especially in western Europe. The reasons are complex, but lack of support for early and ongoing sex- uality education, mixed mes sages ranging from explicit media images to lack of acc ess to contraceptive meth- ods and information, limited teacher preparation, and fear of opposition all contribute. Ethical challenges also exist. One important ques- tion is whether it is appropriate to apply a single set of beliefs or values to a diverse population. Another issue is the potential harm that could result from with- holding information. A third concern involves health disparities based on limited access to services such as methods of contraception and disease prevention. Feminist scholars Lynn Phillips and Michelle Fine put forward a vital challenge. They recognize the need for courage and capacity to look critically at social arrangements, rigorously analyze power differences, and interrupt the structured silences that deprive stu- dents of the important sexuality education they need and deserve. Sarah C. Conklin See also Abstinence Education; Curriculum Development; Gender Identity; HIV/AIDS; Sexual Orientation Further Readings Advocates for Youth. (2002). Resource guide for sex educators: Basic resources that every sex educator needs to know about. Washington, DC: Author. Advocates for Youth. (2003). Science and success: Sex education and other programs that work to prevent teen pregnancy, HIV and sexually transmitted infections. Washington, DC: Author. Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health. (2007). Curriculum content review: An in-depth look at curricula in use in Illinois classrooms. Chicago: Author. Satcher, D. (2001). The Surgeon General’s call to action to promote sexual health and responsible sexual behavior. Rockville, MD: Ofﬁce of the Surgeon General. Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. (2004). National Guidelines Taskforce: Guidelines for comprehensive sexuality education kindergarten–12th grade (3rd ed.). New York: Author. Taverner, W. J., & Kelly, M. Issue 7. Should sex ed teach about abstinence? In W. J. Taverner (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views in human sexuality (10th ed., pp. 104–123). Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill. Wiley, D. C. (2002). The ethics of abstinence-only and abstinence-plus sexuality education. Journal of School Health , 72 (4), 164–167. 900 Sex Education S EXUAL O RIENTATION Sexual orientation refers to one’s emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to another person and is generally assumed to be heterosexual, or straight, meaning that one is attracted to members of the opposite sex. How- ever, various studies suggest that between 5 % and 10 % of the population may be homosexual, meaning that these people are emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to members of the same sex. This topic is per- tinent to educators, administrators, school psychologists, and others who work with children and youth because adolescents often begin to become aware of their sexual orientation before, during, and after puberty. Addition- ally, homosexual youth, including college-age young adults, often cope with bullying, assaults, and even murder in some cases, as well as shame, depression, and low self-esteem because of internalized negative societal views regarding homosexuality (i.e., internal- ized homophobia); these youth are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. This entry examines several topics related to sex- ual orientation, including common terminology, self- disclosure (i.e., coming out), possible causes, and other information. Common Terminology: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Although the word gay is often used synonymously with homosexual, gay generally refers speciﬁcally to gay men, whereas the word lesbian refers to a woman who is attracted to another woman. Use of the words gay and lesbian is generally thought to be preferable, rather than homosexual, the former of which are thought to be more personable, whereas the latter is considered more clinical and diagnostic, thus implying pathology to be treated and cured, although homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1973. Additionally, bisexuality refers to both men and women who are equally attracted to members of both sexes. Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues noted that sexual orientation exists on a continuum with homo- sexuality at one end and heterosexuality at the other end, but that many people were in the middle (i.e., bisexual). The Kinsey Scale is well-known and used by researchers today, even though it dates back to 1948. Although the transgender community has unique challenges and needs, it is part of the GLBT community, a common acronym referring to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender, sometimes also referred to as queer , a previously pejorative term reclaimed by some in the GLBT community as a word of empowerment. Coming Out: A Process Coming out of the closet is a common phrase that refers to the process by which a GLBT person becomes aware of his or her sexual orientation and begins to disclose it to trusted friends and family members. Vivienne Cass, an Australian psychologist, was one of the ﬁrst to put forth a developmental model of homosexual identity formation, as have others. These models tend to be stage oriented and generally follow a similar linear process whereby GLBT identity begins, sometimes as early as elemen- tary school ages, with an awareness that something is different. Gradually, this difference becomes under- stood as having to do with attraction (e.g., an adoles- cent boy develops a crush on another boy, rather than a girl). These attractions may be in direct conﬂict with societal norms, religious values, and many overt and covert messages (e.g., only ‘‘sissy’’ boys like other boys). Thus, many GLBT people will go into the closet as they become aware of their sexual orienta- tion, hiding it, while presenting themselves as hetero- sexual, even, in some cases, to the point of engaging in heterosexual marriage and having children. However, these GLBT feelings rarely go away, and so the closeted GLBT person may begin to seek information and the company of other GLBT people, often ﬁrst going online, where the seeming anonymity of the Internet provides a sense of security. If and as the GLBT person becomes increasingly comfortable with the idea that he or she may be GLBT, possibly experiencing his or her ﬁrst GLBT sexual encounter, the GLBT person will likely begin to acknowledge his or her sexual orientation, ﬁrst to him- or herself, and then to a trusted friend or family member. This can have devastating results if the GLBT person is rejected by his or her family or friends, but it can also be a boost to self-esteem if the GLBT person is accepted. It is common for GLBT people in this stage to be out of the closet in some parts of their life (e.g., with close friends or family members), but not out in other Sexual Orientation 901 areas (e.g., at work or school). This process can be further complicated with ethnic minority GLBT peo- ple who may be managing dual identities (e.g., African American, female, and lesbian), and it can be prematurely rushed if GLBT people are outed by others, either intentionally or unintentionally (i.e., dis- closing a GLBT person’s sexuality without permis- sion). Gradually, however, the GLBT person may come out to more people, maybe becoming an activist for GLBT rights, and eventually reach a point where being GLBT is not seen as the end-all-be-all of his or her existence. Rather, similar to the way sexuality may be one of many aspects in a heterosexual per- son’s life, so also a GLBT person’s sexuality may be an important part of who he or she is, but the GLBT person may see him- or herself as more (e.g., a profes- sional, amateur athlete, sibling, and published author). Nature Versus Nurture: Causes of Sexual Orientation Although male homosexuality has, in the past, been thought to be caused by an absent father or a domineer- ing mother (a stereotype that has fallen out of favor), there is no known cause at this time for sexual orienta- tion, whether homosexual or h eterosexual, despite vari- ous attempts to ﬁnd a biological or genetic link, as well as a number of studies that found high homosexual con- cordance rates in monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (fraternal) twins. One theory, the prenatal hormonal hypothesis , suggests that homosexuality may be inﬂu- enced by prenatal hormonal levels at critical fetal developmental stages, as ob served in laboratory animals (e.g., male rats presenting themselves to other male rats in a female receptive posture after having had prenatal hormonal manipulation). Although compelling, it is unclear if the same holds true in humans. Similarly, there are a number of publishe d studies suggesting a bio- logical or genetic connection to sexual orientation, but to date, these studies remain inconclusive and are often criticized for methodological reasons or a lack of inde- pendent replication. Currently, it is generally held that sexual orientation, whether h eterosexual or homosexual, may develop through several factors, including biologi- cal and environmental inﬂuences, as well as genetic predispositions. It should also be noted that therapeutic attempts to change sexual orientation, commonly referred to as either reparative therapies (i.e., those with a psychotherapeutic approach) or transformational ministries (i.e., those with a religious approach), are generally considered ineffective, changing, at most, only sexual behavior. Reparative therapies have been rejected by many major organizations that focus on education (e.g., American Association of School Administrators, American Counseling Association, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiat- ric Association, American Psychological Association, National Association of School Psychologists) for several reasons, including (a) their outdated basis that homosexuality is a mental disorder, (b) the concern that they may be harmful to a GLBT person’s self- esteem, and © their unproven track record. GLBT Pride and History Although there had been a number of early homophile organizations (e.g., the Daughters of Bilitis and the Mattachine Society), the modern GLBT rights move- ment is generally thought to have started with the Stonewall Riots in New York on June 27, 1969, coin- cidentally a few days after the death of Judy Garland, a GLBT icon. The Stonewall Inn was (and still is) a gay bar, and on the night of June 27, 1969, it was raided by the New York City Police Department. At that time, outward displays of homosexuality were illegal (e.g., dancing with someone of the same sex), as is still the case in many parts of the world today, punishable in some places by death. Police raids on gay bars were somewhat frequent during that time, but on that particular night, the patrons of the Stonewall Inn, some dressed in drag (i.e., men dressed as women) and others being homeless GLBT street youth, had had enough. They resisted arrest and fought back, throwing coins and even an unearthed parking meter at the police, who, surprised, were reported to have found themselves barricaded in the bar at one point. The riot lasted several nights; the bar was burned, but the modern GLBT rights movement had begun. Then came AIDS. And millions of people world- wide, heterosexual and homosexual, have been and continue to be infected and affected by it. Although HIV/AIDS was ﬁrst thought to be a ‘‘gay disease’’ because it decimated many gay men in major metro- politan areas, such as New York and San Francisco, and was even called the ‘‘gay cancer’’ by the popular press and GRID (gay-related immune deﬁciency) by the medical community in the mid-to late 1980s, it 902 Sexual