Unraveling underachievement among African American boys from an identification with academics perspective

Many theories attempt to explain why, despite all efforts, African American boys continue to lag behind their White counterparts. This article reviews three prominent theories addressing the social and cultural factors that can inhibit academic excellence among these youth: Steele's stereotype threat model, Ogbu's cultural-ecological perspective, and Majors and Billson's "cool pose" theory. All three emphasize the barriers that prevent African American boys from incorporating academics as an important part of their self-concepts, theoretically explaining the achievement gap. The article reviews possible courses of action to facilitate identification with academics and thus improve achievement.

Educational and psychological research repeatedly has shown that students from disadvantaged U.S. minority groups tend to receive poorer academic outcomes than do White or Asian American students. Included among these poorer outcomes are lower grades in school (Demo & Parker, 1987; Simmons, Brown, Bush, & Blyth, 1978); lower standardized tests scores (Bachman, 1970; Herring, 1989; Reyes & Stanic, 1988; Simmons et al., 1978), higher dropout rates (American Council on Education, 1990; Steele, 1992), and lower college grades (Nettles, 1988). Similar findings appear in the literature for Latino students (Bruschi & Anderson, 1994; Whitworth & Barrientos, 1990). Further, when students are paired on academic preparedness, subsequent achievement is lower for African American and Latino students than for White or Asian American students (Jensen, 1980; Ramist, Lewis, & McCamley-Jenkins, 1994). In sum, there is convincing evidence that students from disadvantaged minority groups achieve poorer outcomes at every level, even given equal preparation, than do their White and Asian American peers (Steele, 1997).

Numerous explanations exist for this trend, including differences in cognitive (Shade, 1982) and communication styles (Kochman, 1981); aversion to intellectual competition (Howard & Hammond, 1985); genetic differences (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994), low achievement motivation, anxiety, feelings of inadequacy, and feelings of helplessness (Epps, 1970); and disparities in social-psychological environments (Katz, Epps, & Alexson, 1964; Steele, 1997). However, many of these theories tend not to be conclusive. For example, if cultural differences are the culprit, why do children who emigrate from cultures drastically different from the United States (e.g., from Middle Eastern and Asian countries) often perform better academically than students of color born in the United States? Why do African immigrants (children not born into the majority White U.S. culture) do better in school than do African-descended children born into this culture?

It is questions such as these that tend to make genetics and lingual/cultural theories unsatisfying. Other observations also raise interesting questions. For example, the racial achievement gap is neither developmentally nor historically static. Neisser (1998) has argued that the historic racial gap in academic test scores is decreasing. Further, the gap between White and minority U.S. students, which is minimal or nonexistent at the beginning of schooling, has been shown to widen by as much as two grade levels by sixth grade (Alexander & Entwhistle, 1988; Valencia, 1991, 1997).

Recently, the concept of identification with academics has emerged as an important contribution to the racial achievement gap. Several authors, including Steele (1992, 1997), Ogbu (1992), and Majors and Billson (1992), have argued that factors inherent in U.S. society prevent students of color from viewing themselves as scholars and students and thereby valuing academics personally. Empirical evidence supports this argument (Osborne, 1995,1997b). Theoretically, lack of identification with academics has been shown to cause or contribute to poorer performance (Osborne, 1997b; Osborne & Rausch, 2001). Perhaps more importantly, this perspective offers hope for changing the educational fortunes of students who belong to disadvantaged minority groups, especially African American boys. The present article introduces and details the concept of identification with academics and explores these theoretical perspectives, discusses the empirical support for them, and proposes concrete actions that may serve to thwart academic disidentification among African American boys and improve their academic lives.

IDENTIFICATION WITH ACADEMICS

The concept of identification with academics is rooted in the symbolic interactionist perspective on self-esteem, although many self-esteem theories acknowledge the concept. Throughout the history of self theory, from James (1890/1963) through Cooley (1902) and Mead (1934) to the present, the symbolic interactionist view of the self posits that people receive feedback from their environment and that this feedback, if attended to, is perceived. If those perceptions are deemed accurate or valid, they are incorporated into the self-- concept, and if that facet of the self-concept is viewed as central or important (and thus, the individual is identified with that domain), then the changes in self-concept will affect the individual's self-esteem. If an individual does not value that domain or does not view that domain as important to the self (and thus is considered not identified, or disidentified, with that domain), then feedback in that domain will ultimately have little effect on that individual's self-esteem.