Orientation should be noted that HIV/AIDS knows neither politi- cal boundaries nor sexual orientation. HIV/AIDS mobilized the GLBT community and brought it out of the closet in a way that nothing before ever had, and this virus, along with other sexually transmitted infec- tions (STIs), remains a valid concern of the GLBT community. Thus, those who work with a GLBT population should be aware of this history and caution clients and students to consider either abstinence and/ or safer-sex practices (e.g., talking with their partners about STIs and using condoms) when choosing to engage in sexual activity. Discriminatory Terminology With the burgeoning academic ﬁeld of queer studies, a number of words and phrases have been coined to describe discriminatory assumptions and practices toward GLBT people, including Adrienne Rich’s expression, compulsory heterosexuality, to describe societal assumptions and demands that people be heterosexual. Other phrases include homophobia,the irrational fear and/or hatred of GLBT people; hetero- sexism , the presumption that someone is heterosexual; internalized homophobia , the internalization by GLBT people of negative societal views and stereotypes, often contributing to low self-esteem and/or depression and suicidal ideation; and gay lifestyle or homosexual life- style , a phrase generally used by GLBT opponents to imply that being GLBT is a lifestyle choice of multiple sexual partners, STIs, alcohol and substance abuse, and ultimately, depression and premature death. The phrase has negative connotations, is inappropriate for those who work with a GLBT population, and fails to recog- nize that being GLBT, per se, does not lead to depres- sion and its many manifestations (e.g., alcohol and substance abuse); rather, because of negative societal views toward GLBT people, internalized homophobia can lead to psychological di stress and its many mani- festations. Similarly, sexual preference also implies a choice and is not appropriate when working with GLBT people; sexual orientation is the preferred term. Future Directions Hardly a century ago, homosexuality was a moral question, mostly under the purview of religious lea- ders. It then became a legal issue for the criminal jus- tice system to consider. Psychology brought it into the medical realm as a disorder to be diagnosed and treated. With each step, GLBT people have moved from ‘‘sinful’’ to ‘‘criminal’’ to ‘‘sick’’ to today’s increasing understanding and acceptance that human sexuality, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, is simply part of the human condition, and perhaps love, wherever it is found between consenting adults, is an extraordinary thing to be celebrated rather than condemned. Andrew D. Reichert See also Gender Bias; Gender Differences; Sex Education Further Readings American Psychological Association. (2000, February). Guidelines for psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Retrieved December 10, 2006, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/guidelines.html Byne, W. (1997). Why we cannot conclude that sexual orientation is primarily a biological phenomenon. Journal of Homosexuality , 34 (1), 73–80. Byne, W., & Parsons, B. (1993). Human sexual orientation: The biologic theories reappraised. Archives of General Psychiatry , 50 , 228–239. Carter, D. (2004). Stonewall: The riots that sparked the gay revolution. New York: St. Martin’s. Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality , 4 (3), 219–235. Remafedi, G. (Ed.). (1994). Death by denial: Studies of suicide in gay and lesbian teenagers. Boston: Alyson. Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society , 5 , 631–660. Shilts, R. (1987). And the band played on: Politics, people, and the AIDS epidemic . New York: St. Martin’s. S HAPING The term shaping was coined by B. F. Skinner to refer to both a speciﬁc teaching technique and a general learning process. Shaping is the technique whereby a behavior totally outside the learner’s cur- rent repertoire of skills is carefully brought into exis- tence by reinforcing successive approximations to the desired performance. Shaping also refers to the learn- ing process that takes place whenever a behavior is modiﬁed or molded over time by the consequences that differentiate its various forms. Shaping 903 Although not always the case, shaping is most commonly employed when, for whatever reason, the learner can neither follow verbal instructions on how to perform the desired skill nor readily imitate the behavior of another who can perform the skill. When shaping a behavior, the teacher (or therapist or trainer) starts by reinforcing whatever speciﬁc action the learner currently exhibits that is most like the new skill the teacher wants the learner to acquire. Often, the response initially selected for reinforcement bears little resemblance to the performance that is ulti- mately desired, even though the teacher always selects the closest approximation to that ﬁnal action that the learner is now likely to perform. When repeated reinforcement has made this initial response more frequent, reinforcement of that behavior is stopped and the behavioral criterion that must be met to obtain further reinforcement is shifted to an action that is slightly closer to the ultimate performance desired. Typically, this new criterion behavior is one that, although not likely to occur at the start of train- ing, has begun to appear during the period when responses that met the previous criterion were getting stronger, but sometimes, it is the discontinuation of reinforcement or extinction of the previously rein- forced behavior that stimulates occurrence of varia- tions that meet the new criterion. Thus, the technique takes advantage of closer approximations to the desired behavior that emerge naturally, along with other variations in behavior, during the course of rein- forcing and extinguishing earlier approximations. When the newly selected criterion behavior is occur- ring reliably, the teacher again changes the require- ment to a behavior in the direction of the ﬁnal goal. Teaching proceeds in this fashion, often quite rapidly, moving smoothly across a continuum of criteria for reinforcement that approximate ever more closely the ﬁnal performance desired, until that performance is attained. It is for this reason that shaping is also known as the method of successive approximations. Through skillful shaping, novel, elaborate, and even peculiar acts never previously performed can be brought into existence. For example, shaping has been used to teach parrots to roller skate and ride bicycles, raccoons to play basketball, and chickens to peck out tunes on miniature pianos. Far less frivolously, shap- ing has also been used to teach speech to language- delayed children and to help stroke victims and other brain-damaged individuals recover functional use of affected arms and hands. As a learning process, shaping is inherent to any change in behavior where a skill is seamlessly altered or honed because of its direct and immediate consequences. Modern coaches of sports or art forms where precision in skilled move- ment is important (e.g., gymnastics, ﬁgure skating, ballet) take advantage of this fact by deliberately and strategically providing salient and immediate differen- tial response consequences in their coaching practice. Although astute teachers, coaches, and animal trai- ners have probably used shaping intuitively for mil- lennia, it was not until the groundbreaking research of B. F. Skinner in the 1930s and 1940s that shaping became an explicit part of the technical and theoreti- cal knowledge base of formal academic psychology. Skinner found that when he gradually increased the amount of force a hungry laboratory rat had to exert on a lever to obtain a food pellet reinforcer, the rat learned to press the lever harder and harder until, eventually, it pressed it far harder every time than it ever would have done otherwise. Similarly, he found that when he gradually increased the amount of time the rat had to hold down the lever before releasing it would yield a food pellet, the rat learned to hold down the lever for far longer durations than it ever would have done normally. This process of changing a quantitative characteris- tic of a behavior (e.g., grams of response force, seconds of response duration) by gradually increasing the amount of that quantity required for reinforcement had never before been scientiﬁcally described or explored. Skinner initially called the process the differentiation of a response. A few years later, he discovered that qualitative or topographical features of behavior (i.e., speciﬁc postural adjustm ents and limb movements) could also be systematica lly modiﬁed via the method of successive approximations by simply watching the learner and delivering the reinforcement at the appro- priate moment by hand, rather than by sensing the behavior electromechanicall y and presenting reinforce- ment via automatic control a pparatus, as he had always done before. This ﬁnding came as a great ﬂash of insight to Skinner and had a profound impact on his subsequent scholarship. It was at this point that he coined the term shaping to refer to the process by which the physical or social environment differentially reinforces quantitative and/or qualitative variations in behavior so as to bring about more elaborate or reﬁned, proﬁcient, and efﬁcient patterns of behavior. Just as the phenomenon of artiﬁcial selection informed Charles Darwin’s v iew of the role of natural 904 Shaping selection in biological cha nge or evolution over genera- tions, the phenomenon of shaping informed Skinner’s view of the role of operant conditioning in behavioral change over an individual’s lifetime. The basic princi- ples at work in the operant conditioning of an indivi- dual’s behavioral habits and abilities over a single lifetime parallel the principles at work in the evolution of a species’ biological traits and capacities over suc- cessive generations. In evolut ion, natural selection of slight biological variations vi a differential reproduction in a given generation gives rise to a different distribu- tion of variants in the next generation upon which the selection process operates again. Over generations, this eventuates in new forms of life quite different from the ancestralforms.Inoperant conditioning, selection of slight variations in an indivi dual’s behavior via differ- ential reinforcement gives rise to further variations upon which selection by consequences operates again. Over time, this eventuates in forms of behavior quite different from the earlier topographies. In his later writings about human behavior, Skinner distinguished between contingency-shaped behavior and rule-governed behavior. The former referred to behavior that, as described above, is shaped through direct contact with its actual consequences. Both humans and nonhuman animals exhibit contingency- shaped behavior, but only people exhibit rule-governed behavior (i.e., behavior that originates from verbal instructions or rules stated by others). However, Skinner saw shaping as having at least two fundamen- tally important inﬂuences on rule-governed behavior. First, the habit of following directions or complying with rules comes into existence itself via shaping (i.e., via direct contact with the consequences of obeying and disobeying rules). Second, after the tendency to obey rules has become establis hed so that new behaviors originate purely through follo wing verbal instructions, those new behaviors are subject to further modiﬁcation by the direct consequences of actually performing them, and thus the contingency-shaped behavior pro- cess again comes into play. The same thing happens to behavior that originates via imitation. Thus, shap- ing is an important and pervasive process among the many mechanisms that inﬂuence the particulars of human behavior. Gail B. Peterson See also Behavior Modiﬁcation; Learning; Operant Conditioning Further Readings Peterson, G. B. (2004). A day of great illumination: B. F. Skinner’s discovery of shaping. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior , 82 , 317–328. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts. Skinner, B. F. (1951). How to teach animals. Scientiﬁc American , 185 , 26–29. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan. S HORT -T ERM M EMORY Short-term memory refers to the part of the memory that has both brief duration and limited capacity. In contrast to long-term memory, which can store an inﬁ- nite amount of information over a long period of time, the storage of information in short-term memory is restricted and lasts only a few seconds in the absence of rehearsal. A recent view of short-term memory, called working memory , suggests a more active system in which information is not only stored but also processed. Working memory is a mechanism for temporarily stor- ing and manipulating the information to perform a vari- ety of complex cognitive tasks. Short-term memory, or working memory, is believed to play a central role in learning, reasoning, and comprehension. Characteristics Short-term memory has some important characteris- tics. First, short-term memory is limited in duration. Information in short-term memory is kept for only a short amount of time before it is transferred to long- term memory or it decays. Generally, short-term memory retains information for only 15–30 seconds. In order to keep information longer, information must be rehearsed frequently. With rehearsal, the informa- tion will reenter the short-term memory and be held for a further period. The longer information is stored in short-term memory, the easier it is to manipulate information to perform complex cognitive tasks. Second, short-term memory has a limited storage capacity. Basically, the capacity of short-term mem- ory is approximately seven items, plus or minus two. The total amount of information that can be stored in short-term memory might depend on the particular Short-Term Memory 905 rules used to manage the information. Research has demonstrated that the chunking of information can increase the capacity of short-term memory. The pro- cess of chunking can reduce the loading of short-term memory by decreasing the number of items and increasing the size of each item. This chunking strat- egy allows the brain to automatically cluster certain items together and thus to remember the items much longer. This is why a hyphenated phone number is easier to remember than seven individual digits. Chunking is an important strategy for transferring short-term memory into long-term memory. The third important feature of short-term memory is that it is subject to forgetting. Information in short- term memory is forgotten easily and quickly in the absence of further processing. Forgetting is mainly caused by decay, displacement, and interference. Decay is the primary mechanism of memory loss. Information in short-term memory decays over time. Short-term memory fades away after a few seconds without rehearsal. In addition, forgetting may occur through displacement: New information pushes out old information from short-term memory and replaces it. Moreover, interference seems to play a role in for- getting. Short-term memory is sensitive to disruption. Memory from earlier trials can interfere with recall of later ones. Information in long-term memory may also interfere with information in short-term memory. Finally, short-term memory is regarded as a gateway to long-term memory. Attent ion plays an important role in selecting information to be held. Research has sug- gested that the perception of the importance of informa- tion determines to a great degree what information is subjected to further proce ssing. Forgetting may begin with the information that has the least importance. Thus, the meaningfulness of an item is critical for its retention. Retention in shor t-term memory allows the opportunity for information to be transferred into long- term memory. Encoding and re hearsal are two main pro- cesses by which transfers oc cur from short-term memory to long-term memory. Encoding strategies may include substitution , which involves replacement of the incoming information by another symbol, or elaboration,which refers to developing a newly formed memory trace. Other factors, such as the inten tion to learn, the presence of incentives, interest in the information, and the level of arousal, also can affect encoding. Rehearsal allows more opportunity to encode into long-term memory. Activities such as using verbal rehearsal, forming mental images, and actively organizing i nformation in short-term memory may enhance long-term retention. Adoption of rehearsal or encoding may depend on the existing knowl- edge in long-term memory. Information is remembered better if it can be linked to other known facts. With more existing knowledge about incoming information, there would be less effort to engage in rehearsal. However, passive residence in short-term memory may not be sufﬁcient to transfer information into long-term memory. Educational Applications There are several applications of short-term memory and working memory in the ﬁeld of education. Short- term memory, or working memory, is assumed to play an important role in explaining language comprehen- sion, problem solving, and age differences in memory. The process of language comprehension takes time. The ﬁrst words of a sentence need to be remembered until the end of the sentence is produced in order for theentiremeaningofthesentencetobecompre- hended. In language comprehension, short-term mem- ory might be critical for providing connection in reading and listening. Short-term memory may also be necessary for problem solving. Mental problem solving requires attention, encoding, storage, and manipulation of information. Several different working memory pro- cesses contribute to problem solving. Information must be encoded into working memory, other information must be retrieved from long-term memory, steps in problem solving must be arranged in order, and unre- lated information must be excluded. Working memory is viewed as having a critical role in planning and orga- nizing these types of activities, which are necessary for problem solving. Finally, working memory might be the key to understanding ag e differences in memory. Research has demonstrated that there is greater age- related decline in working memory. Aging is linked to slower processing, as found by slower encoding of tar- get items into memory or slower switching from one task to another. Shu-Chin Yen See also Episodic Memory; Explicit Memory; Long-Term Memory; Memory Further Readings Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of short-term memory. Scientiﬁc American , 221 , 82–90. 906 Short-Term Memory Baddely, A. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review , 63 , 81–97. Terry, W. S. (2003). Learning and memory: Basic principles, processes, and procedures. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. S INGLE V ERSUS C OED G ENDER E DUCATION Single-gender education refers to the delivery of instruction to members of the same sex in isolation from members of the opposite sex, whereas coed gen- der education refers to instructional delivery to males and females simultaneously. Although gender group- ing is done at both schoolwide and classroom-speciﬁc levels, this entry focuses on the former. The issue of single versus coed gender education has practical implications for schooling, yet most stake- holders’ rationale for making a choice between options has more often than not been an issue of politics and economics rather than pedagogy. In the modern era, but prior to the 20th century, formal education at all levels was decidedly single gender—worldwide. Coeducation has since become common practice and is more often the instructional o ption of choice, especially among public educational institutions. In the early 1900s, public school coeducation across the globe was advanced through the promise of political equality for democratically educated citizenries. Less idealistic but no less evident, coeducation in the West was used as a vehicle for cultural assimilation. It was a response to the waves of European and Asian immigration that threatened to make over America’s colonial heritage. Furthermore, the Depression made compulsory educa- tion and coeducation emblematic of good business. After all, the logic went, coeducation required fewer schools, teachers, a nd support staff. With the national turn toward coeducation, single- gender education became the province of private, often religious schools, especially in the United States. Catering to members of elite communities, pri- vate and religious schools monopolized single-gender education. The nation’s elite private and religious single-gender schools ﬁlled their classrooms by sug- gesting the ﬁrestorm of adolescent courtship detracted from the essential academic tasks of schooling until declining economic circumstance in the 1970s and 1980s forced them to join the march to coeducation. Toward the end of the century, however, legislation and policy in several countries, including the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, reﬂected a resurgence of interest in private and public single-gender education. Current Trends and Limitations To date, empirical investigation of the issues sur- rounding and outcomes of single versus coed gender education has been sparse in comparison to topics such as gender differences in social behaviors and academic attainment. What has been conducted has been void of experimental designs or includes anec- dotal information from single schools or districts. In this sense, consideration of gender or sex as a group- ing variable is regarded as another on a list of group manipulations no more potentially relevant to the average student than grade level or socioeconomic status. Among research that is relevant, however, results are mixed. Support for either position is couched in one of two veins. The traditional argument for coeducation is that sepa ration is inherently unequal. Moreover, male and female social interaction during school years helps to secure a foundation for the future of democratic society. A dif ferent perspective borrows ideas from sociobiology and the cognitive sciences and is committed to single-gender schooling, noting that, on average, males and females learn differently and socialize differently. Gende r segregation, it is argued, is essential to optimize the academic potential of females and males. In spite of—or maybe because of—the paucity of research, advocates of both sides of the debate cite research supporting their broadly staked positions. Pro- ponents of single-gender education tout studies with ﬁndings that suggest single-gender education enhances gender self-esteem, is beneﬁcial for male discipline, and is well received by teachers. Most importantly, at least for advocates of current accountability, single- gender education is suggested to enhance attitude and achievement in core subjects , including math, sciences, and language arts, as well as physical, health, and tech- nology education. Coed gender education advocates counter by calling attention to research that suggests coeducational environments are essential to ensure equal- ity of educational opportunity, diminish sexism in the classroom, end gender discrimination, and circumvent Single Versus Coed Gender Education 907 the glass ceiling that once excluded women from all of the best educational institutions and proﬁtable professions. The inability to resolve many of the issues in the debate over single-gender versus coeducation instruc- tional