It must be noted that the symbolic interactionist perspective is not the only self-esteem theory that posits academics as a source of self-esteem (see Osborne, 1995). Nor is this perspective the only one that includes the notion that different areas of life can have different levels of relevance to the self (see Pelham & Swann, 1989; Rosenberg, 1979, Tesser, 1988). Another important feature of many self theories is that the relevance of a domain not only varies across individuals but within individuals over time. Individuals seem to be extremely facile in their ability to alter the domains they perceive as central in order to maintain a certain positivity of self-esteem. Several authors have argued that individuals are particularly likely to selectively devalued domains in which their group, or they personally, fare poorly. These authors further maintain that individuals also selectively value domains for which their group, or they personally, fare relatively well (Crocker & Major, 1989; Major & Schmader, 1998; Taylor & Brown, 1988; Tesser, 1988; Tesser & Campbell, 1980).

Additionally, one must note that most research, and much of the discussion in this area, examines this proposition in terms of some outcome influencing the centrality of a domain. However, it is theoretically consistent to argue that the centrality of a domain can also influence performance in that domain-indeed, it is likely that both processes operate circularly and iteratively. Authors such as Newmann (1981) and Finn (1989) have argued that identification with academics is a necessary condition for learning. Thus, students who are identified with academics, for example, should be more motivated to succeed and persist longer in the face of failure because their self-esteem is more strongly influenced by academic performance. For identified students, good performance should be intrinsically rewarding (resulting in higher self-esteem), and poor performance should be aversive (yielding lower self-esteem). By contrast, disidentified students should experience lower motivation to succeed in academics because little contingency exists between academic outcomes and self-esteem. That is, good performance is not intrinsically rewarding, and poor performance is not intrinsically punishing, leaving those who have disidentified with schooling with little intrinsic incentive to expend effort in academic endeavors. These individuals may therefore be at higher risk for academic problems, especially poor grades and dropping out.

Growing evidence supports this notion. Identification has been shown to prospectively predict important academic outcomes such as grades (Osborne, 1997a; Osborne & Rausch, 2001); being placed on academic probation and dismissal for academic cause and being placed on the honor roll or dean's list (Osborne, 1997a); and behavioral referrals and absenteeism (Osborne & Rausch, 2001). Further, important psychological variables have been shown to be related to identification, including learning goals, intrinsic valuing of academics, self-regulation, mastery orientation, academic competitiveness, and cognitive processing of course material (Osborne & Rausch, 2001). Other research has shown that identification with other domains (e.g., identification with work) is predictive of performance in that domain (Kanungo, 1979). Thus, substantial evidence confirms that identification with academics is related to important academic outcomes, probably through variables such as motivation and persistence, among others.

FACTORS INFLUENCING DISIDENTIFICATION AMONG STUDENTS OF COLOR

Stereotype Threat

Several theories argue that sociocultural factors negatively influence the ability of students of color to become and remain strongly identified with academics, which, as noted above, would adversely impact these students' academic outcomes. Steele's (1992, 1997) theory of stereotype threat identifies negative stereotypes as a culprit in the academic underperformance of students of color. Steele argues that although all students experience anxiety in school situations (such as concern over appearing foolish for giving a wrong answer), students who are members of minority groups for which negative group stereotypes concerning academic ability abound (e.g., African Americans, girls and women in mathematics and science endeavors) suffer from additional anxiety. For these individuals, a wrong answer is not only personally damaging but also confirms the negative group stereotype. This increased anxiety is aversive, and as a self-protective measure, these students sometimes devalue or reduce their identification with academics. This aversion serves to reduce stereotype-induced anxiety as it allows students to be no longer concerned with evaluation in that domain (Epps, 1970; Katz & Greenbaum, 1963).