environments suggests that research methods need reexamination. Reliance on sociological instead of experimental methods has conﬁned much of the conversation of the topic to personal perspective and observation. Such methods also result in an overreli- ance on the investigation of idealized behavioral out- comes (i.e., grade point average, standardized test scores, discipline referrals, attendance). Inasmuch as these outcomes are signiﬁcantly downstream from the intervention of single-gender or coeducation, the inferential value of any concerned studies is limited. Moreover, blanket statements of the effectiveness of one or the other suggests that a culture of single- gender or coeducation is a bounded system made up of philosophies and practices that can be transmitted en corpus to students. Here, single-gender or coeduca- tion is reiﬁed in favor of identifying the advantages and limitations of each instructional type for individ- ual students. Future Directions Findings from the cognitive sciences reveal that phys- ical organization of male and female phenotypes are two very similar yet profoundly different physical and mental code sets through which each individual recognizes his or her world and physical relationship to it. This encoding presents not just a physical differ- entiation but also a differentiation of the cognitive, affective, and conative structures for the mind. To date, for example, differences between males and females have been found in a host of informational processing and behavioral measures, including advan- tages for males, on average, over females on a number of spatial skills such as mental rotation of ﬁgures, maze solving, estimation of speed for an object in motion and horizontal perception. Female advantages, on average, over males have been found on depth per- ception, ﬁne motor dexterity, and location memory tasks. If gender of classmates is related to academic or social outcomes of students, then intraindividual differences in brain function should be evidenced when in the presence of males versus females. In this sense, using the research methods developed by researchers in the cognitive sciences for experimental investigation of intraindividual response to varying gender of classmates may help to recast consideration of single and coed gender education as something more than a pair of monoliths. As these ﬁndings are examined, a more precise, and ultimately practical, discussion is likely to arise from the single versus coed gender education debate. Sean Alan Forbes and James S. Kaminsky See also Cultural Diversity; Gender Bias; Gender Differences; Gender Identity Further Readings Mael, F., Alonso, A., Gibson, D., Rogers, K., & Smith, M. (2005). Single-sex versus coeducational schooling: A systematic review. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking. Salomone, R. C. (2003). Same, different, equal: Rethinking single-sex schooling. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Salomone, R. C. (2006). Single-sex programs: Resolving the research conundrum. Teachers College Record , 108 (4), 778–802. Tyack, D. B., & Hansot, E. (1992). Learning together: A history of coeducation in American public schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. S OCIAL C LASS AND C LASSISM Social class and classism is an important and relevant topic for educational psychologists because extensive research shows that children and adolescents are affected by their social class and experiences with clas- sism. Although the research sometimes has problems conceptualizing and measuring social class in consis- tent and meaningful ways, nevertheless, the body of evidence suggests that educational psychologists need to consider the student’s social class context. For edu- cational psychologists, the ‘‘tip of the iceberg’’ is the student in the classroom. Beneath the manifest student is the latent weight of the student’s social class. He or she brings into the classroom the affects of family, peer, and environmental social class. Educational psy- chologists need to consider how poverty, for instance, is related to physical growth, cognitive stimulation, and intellectual development. Dependingonwhatsocial 908 Social Class and Classism class criterion is being measured, different results will arise. Therefore, approaching social class assessment with a coherent theory or research question will be an importantﬁrststep. In this review, several key considerations and issues are discussed. First, social class, classism, and socioeconomic status are deﬁned as general psycho- logical concepts. Second, the ways in which social class and inequality have an impact on students before entering the classroom environment is discussed. Finally, speciﬁc issues such as the achievement gap, teacher perceptions and expectations, and teacher quality are presented. Defining Social Class and Socioeconomic Status Social class may be regarded as a cultural construct and part of a psychologist’s multicultural competency. But insofar as social class and classism are ubiquitous in an individual’s life span, psychologists need to understand it as more than just a cultural variable. For many psychologists, the main difﬁculty of using social class is deﬁnitional. A few questions may be: What is the difference between social class and socio- economic status? How is it measured? Is social class a position, or is it malleable? To begin, several researchers have suggested that there is no real conceptual difference between social class and socioeconomic status (SES). The variations in research are a result of different conceptualizations by researchers as well as the use of differing variables to measure their operationalization of social class or SES. In a review of three counseling and psychology journals across 20 years (1981–2000), Liu and his col- leagues found authors used more than 400 different terms to conceptualize social class or SES (e.g., inequality, poverty). Similar results have also been found in educational psychology journals where social class is seldom measured or meaningfully analyzed. Additionally, researchers have varied in deﬁning social class or SES as access to money, resources, mobility, or power and have also speculated that social class and SES are static positions related to inequality or poverty. For the purpose of this entry, social class is used throughout this entry because it is nominally easier to link with classism. Also, social class reﬂects the stratiﬁcation that is both the cause and consequence of inequality. Additionally, people are likely to interact with others based on perceived social class differences. Social class is also co-constructed with classism much like race and racism are interdependent con- structs. That is, the operationalization of race cannot exist without the explicit or implicit function of rac- ism to create rigid categories based on phenotypes or other manifest physical features. Similarly, social class cannot exist without the function of classism to create stratiﬁcation and inequality. Individuals would not categorize other individuals into varying social class groups if there were no privilege or gain associ- ated with a hierarchy of groups. In this case, classism functions to unequally distribute privilege and gain within and across various social class groups. There- fore, it is important to discuss social class and clas- sism together to reinforce the relationship between social class position and the inequality that creates it. Related to terminology is the measurement of social class. Typically, psychologists have adopted a sociological framework to understand social class. The problem is the macro level of analysis and under- standing in sociology (i.e., understanding how groups, communities, and societies function) versus the indi- vidual level for psychologists. Consequently, rather than examining interpersonal or psychological vari- ables associated with social class, psychologists have used income, education, and occupation, either indi- vidually or variously aggregated, to categorize indivi- duals into discreet social class groups (e.g., $100,000 in income, a college education, and a white-collar occupation = middle class). The problem with this categorization approach is that the variables are not highly intercorrelated, and there is no evidence to sug- gest that a particular income, education level, or occu- pation will effect or produce a speciﬁc social class. Furthermore, psychologists need to understand that income, education, and occupation are associated with different psychological and educational outcomes. For instance, income is notoriously difﬁcult to measure because people do not give accurate answers. Income is a good predictor of future career success, but more robustly for the poor than for the rich. Another prob- lem in using these variables is the assumption that everyone within a speciﬁc social class group per- ceives the world similarly. But evidence suggests that, even within the same economic context, people vary in how they conceptualize their environment. For instance, psychologists with the same degree, educa- tion, occupational experience, and income will likely Social Class and Classism 909 see the world differently if one lives in Boston, Massachusetts, versus Iowa City, Iowa. Both psychol- ogists may regard themselves as middle class, but being a doctoral-level psychologist may have a dif- ferent status within a largely rural community versus a large urban community. For educational psychologists, by using adult indi- ces such as income, education level, and occupation, one may conclude that social class and classism are adult experiences. Yet research suggests that children and adolescents are aware of and able to make social class discriminations such as what constitutes lower and middle class. In addition, children and adoles- cents are sensitive to social class prejudice and clas- sism. For instance, in one study of African American boys in a private school, the researcher found that these boys struggled to negotiate Black and White cultural norms in school so that they could succeed in school and not be perceived as a ‘‘sellout’’ by other African American peers. Similarly, children and ado- lescents are sensitive to advertisements and are ori- ented to buying material objects consonant with their perceived social class standing. Therefore, psycholo- gists need to be aware of methodologies used to assess social class at different age levels. Unlike race, which is a constant feature, unlikely to change with age, social class is much more likely to change over time. Ultimately, there is no one best approach to measuring social class, but it does depend on the theo- retical operationalization and research questions. Burgeoning research by Nancy Adler and Michael Marmot and colleagues also suggests the importance of subjective appraisals of social class. That is, rather than asking for income, education, and occupation, ask an individual to place him- or herself on a 10- rung social class ladder where the bottom rung is the lowest position in society and the highest rung is the top of society. Evidence in health psychology research shows that this subjective method may be a robust and good predictor of self-rated health. Liu and col- leagues have also developed a social class worldview model (SCWM) predicated on a phenomenological approach to understanding a person’s social class and experienceswithclassism.TheSCWMusesthe worldview framework to interpret social class experi- ences and uses social class as a descriptor of a psycho- logical process. Psychologists should continue to use social class as an adjective (descriptor) of a meaning- ful psychological process such as identity, accultura- tion, stress, and strain. Additionally, Liu and colle agues describes a network of different classi

bundet