The Cultural-Ecological Perspective

Many authors tend to lump disadvantaged minority students together; however, Ogbu (1997) argued that not all minority groups are the same. He separates minorities into two groups: those who reside in a country or society voluntarily (immigrant or voluntary minorities) and those who have been subjugated and/or brought into a country or society against their will (involuntary or nonimmigrant minorities). In the United States, for example, Latino and Asian American populations are examples of the former, while African American (specifically, acculturated persons of African descent rather than recent African immigrants) and Native American populations are examples of the latter. Ogbu argued that the social realities for students from these two groups are very different and, as such, lead to very different outcomes. Involuntary minorities, for instance, tend to develop social or collective identities that are in opposition to the social identity of the dominant group (in the case of the United States, Whites). Thus, whereas voluntary minority students are able to view education as a path to success in their newly adopted country, African American students tend to view education as a system controlled by the group that subjugated and oppressed them and their ancestors. School, for them, is seen as an inappropriate aspect of what they deem "proper" African American identity (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986). As a result, African American children are instead encouraged to value other aspects of society-usually whatever is in opposition to European American values-as appropriate for themselves. Ogbu called this phenomenon cultural inversion. Cultural inversion arose initially, Ogbu argued, to serve boundary-maintaining and coping functions under subordination. It remains in force because there are few incentives to give them up as long as members of these groups still feel subjugated and oppressed.

Ogbu maintained that members of involuntary minority groups might consciously or unconsciously interpret school learning as a displacement process detrimental to their social identity, sense of security, and self-worth. Furthermore, these minority groups may have observed that even those among them who succeed in school are not fully accepted or rewarded in the same way that White students are accepted or rewarded. This, combined with peer pressure and cultural pressure not to "act White" (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986), creates a compelling force against identification with academics. Conversely, Ogbu argued that voluntary minority students have a much easier time integrating academics into their self-concept and excelling at school. For students whose families have come to a culture or country willingly, education is generally viewed as the route through which they may build a better future for themselves. Though these students tend to have greater lingual and cultural barriers to overcome than do involuntary minority students, they tend to do better academically because they are able to better identify with academics. They face no culture of opposition, no collective identity opposing their excelling at school. Indeed, many of these students' families and communities place significant peer and group pressure upon them to excel-a situation that stands in stark contrast to the group dynamics of involuntary minority groups. Thus, although voluntary minorities are able to identify with academics, involuntary minority students are less able to do so due to the social dynamics of their home cultures and communities.

"Cool Pose"

Ogbu's oppositional perspective is echoed by other authors, including Majors and Billson (1992), who argue that African American males, adopt a "cool pose"-a ritualized approach to masculinity that allows them to cope and survive in an environment of social oppression and racism, including that found within U.S. schools. According to Majors and Billson, African American males learn early to project this facade of emotionlessness, fearlessness, and aloofness to counter the inner pain caused by the damaged pride, poor self-confidence, and fragile social competence that results from their existence as a member of a subjugated group. Many of the roots of cool pose seem to be similar to the social issues discussed by Ogbu. Similar to Steele, Majors and Billson depict African American males as victims of their own coping strategies. In terms of education, Majors and Billson assert that cool pose often leads to flamboyant and nonconformist behaviors that frequently elicit punishment in school settings. They further contend that cool pose is generally incompatible with the popular perception of the "good student" as a hard-driving, disciplined, and highly motivated individual closely identified with schooling. Thus, according to this perspective, African American boys adopt a strategy for coping with their membership in a stigmatized group that is oppositional to identification with academics.

From the writings of these authors (among others), we can propose that African American students, particularly boys, fail to achieve their full academic potential because of social, psychological, and cultural hurdles. These youth are discouraged or prevented from incorporating schooling and education into their self-view due to: (a) psychological mechanisms that protect them from anxiety, evaluation apprehension, and adverse outcomes; (b) having to give up their identification with their minority group in order to identify with "White" pursuits and values such as education; (c) peer group resistance to valuing education and rejection of those who do; or (d) psychological reactance that manifests as heightened or ritualized masculinity which also prevents the individual from succeeding in academics. Whatever the posited cause and/or mechanism, the final outcome appears to be selective devaluing of academics and education.