sms such as upward (prejudice against those perceived to be in a higher social class), lateral (pressure to ‘‘keep up with the Joneses’’), and internal- ized (feelings of anxiety an d apprehension related to losing one’s social class standing). Although subjective and phenomenological approaches to measuring social class are important developments, there are still objec- tive consequences to low income, poverty, and social inequality. Thus, experien tial methods may illuminate the interpersonal experien ces, but psychologists still need to contend with the contextual issues related to social class. The Impact of Social Class and Inequality A network of factors converge to create inequality, poverty, and classism. Ps ychologists need to consider sociopolitical (e.g., the unequal distribution of power); sociohistorical (e.g., biased and inaccurate histories of peoples); and sociostructural (e.g., legal, educational, and economic systems) forces that create inequalities. The result of these inequalities is a gradient, which gen- erally suggests that children and families at the lower social classes have poor physical and mental health and low school achievement, whereas those in the higher social classes have just the opposite. The most perva- sive manifestation of social c lass in educational settings is the inequality resulting from inadequate resources. This lack of resources starts before the child enters school and is only exacerbated in poor school settings. Closely related to educational disparity is the impact of race and racism. Social class, classism, and racism are often conﬂated in the res earch, but this conﬂation likely reﬂects the interde pendency and relatedness of racism and classism rather t han methodological limita- tions. Extensive research evidence shows that racial and ethnic children and adolescents (e.g., African, Asian, Latino, and Native American) are more likely to live in households with disadvantage, low incomes, high incidents of unemploym ent, violent and environ- mentally toxic neighborhoo ds, and poor health-related resources such as superma rkets and hospitals. These poor family and neighborhood environments have also been correlated with physical health problems such as obesity, diabetes, and poor cognitive and intellectual development. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network found that in school settings, the aggregate 910 Social Class and Classism result of health, social, an d environmental deprivation and stressors may be dropping out of school early and poor socioemotional development and competence, as well as other achievement gaps. Achievement Gap In educational psychology, researchers have identiﬁed disparities in academic achievement between students from lower and higher social class backgrounds. For instance, in one 12-year longitudinal study examining several risk factors (e.g., low education, low occupa- tional status) and their relationship with students’ future academic achievement, researchers found that the students whose families had low educational back- grounds and low occupational status were more likely to perform worse on intelligence tests, have lower grade point averages, and a greater number of absences than students who were not as disadvan- taged. Researchers have also found that lower social class is related to higher dropout rates and enrollment in special education classes. In another study, the National Assessment of Education Progress found that students from lower social class backgrounds are also less likely to master academic skills. Differences in achievement have also been found when individuals increase their social class status. In one study, chil- dren from single-mother households perform better on cognitive assessments when their families are able to remain off welfare. It is important when discussing the problems related to lower social class back- grounds to remember the array of contextual problems affecting performance and not focus on dispositional attributions (i.e., blame the child). Speciﬁcally, con- tributing to poor performance may be early exposure to lead and other toxins, poor schooling, reduced access to affordable healthy food, neighborhood vio- lence, and dilapidated playgrounds, to name a few. Furthermore, researchers caution that multiple vari- ables may be inﬂuencing the relationship between social class and academic achievement. Factors typi- cally associated with lower social class, such as racial and ethnic minority status, and greater levels of stress can inﬂuence the relationship between social class and student academic achievement. Racial and ethnic minority students must contend with additional pres- sures such as discrimination. Also, students who have limited access to health care may be likely to miss school and less likely to receive proper care for ill- nesses or injuries that modify cognitive abilities. Finally, students who are under constant stress may not prioritize schoolwork as highly as students who experience less stress. Teachers’ Perceptions and Expectations Research suggests that teachers’ perceptions and aca- demic expectations of students may alter as a function of social class. Teachers may perceive lower social class students’ cognitive abilities more negatively than higher social class students’ cognitive abilities. These negative perceptions may translate into lower student expectations because teachers expect less from students whom they perceive as less than capa- ble. Students from lower social class backgrounds may also experience lower teacher expectations than students from higher social class backgrounds. As a result, teachers may differentially treat lower social class and higher social class students in the classroom. This differential treatment suggests that lower social class students may face additional barriers than do their higher social class counterparts. For example, teachers with low expectations of students are more likely to demonstrate negative biases toward those students, ask them fewer questions during class, pro- vide less positive reinforcement, and offer less sup- port in comparison to students whose teachers expect more from them. The focus on teachers’ perceptions and expectations has become an important topic because teachers with low expectations of students are more likely to have lower-achieving students. Sev- eral factors have been identiﬁed that may inﬂuence the relationship between social class and teachers’ perceptions and expectations. Moreover, researchers have argued that teachers’ negative perceptions of lower social class students may lead to the development of self-fulﬁlling prophe- cies. Lower social class students may internalize the lower expectations of teachers and achieve academi- cally in a manner that is consistent with those tea- chers’ expectations. Recent studies have shown that self-fulﬁlling prophecies may adversely affect student achievement, but the impact of self-fulﬁlling prophe- cies on student achievement may be minimal. Teachers’ self-efﬁcacy for working with lower social class students may also be negatively related to their perception of students. Teachers with low self- efﬁcacy may be more likely to identify special educa- tion as more suitable for lower social class students Social Class and Classism 911 with academic problems than teachers with high self- efﬁcacy. Teachers with high self-efﬁcacy may have greater conﬁdence in their ability to work with stu- dents with academic problems irrespective of their social class background. Teaching Quality Researchers have argued that social class is related to teacher quality. School districts comprising primarily lower social class neighborhoods are more likely to have less qualiﬁed or uncertiﬁed teachers. Schools in lower social class school districts may have fewer resources to recruit and maintain highly qualiﬁed tea- chers. Teachers in lower social class school districts may also be limited by a lack of instructional materi- als such as computers or lab equipment. In addition, the Education Trust found that teachers who scored in the lower range of national teacher qualifying examinations are likely to teach in lower social class schools. The incessant need for teachers in lower social class schools may require those schools to be less selective in their recruitment of teachers. Finally, teachers in less afﬂuent school districts are more likely to teach subjects unrelated to their ﬁeld. For example, teachers who hold degrees in English educa- tion may be required to also teach history. More recently, the introduction of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) may create greater discrepancies between higher and lower social class schools. Highly qualiﬁed teachers may be more inclined to leave underperform- ing, lower social class schools because of NCLB regula- tions that penalize underperforming schools. As a result, students with less qualiﬁed teachers are more likely to experience lower levels of academic achievement than students with highly qualiﬁed teachers. William Ming Liu and Jovan Hernandez See also Cultural Deﬁcit Model; Cultural Diversity; Ethnicity and Race; Poverty Further Readings Adler, N. E., Boyce, T., Chesney, M., Cohen, S., Folkman, S., Kahn, R., et al. (1994). Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist , 49 , 15–24. Arnold, D. H., & Doctoroff, G. L. (2000). The early education of socioeconomically disadvantaged children. Annual Review of Psychology , 54 , 517–545. Duncan, G. J., Yeung, W. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Smith, J. R. (1998). How much does poverty affect the life chances of children? American Sociological Review , 63 , 406–423. Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist , 59 , 77–92. Liu, W. M., Ali, S. R., Soleck, G., Hopps, J., Dunston, K., & Pickett, T., Jr. (2004). Using social class in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 51 , 3–18. Liu, W. M., Hernandez, J., Mahmood, A., & Stinson, R. (2006). The link between poverty, classism, and racism in mental health. In D. W. Sue & M. G. Constantine (Eds.), Racism as a barrier to cultural competence in mental health and educational settings (pp. 65–86). New York: Wiley. McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist , 53 , 185–204. Murdock, T. B. (2000). Incorporating economic context into educational psychology: Methodological and conceptual challenges. Educational Psychologist , 35 , 113–124. National Assessment of Education Progress. (2000). The nation’s report card: Fourth grade reading 2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Duration and developmental timing of poverty and children’s cognitive and social development from birth through third grade. Child Development , 76 , 795–810. S OCIAL D EVELOPMENT Children’s social development refers to the ways in which children grow in terms of their social skills, awareness of others, cooperative behaviors, and ways of approaching and interacting with others. Children’s social development has signiﬁcant implications for later functioning in numerous areas, including emo- tional development, educational and employment suc- cess, and overall adjustment. Poor social development can place children at risk for poor relationships with their peers, academic problems, criminal activity, and mental health and adjustment problems. Thus, suc- cessful development socially is integrally important to children’s overall well-being. From the moment they are born, children enter and have to begin learning how to navigate a social world. A graphic model of this is given in Figure 1. Early in life, children’s primary social context for developing is their immediate family. Later, as they develop, chil- dren become increasingly more integrated into other divergent social contexts, including their peer groups, 912 Social Development school networks, professional networks once they enter the job market, and eventually their own roman- tic relationships. Throughout their development over time, they are also affected by more distal inﬂuences such as the community, society, and culture in which they are living. Family Context Parent – Child Relationship Early in children’s lives, their primary social inter- actions are with their primary caregivers, typically their mothers and fathers (although this can vary within and between cultures), and these early social interactions set the basis for all interactions later on. Infants learn important lessons about what to expect from others and how to meet their needs through their repeated interactions with their parents over time. The focus of early social interactions for infants surrounds having their basic physical and emotional needs met. All infants vary in their emotionality and their need to be soothed, as well as their abilities to soothe them- selves and be soothed by others. Differences in par- enting styles, such as insensitivity, unresponsiveness, and inconsistency may lead children to be more Child Parent Community Society Culture Peers Parents’ Marital Relationship Extended Family Figure 1 Model for Social Development Source: Adapted from Lerner, R. M. (1979). A dynamic interactional concept of individual and social relationship development. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 271–305). New York: Academic Press. Social Development 913 emotional and have greater difﬁculty in regulating their emotions, because they do not know what to expect and are not having their own needs met appro- priately. More emotional children may elicit more negative responses from their parents, and thus a nega- tive reciprocal cycle is established. John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth contend that infants’ patterns of interactions with their parents develop into patterns of attachment style. Attachment refers to the enduring emotional bond that develops between people. Parents who are sensitive, respon- sive, and consistent in meeting their infants’ needs over time are more likely to have infants who develop a secure emotional attachment. When parents are unable to consistently meet their infants’ needs, then an insecure emotional attachment is more likely to develop. Children who have a secure attachment feel conﬁdent that their parents are there for them when they need them and are able to successfully reach out to their parents in times of physical, social, emotional, or other needs and be comforted. On the other hand, children who are not securely attached may not feel safe or comfortable seeking help from their parents because they have not successfully had their needs met in the past. Instead, they may try to hide their emotions or needs. When insecurely attached children do attempt to seek out their parents for help, they may either outright reject their parents’ attempts at con- solation or simply may not feel comforted by them. Bowlby and Ainsworth argue that these early attachment patterns form the basis for all other rela- tionships that children will develop. Children use their early attachment relationships with their parents as the interpretive lens through which to view, interpret, and respond to all other relationships. In other words, they develop internal representations or schemas about how relationships work based on their relation- ships with their parents. Levels of parent–child attach- ment security provide a global sense of emotional security that inﬂuences children in many broad domains. Children seek to recreate with peers, and later with intimate romantic partners, the relationship they had with a parent. Children’s levels of security and trust from their attachment relationships deter- mine how open and trusting or wary and apprehensive they will be in approaching a new person with whom to develop a relationship. Thus, children who are securely attached are more likely to also have other positive, successful relationships with other people, whereas children who are insecurely attached are more likely to demonstrate difﬁculties in interacting with others. The patterns of interaction styles between parents and infants around their emotional needs set the stage for children’s future interactions with others. As children grow older toward the preschool years, they begin to become more aware of social tasks and demands and are capable of initiating, maintaining, modulating, or ceasing physical acts, communication, and emotional expressions as required. Differences in social development may be attributable to differences in parenting. Children whose parents have been con- sistent in teaching them what is socially appropriate behavior versus inappropriate behavior may be more likely to conduct themselves in more socially desir- able ways. Furthermore, children who have success- fully had their emotional needs met early on are better at regulating their own emotions as they develop and thus have more success in modulating their outward expressions of emotions, such as their behavior and other communication, because they can better modulate their internal states. Marital Relationship The parents’ marital relationship is another key factor contributing to children’s social development. The quality of the marital relationship and the ways in which marital conﬂict is handled set the emotional climate for the family and the child. Marital conﬂict has both positive and negative elements, however, and depending on how it is handled, it can have either positive or negative effects on children’s social devel- opment. Heightened levels of negative conﬂict can inﬂuence children directly and indirectly. Greater con- ﬂict between parents may lead to greater disturbance in parenting, which can lead, in turn, to less emotional security and the ensuing issues described above. Increased conﬂict can also directly inﬂuence chil- dren, leaving them feeling vulnerable and emotionally insecure about the stability of their family. E. Mark Cummings and Patrick Davies proposed an emotional security hypothesis, which extends the ideas from attachment theory and suggests that children can develop a sense of emotional security not just to the parent–child relationship, but also to the marital rela- tionship. From their hypothesis, children react to the meaning of conﬂict itself, rather than just the presence of conﬂict, and the more they are exposed to it, the more sensitized they become to it over time. Witnes- sing more negative, hostile, and threatening forms of 914 Social Development conﬂict is particularly detrimental to children’s sense of security about the marital relationship, whereas more positive expressions, including humor, support, and affection, promote greater feelings of security. As in attachment theory, children’s sense of emo- tional security about the marriage can also inﬂuence children’s relationships in other realms, and children who are more emotionally insecure about the mar- riage have more social difﬁculties with other children. Children also learn ways in which to handle conﬂict and other social interactions based on how their par- ents interact and handle their own conﬂict and rela- tionship. When parents engage in more destructive and hostile forms of conﬂict, children are more likely to hold negative views of peers and to act similarly with peers. For example, when children witness acts of aggression between parents, it results in greater physical aggression, such as hitting and pushing, toward their peers. Other Family Relationships The quality of parent–child and marital relations has signiﬁcant implications for broader family functioning. Positive parent–child and marital relations are related to more harmonious sibling relationships, whereas dis- cordant marital relations are linked with more negative sibling interactions. Other family relationships beyond the parent–child and marital relationship can also con- tribute positively or negatively to children’s social development. Some cultures have different deﬁnitions for what constitutes a family, and/or different traditions for living arrangements, all of which provide a larger family group with which children can interact on a regular basis. When there are negative parent–child or marital relationships, having strong, positive healthy relationships with other family members, such as grandparents and aunts and uncles, can help ameliorate negative consequences for children’s social develop- ment by providing other positive role models and sources of support and emotional security. On the other hand, when these relationships are also problematic, it can further exacerbate social interaction difﬁculties for the child. Sibling and cousin relati onships provide some of the ﬁrst opportunities to practice emerging social skills in similar aged, peer-like relat ionships. Many tribal socie- ties group children into age-grade peer groups, with whom they spend the majority of their waking hours, much like the school system in industrialized societies. Allowing children to work through their own disagree- ments with siblings is important for the development of appropriate social skills, and frequent intervention on the part of parents in sibling conﬂict can interfere with this process. Through these relationships, children learn more about appropriate social norms and deviance and begin to put into practice th eir knowledge of relation- ships learned from their parents as they develop speciﬁc social skills such as cooperative behavior, sharing, assertiveness, social conversations, empathy, problem solving, conﬂict resolution, and issues of acceptance and rejection. These are the skills on which children will need to draw to be successful in their interactions with peers outside of the family context. Peer Groups Peer Social Status and Friendships In developing peer relationships, children bring with them the lessons they learned and the relation- ships they internalized from their family environment, which has a large impact on their acceptance versus rejection by peers and their development of friend- ships. Steven Asher and colleagues suggest that both acceptance and friendships are important for healthy adjustment and development. They deﬁne peer accep- tance as the extent to which a child is liked or accepted by other members of the peer group. Well- accepted children are warmly and positively regarded by most of their peers, whereas poorly accepted chil- dren tend to be viewed negatively and disliked by their peers. Acceptance is thought to be a unilateral concept, which works in one direction. Friendship, on the other hand, is more bidirectional, and friends per- ceive and respond to each other as unique and irre- placeable. Acceptance is thought to be important to the development of healthy attitudes toward competi- tion, conformity, and achievement, whereas friendship is key in the development of empathy and perspective taking, and it validates children in terms of their inter- ests, positive self-views, and hopes. Children’s accep- tance and friendship relationships are signiﬁcant predictors of their long-term well-being and success, and children who are not successful in these areas are more likely to have adjustment problems (e.g., anxi- ety and depression symptoms), drop out of school, describe feelings of loneliness, display aggressiveness and/or submissiveness, and experience social ostra- cism and isolation. Estimates of the percentage of Social Development 915 children experiencing serious difﬁculties with their peers are around 10 % . John Coie put forth a theory of child rejection. Assumptions of this theory are as follows: 1. Social behavior is primarily responsible for rejec- tion by peers. 2. The difﬁculties of rejected peers result from the way they interpret speciﬁc social situations, the way they react affectively, and their acquired strat- egies for dealing with the situations. 