EVIDENCE OF DISIDENTIFICATION AMONG AFRICAN AMERICAN BOYS

There is evidence to suggest that African American students, boys in particular, have lower levels of identification with academics than other students. Theoretically, identified students' self-esteem is more strongly correlated with academic outcomes than is that of disidentified students. Many studies have reported lower correlations between academic achievement and self-esteem among African Americans (Demo & Parker, 1987; Lay & Wakstein, 1985; Rosenberg & Simmons, 1972). In one particularly interesting study, Hare (1977) found that African American elementary students based their global self-esteem not on schooling but instead primarily on family and home. White students, on the other hand, based their self-esteem primarily on school and, to a lesser extent, on family and peer interactions. Osborne (1997b) reported similar findings.

Experimentally, Osborne, Major, and Crocker (1992) have shown that the self-esteem of African American college students is less reactive to academics feedback than that of White American collegians, indicating lower levels of identification with academics. Further, Osborne (1995,1997b) found evidence of the developmental nature of African American boys' disidentification with academics. Using data from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey of 1988 (National Center for Education Statistics, 1992), a large sampling representative of the U.S. student population, Osborne (1995, 1997b) tested the assertion that students of color should show lower levels of identification with academics than do White students. He asserted instead that this gap is developmental and not a necessary state of existence for students of color. As presented in Figure I, all 8th-grade students in Osborne's study were significantly identified with academics (with correlations ranging from .22 to .27, p

There is also evidence to suggest that this identification gap has not always existed. Osborne's (1999) study of high school seniors from the classes of 1972,1982, and 1992 found that identification with academics decreased progressively among African American boys (and Native American and Latino boys as well) from 1972, when appreciable racial differences were not apparent, to 1992, when such differences were significant and substantial. These data are presented in Figure II. Other data on high school girls from the same time periods revealed the opposite trend: girls of color tended to show increasing identification with academics. Although the reasons behind these findings are open to debate, Osborne's research provides compelling evidence that (a) the problem is remediable-that is, if it can be made worse, it should be able to be made better; and (b) the problem is urgent because it is getting worse, not better.

In sum, strong theoretical support exists for the notion that social-psychological factors might be contributing to the underachievement of African American boys. The data reported in Figure II supports the contentions that: (a) as a group, African American boys are particularly likely to become disidentified with academics as they move through their education; (b) this trend is not historically stable, at has at previous times been either not evident or much less severe; and (c) that identification with academics is predictive of important academic outcomes. These findings are not all bleak, however. Identification with academics is theoretically malleable, and not all African American boys become disidentified. For example, Osborne and Rausch (2001) report that, for students of all genders and races/ethnicities, those who remain in school rate substantially higher in identification than do those who withdraw from school. Thus, the issue at hand becomes how to assist African American boys (and other students from disadvantaged minority groups) to remain identified, and how to assist those students who have disidentified to re-identify with academics.

DERAILING DisIDENTIFICATION WITH ACADEMICS

In light of the preceding argument, identification with academics can potentially be influenced in two distinct ways: (a) by helping students at risk for disidentification to resist that trend, and (b) by encouraging disidentified students to re-identify. The following discussion has been distilled from many sources but was drawn primarily from the writings of Steele (1992, 1997), Ogbu (1992), and Majors and Billson (1992).

To begin, development of a truly multicultural curriculum is seen as a beneficial move by these researchers. For example, Steele (1997) and Majors and Billson (1992) argued that a truly multicultural curriculum such as that detailed by Grant and Sleeter (1985), in which the contributions of people of color are infused throughout the school curriculum, would counter both the stereotype and the anxiety. They contend that such a curriculum, which makes people of color less invisible in academia, would help African American boys in particular to find their "place" in education. It should be noted, however, that Grant and Sleeter also contend that such a curriculum is rare in the United States. They maintain that curricula labeled multicultural are often more appropriately labeled cultural studies, in which individuals of different backgrounds are highlighted or different cultures are examined separately from the primary curriculum (e.g., Black History Month, Famous Women in Science Week). Thus, many current curricula, according to this argument, do not help students of color and may in fact be harming them by further highlighting the separateness and differences of persons of color.