3. These factors emerge out of their socialization his- tory and are largely shaped by the history of the child’s interactions with parent ﬁgures, siblings, and nonsibling acquaintances. The theory suggests that there are four stages of social rejection: 1. the Precursor stage, in which children come equipped with speciﬁc competencies and deﬁcits relating to their eventual peer status; 2. the Emergent stage, in which their interactions with a signiﬁcant peer group result in the child being rejected; 3. the Maintenance stage, in which rejection by a group becomes a stable and enduring reality; 4. the Consequence stage, in which other aspects of the child’s adjustment deteriorates to the point of identiﬁable psychological disorders. In the Emergent stage, children who are more aggressive and disruptive are more likely to be rejected, as are children who are more withdrawn and solitary. Children who become socia lly successful and popular take the time to ﬁgure out what is happening in a new group situation and attempt to match their behavior to that of the group, whereas children who are less popular are more likely to disrupt the group in part because they are not aware of what is happening within the group. In the Maintenance stage, the rejecting group mem- bers begin to change in their behavior toward the rejected child, and in turn, the rejected child begins to change in his or her behavior toward peers, his or her feelings about him- or herself, and in the thoughts and expectations for the self and others. Being rejected begins to be a part of the child’s identity, and the child and others begin to respond now with new expectations. Once rejected, rejected children are more likely to be on the outside of well-established, coherent playgroups and even have trouble getting along with other rejected children. Rejected children describe themselves as being more lonely and having lower self-esteem, and when rejected children are also aggressive, they have concerns about the need to prevail against others, whereas nonaggressive children develop more concerns about being scorned and attacked by others. In the Consequences stage, children who were rejected in middle childhood and preadolescence are at greatest risk for later disorder because childhood is the time for the preparation for intimate relationships later on. Rejected children have more academic difﬁ- culties, are truant more often, have more discipline problems, drop out of school at higher rates, and are left with fewer social skills to develop appropriate relationships later on in development. Children who are lacking in the necessary social skills associated with acceptance and friendship have long been the focus of psychological assistance. Asher and colleagues review numerous behaviors that have been the target of interventions aiming to improve children’s social skills, ranging from broad general skills to more speciﬁc molecular skills: social prob- lem solving, nonverbal communication, negotiation, entrance to groups, ability to cope with anger, helping behaviors, establishment of rapport, conversational skills, listening skills, self-control, ignoring of bully- ing and rejection, expression of requests and rights, ability to give and receive compliments, sportsman- ship, and so on. This multitude of skills has taken place in various modalities, such as role-playing, modeling of successful peers, videotaped interactions that are reviewed and discussed, and actual interac- tions with peers. In order to have a successful inter- vention, it is imperative that children are able to practice the learned skills in actual interactions with their peers. The majority of these interventions are successful in increasing children’s peer acceptance. It is still not clear, though, why the behaviors learned in these interventions translate into greater success in the friendship realm. Asher and colleagues suggest that in order to develop strong, lasting friendships, children need social skills that are adaptable across various settings and need to interact with peers in multiple settings to create more multifaceted and more invested relation- ships. Additionally, they need the skills and personal- ity necessary to be perceived as fun, resourceful, and enjoyable companions; must have reciprocity in their 916 Social Development relationships; must be able to engage appropriately in self-disclosure; must be able to express caring, con- cern, admiration, and affection in appropriate ways; must be helpful and reliable when their friends need them; must be able to manage minor disagreements successfully while preventing major conﬂicts from occurring; must be able to forgive; and must be able to handle outside inﬂuences (such as school and other children) on their friendship relationship. Bullies and Victims Although peer rejection places children at signiﬁ- cant risk for the development of a wide range of pro- blems, being the victim of a bully creates an even greater risk. Schwartz and colleagues conducted a study comparing two different types of victims of bullies: aggressive victims and passive victims. They also compared them to aggressive but nonvictimized children. They speculated that there would be differ- ent socialization histories among the different groups. Studying the three groups over time, they found that aggressive victims had preschool experiences with harsh, disorganized, abusive home environments; maternal hostility; restrictive and overly punitive par- ents; and higher interparental conﬂict. Furthermore, 38 % of the aggressive victims of bullies were physi- cally harmed by their parents and/or other adults. In comparison, nonvictimized but still aggressive boys were also exposed to high amounts of adult conﬂict and aggression, but had not been abused or exposed to harsh treatment by their parents. Finally, the pas- sive boys showed no differences in socialization experiences compared to normal boys and also experi- enced less overall exposure to aggressive socialization factors. Their results thus support the importance of early socialization histories within the family in terms of predicting victimization by bullies later in life. Just as there are various types of victimized kids, there are also various types of popular children. Sur- prisingly, it is not only prosocial (model) children who are popular; a certain subset of more antisocial and tough boys is also highly popular. For example, an intriguing study by Philip Rodkin and colleagues found that prosocial model boys were perceived by their peers as cool, athletic, leaders, cooperative, studious, outgoing, and nonaggressive, and were per- ceived by themselves as nonaggressive and academi- cally competent. Overall, the model boys were highly popular. Tough boys, in contrast, viewed themselves as popular, aggressive, and physically competent, and they were more likely to be of a minority status, par- ticularly African American. The tough boys were among the most popular and socially connected chil- dren in the school by their perceptions as well as by the other students’ and teachers’ perceptions. Thus, popular boys are a heterogeneous group, including both model and antisocial members. The authors argue that the peer cultures of the two different popu- lar groups differed in important ways. Some minority status groups value behaviors such as academic disen- gagement and disobedience of school rules that are in opposition to dominant societal preferences. Alterna- tively, the aggression may be functional for those African Americans who are socialized in low-income and higher-risk communities, in that it is desirable and perhaps keeps them safe in such situations. The visible European American presence and values may make it difﬁcult to be academically successful, popu- lar, and prosocial without ‘‘acting White.’’ Thus, devaluing prosocial behavior may be a viable means for them of obtaining social status. Broad Distal Influences Distal, Not Distant The effects of community, society, and culture his- torically have been discussed as ‘‘distal’’ because peo- ple do not typically have personal interactions with their culture the same way they do with their peers, and certainly not on a daily, moment-to-moment basis like they do with their families. Most people are not even cognizant of their culture, even in this self-aware global age. It is only when one is removed from one’s culture that one becomes aware of it, or, as in the case of the indigenous people of most industrialized nations, when one’s culture is surrounded (they might say ‘‘besieged’’) by another. The effects of community, society, and culture may well be distal, but they are not distant. They sur- round everybody every day and inﬂuence them in much the same way that ﬁsh are inﬂuenced by water. Social development takes place within a community, which exists as part of a society. What constitutes a community or a society, among many other things, is deﬁned by culture. Although different societies may have different sets of rules to which one must acculturate, every aspect that makes up the very deﬁ- nition of social development—social skills, awareness Social Development 917 of others, cooperative behaviors, and ways of approach- ing and interacting with others—is deﬁned by culture and therefore can vary between cultures. Indeed, any- thing that has meaning that is shared among people is a result of culture: Meaning is deﬁned by culture. Culture The concept of culture arose in the age of discovery as Europeans expanded across the globe and discov- ered that not everyone looked and acted like them. The original debate was between nature and culture, or ‘‘Are those brown people so d ifferent from us because God made them that way, or because they were raised in that heathen society?’’ The concept of culture has been widely accepted into the Western scientiﬁc world- view, but there is no standard deﬁnition of culture. For purposes of this entry, culture mostly refers to the set of values and beliefs that a group of people shares and with which the people make sense of their world. Society In most Western cultures, there is a strong identiﬁ- cation between nationality and society, but this is a concept that is deﬁned by culture and is by no means deﬁnitional or absolute. This concept is so ingrained in Western society that it is seen by most members as a natural part of the world, rather than something imposed upon it by their worldview. A list of examples such as this—things that seem ‘‘natural’’ but are, in fact, deﬁned by culture—could extend nearly indeﬁnitely. Indeed, anything that is a value judgment is so deﬁned by culture. In other cultures, a society may consist of many villages or perhaps only one. A society could even be the totality of a culture, but this seems unlikely in the world today. The Iroquois Confederacy is a good example of an indigenous society that was much like our own, in that it was made up of many villages and even members of several different cultures. The Kurd- ish people today are a good example of a society that shares a culture but not a single nation, although the latter is mostly an artifact of the colonial era and soon may no longer be true. Western society is multicultural, subsuming the members of many different cultures and subcultures. Members of different cultures become part of Western society mainly by immigration, and acculturation to Western culture varies across groups and individuals. The ‘‘melting pot’’ ideal of early 20th-century America has mostly been abandoned, and the more realistic ‘‘stew pot’’ notion—which allows ingredients to ﬂavor the stew while still remaining recognizably distinct— has become increasingly recognized. Subcultures are groups within the society that share a worldview and belief system that is different from the main culture. It is quite possible that some subcul- tures may not even consider themselves part of the larger society. Rastafarians and their reference to the Western societies they live within as ‘‘Babylon’’ is a good example of this phenomenon. How we can say that these subcultures are, in fact, part of the larger society is beyond the scope of this entry, but the short answer is mostly geographic—they are surrounded by and/or live within the main culture—and they also have frequent interactions with their non-subculture neighbors—but this topic is open to interpretation. Community Community is usually deﬁned as a fairly tightly knit group that has a sense of itself as a group, whereas a society is a much larger, loosely knit group that may consist of many communities and may also consist of subcultures that do not consider themselves part of the larger society. The model in Figure 1 refers to the social world of one individual, in which all of the over- lapping peer groups discussed above comprise the community of each individual. All of the overlapping groups of all of the individuals in all of the peer groups comprise the actual physical community (but this would be an unreadable jumble of overlapping circles if they were represented in this format), and all of these communities together form the greater society. Native American reservations are a rather unique subset of communities that deﬁes most of the tenets set out here. They are physically within American society, but also separate from it—both physically and culturally. People who traverse the borders of Indian reservations come closest to actual interaction with culture as a real entity and not as an abstract concept. How one is deﬁned as a person changes when one crosses that border. A man who is valued by his culture and revered as an omen of good fortune by the elders of the community can suddenly become an object of ridicule and scorn as soon as he enters White society. For most Native Americans, the transi- tion may not be quite so dramatic as it is for this one individual, but would at the very least involve 918 Social Development awareness of the differing ideals and norms between the two worlds they inhabit. Such negotiations between and across cultures pro- vide unique challenges for individuals who must make them.Suchpeoplehavemoret han twice the challenge: They must not only learn two sets of norms, but they must be able to successfully make the transitions between them. Healthy development in such a difﬁcult environment requires support of a unique quality. There is a reason that Native Americans have the high- est suicide rates in Western society, as well as a variety of other mental health issues, not the least of which is substance abuse. Many of the problems endemic in Native American communities today are the same as the problems that arise in any context of poverty and rural remoteness, but there is the added layer of cul- tural differences and the transitions mentioned to make life more difﬁcult. Native Americans are unique within this discussion in no small part due to their history: They are not a sub- culture that has grown organically within the matrix culture, nor are they a piece of the stew thrown in by immigration; rather, they are remnants of the multiplic- ity of cultures that existed on this continent before an immigrant society moved in and pushed them to the fringes. They are similar to immigrant communities that choose to isolate themselves into enclaves of resis- tance, with the exception that their isolation was not voluntary, and the option of acculturation was not his- torically offered to them. It has seemed in the recent past that a pan-Indian identity may be rising, wherein the multiplicity of cultures may band together and gain strength as an identity uniﬁed by what it is not, but it remains to be seen if the differences of the past can be left behind. Although Native Americans provide a unique example of particularly complex and often difﬁcult cultural circumstances to consider in social develop- ment, the struggles arising out of their minority status, poverty, and cultural clashes are common across many different cultural groups. These broader issues, together with the more proximal individual and family factors, interact bidirectionally and are woven together over time in intricate ways, creating the fabric of chil- dren’s social development. Tina D. Du Rocher Schudlich and Joel D. Schudlich See also Bullying; Culture; Emotional Development; Family Inﬂuences; Friendship; Parenting; Peer Inﬂuences Further Readings Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reﬂections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed.). New York: Verso. Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Peer rejection in childhood. New York: Cambridge University Press. Asher, S. A., Parker, J. G., & Walker, D. L. (1996). Distinguishing friendship from acceptance: Implications for intervention and assessment. In W. F. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Booth, A., & Crouter, A. C. (2001). Does it take a village? Community effects on children, adolescents and families. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bowlby, J. (1969) Attachment and loss: Vol. I. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view. Developmental Psychology , 25 , 343–354. Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Bullying and ‘‘theory of mind’’: A critique of the ‘‘social skills deﬁcit’’ view of anti-social behaviour. Social Development , 8 , 117–127. S OCIAL L EARNING T HEORY Social learning theory is considered to be one of the most inﬂuential theories in the ﬁelds of education and psychology. Social learning theory identiﬁes learning as the primary factor in a theory of human functioning and personality development that is based on cognitive, social-interactive, self-regulatory, and self-reﬂective capabilities and processes. In addition to the impact of social interactions, social lea rning theorists believe that the media have a great inﬂuence on human learning and development. Historical Background Albert Bandura and Richard Walters’s seminal 1959 book Adolescent Aggression setinmotiontheearly foundation for the development of Bandura’s ideas on social learning processes. Bandura and Walters initially sought to integrate principles from psychoanalytic and behavioral learning theori es. Results from these early studies provided Bandura and his colleagues the data to empirically refute the psychoanalytic explanation of aggression, which was grounded in Freudian concep- tualizations of identiﬁcation with the aggressor and Social Learning Theory 919 catharsis or anxiety reduction need. At the time, Bandura and Walters’s work was generally congruent with Robert Sears’s social learning theory. Similar to Sears, Bandura integrated psychoanalytic and stimulus- response assumptions in a theory of social learning; however, Sears emphasized more psychoanalytic prin- ciples such as drive theory. Beginning in the 1950s, researchers began to not only challenge psychoanalytic theories, they also began to question some of the principles of behavior- ism and traditional learning theories because of their inability to explain some aspects of human develop- ment such as language development or the acquisition of novel responses. In particular, Bandura argued against theories that relied on trial-and-error learning because he believed that this approach was much too tedious of a learning process to explain how people acquire new knowledge and skills. Contrary to behav- iorist perspectives at the time, social learning theorists emphasized the social contexts of the learning situa- tion. Early social learning theorists began to provide counterevidence to the behaviorist learning principle that children could not change their behavior without ﬁrst being reinforced for approximations to the new behavior. Bandura’s early observational learning stud- ies provided compelling evidence that learning did not require a response contingency and that people could learn by watching someone else be reinforced or punished for their behavior. In the classic ‘‘Bobo doll’’ study by Bandura, Dorothea Ross, and Sheila Ross, Bandura and his colleagues showed that chil- dren were, in fact, capable of performing acts of aggression, yet they could inhibit their use of these behaviors. In opposition to behaviorist principles, Bandura’s research revealed that people could learn complex patterns of behavior without performing any response or receiving rewards or punishments. In their 1963 book Social Learning and Personal- ity Development , it can be seen that Bandura and Walters retained only a few of Sears’s initial learn- ing theory principles and placed increasingly more emphasis on cognitive and information-processing factors. Drawing upon Neil Miller and John Dollard’s 1941 book Social Learning and Imitation , Bandura and Walters asserted that imitation plays an important role in explaining how novel responses are learned. Imitation in Bandura’s early work was conceptualized as a special case of instrumental conditioning, which provided the individual with discriminative stimuli. Another core theoretical assumption stated in Bandura and Walters’s 1963 book was that the environment was believed to contain social cues that would rein- force behavior that matched that of another individ- ual. They hypothesized that imitation could occur even when an individual did not actually reproduce the behavior of another individual during the acquisi- tion phase of learning. In other words, learning could take place in the absence of reinforcement. Bandura not only challenged psychoanalytic and traditional learning theories, in the late 1960s he began to question the viability of Piaget’s stages to explain learning, development, and behavioral changes. Throughout his career, Bandura has ada- mantly argued that human functioning is much too complex and multidetermined to be categorized into a few discrete stages. Instead of differentiating indivi- duals based on identiﬁed stages, Bandura suggested it is more useful to consider the degree to which the individual believes he or she can successfully perform behaviors that are necessary for achieving desired out- comes and the person’s expected costs and beneﬁts of performing the activity. The emphasis Bandura placed on self-efﬁcacy beliefs and outcome expectations in his social learning theory were congruent with an increasing interest in cognitive processes among American psychologists. According to Bernard Baars, the ‘‘cognitive revolution’’ in psychology can be traced back to the 1950s in the United States. Cogni- tive theories and principles were initially presented in Bandura’s ﬁrst presentation of his grand theory in his 1977 book Social Learning Theory. He updated his theory in 1986 with the publication of Social Founda- tions of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive The- ory. The change in title from social learning theory to social cognitive theory is signiﬁcant and represents the increase Bandura placed on the role of cognitive processes in understanding the causes of human behav- ior, personality development, and thought. Another contemporary issue that inﬂuenced the evo- lution of Bandura’s social l earning theory during the 1950s and 1960s was the enormous impact of televi- sion, Miller and Dollard’s 1941 seminal book Social Learning and Imitation , and other forms of mass media in American society. A review of Bandura’s work reveals that he has always had an interest in the impact of technological change on the individual and society. For example, some of his earliest research focusedontheextentto which violent cartoons affected children’s propensity for violent behavior. It is noted that whereas Bandura responded to the impact of 920 Social Learning Theory