Other curricular reforms were also viewed as helpful. For example, Majors and Billson (1992) suggested that to diffuse African American males' need for self-protective strategies such as cool pose, curricula should incorporate more Afrocentric ideals through the teaching of values such as cooperation, mutual respect, commitment, and love of family, race, community, and nation from the perspective of Black self-interest. Majors and Billson argue that this is not an anti-White or oppositional ideology but rather one that encourages a more collective and cooperative focus among African American males throughout the life cycle, especially during the critical elementary and middle school years. Another curricular reform, offered by Steele (1997), suggested changing remediation practices to improve Black male youths' identification with academics. According to Steele, though often well meaning, the remediation focus in many schools frequently exacerbates the problem of stereotype threat and disidentification. To students already struggling to overcome both overt and subtle messages that they might be intellectually inferior, remediation suggests that they are in dire peril and doomed to academic failure unless they receive help, further increasing stigma vulnerability and the likelihood of disidentification. In effect, the recipients of such efforts typically are perceived as not being able to handle the "mainstream" curriculum, so the difficulty of their schoolwork is reduced until it becomes unchallenging. From a self-esteem and identification with academics standpoint, by eliminating the challenge of academics, the rewards and reasons to stay involved in schooling are concurrently eliminated.

Instead of this remediation model, Steele (1997) recommended replacing the traditional model of remediation with a model of challenge. In his model, Black boys would be given challenging schoolwork in a supportive, collaborative environment that conveys respect for their academic and social potential, and emphasizes a view of intelligence as expandable rather than fixed and traitlike. (Notably, Steele explicitly argues that this applies to any stigmatized group such as girls in mathematics, not just African American boys or students of color.) These types of environments, he attested, would show these youth that they are not "regarded through the lens of an ability-demeaning stereotype" (p. 625).

Obviously, curricular reforms are not the only way to attack this problem. Ogbu (1992) stressed changing involuntary minorities' community and family norms to emphasize academic achievement, celebrate those who excel in academics, and place pressure on those who do not perform well academically. He identified several strategies that should allow involuntary minority students to identify with academics and excel without losing their peer group association or diminishing their self-concept. One such strategy, accommodation without assimilation, helps involuntary minority students recognize that they can participate successfully in two cultural frames for different purposes without losing their own cultural identity or undermining their loyalty to their minority community. This strategy essentially involves behaving according to school norms while at school and abiding by community norms while at home.

CONCLUSION

This article presents the argument that different levels of identification with academics explain the racial achievement gap widely noted in the literature. This perspective is supported by three distinct, yet widely respected theoretical perspectives: Steele's (1997) stereotype threat theory, Ogbu's cultural-ecological perspective, and Billson and Major's (1992) cool pose theory. Empirical evidence supporting this argument was presented, reporting that African American boys appear to be particularly at risk for disidentification. However, other evidence points to the fact that this trend is not historically stable (i.e., that in 1972, African American males did not show decreased identification) and that when students of any background or gender remain identified, they also tend to remain in school.

Because identification with academics is theoretically and empirically malleable, several suggestions for either maintaining identification or encouraging re-identification in African American boys were reviewed. None of these suggestions are beyond the scope of individual teachers, schools, or school districts to successfully implement. As an example, Steele and Aronson (1995) reported that even small changes in how assessments are viewed by students could have large benefits for African American boys. Though much more work remains to be done, these findings offer hope that U.S. educators are on the brink of a more profound understanding of the factors that influence these students' academic underachievement, and might possibly be able to do something meaningful to counter it.

REFERENcEs

Alexander, K. L., & Entwhistle, D. R. (1988). Achievement in the first two years of school: Patterns and processes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 53(2), 157.

American Council on Education, Office of Minority Concerns. (1990). Minorities in higher education. Washington, DC: Author.

Bachman, J. G. (1970). Youth in transition: Volume 2-The impact of family background and intelligence on 10th-grade boys. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research.

Bruschi, B. A., & Anderson, B. T. (1994, February). Gender and ethnic differences in science achievement of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Sarasota, FL.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner's.

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 4, 608-630.

Demo, D. H., & Parker, K. D. (1987). Academic achievement and self-esteem among African American and White college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 127(4), 345-355.

Epps, E. G. (1970). Interpersonal relations and motivation: Implications for teachers of disadvantaged children. Journal of Negro Education, 39, 14-25.

Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59(2), 117-142. Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. (1986). African American students' school success: Coping with the burden of "acting White." Urban Review, 18, 176-206.

Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (1985). The literature on multicultural education: Review and analysis. Educational Review, 37, 97-118.

Hare, B. R. (1977). Racial and socioeconomic variations in preadolescent area-specific and general self-esteem. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1, 31-51.

Herring, R. D. (1989). Minimum competency testing: Implications for ethnicity. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 17, 98-104.

Herrnstein, R. A., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve. New York: Grove Press.

Hindelang, M. J. (1973). Causes of delinquency: A partial replication and extension. Social Problems, 20, 471-487.

Howard, J., & Hammond, R. (1985, September 9). Rumors of inferiority. New Republic, 193, 17-21.

James, W. (1980/1963). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston. Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: The Free Press.

Kanungo, R. N. (1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 860), 119-138.

Katz, I., Epps, E. G., & Alexson, L. J. (1964). Effect upon Negro digit-symbol performance of anticipated comparison with Whites and with other Negroes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 77-83.

Katz, L, & Greenbaum, C. (1963). Effects of anxiety, threat, and racial environment on task performance of Negro college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 562-567. Kochman, T. (1981). Black and White: Styles in conflict. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lay, R., & Wakstein, J. (1985). Race, academic achievement, and self-concept of ability. Research in Higher Education, 22(1), 43-64.

Major, B., & Schmader, T. (1998). Coping with stigma through psychological disengagement. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target's perspective. New York: Academic Press. Majors, R., & Billson, J. M. (1992). Cool pose: The dilemmas of Black manhood in America. New York: Lexington Books.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). National education longitudinal study of 1988, First follow-up: Student component data file user's manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Neisser, U. (1998). Introduction: Rising test scores and what they mean. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The rising curve: Long-term gains in IQ and related measures (pp.3-24). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Nettles, M. T. (1988). Toward undergraduate student equality in American higher education. New York: Greenwood Press.

Newmann, F. M. (1981). Reducing student alienation in high schools: Implications of theory. Harvard Educational Review, 51, 546-564.

Ogbu, J. U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational Researcher, 21, 5-14.

Ogbu, J. U. (1997). Understanding the school performance of urban African-Americans: Some essential background knowledge. In H. Walberg, 0. Reyes, & R. Weissberg (Eds.), Children and youth: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 190-222). London: Sage.

Osborne, J. W. (1995). Academics, self-esteem, and race: A look at the underlying assumptions of the disidentification hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(5), 449-455. Osborne, J. W. (1997a). Identification with academics and academic success among community

college students. Community College Review, 25, 59-67.

Osborne, J. W. (1997b). Race and academic disidentification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 728-735.

Osborne, J. W. (1999, April). Historical trends in race and academic disidentification, 1972-1992. Paper presented at the national meeting of the American Education Research Association, Montreal, Quebec.

Osborne, J. W., Major, B., & Crocker, J. (1992, March). Social stigma and reactions to academic feedback. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

Osborne, J. W., & Rausch, J. (2001, April). Identification with academics and academic outcomes in secondary students. Paper presented at the national meeting of the American Education Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: On the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 672-680. Ramist, L., Lewis, C., & McCamley-Jenkins, L. (1994). Student group differences in predicting

college grades: Sex, language, and ethnic groups (College Board Report No. 93-1, ETS No. 94.27). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Reyes, L. H., & Stanic, G. M. (1988). Race, sex, socioeconomic status, and mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 26-43.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self, New York: Basic Books.

Rosenberg, M., Bs Simmons, R. (1972). African-American and White self-esteem: The urban school child (Rose Monograph Series). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

Shade, B. (1982). Afro-American cognitive style: A variable in school success. Review of Educational Research, 52, 219-244.

Simmons, R. G., Brown, L., Bush, D. M., & Blyth, D. A. (1978). Self-esteem and achievement of Black and White adolescents. Social Problems, 26, 86-96.

Steele, C. (1992, April). Race and the schooling of African Americans. Atlantic Monthly, pp. 68-78.

Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social-psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 21 (pp. 181-228). San Diego: Academic Press.

Tesser, A., & Campbell, J. (1980). Self-definition: The impact of the relative performance and similarity of others. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 341-347.

Valencia, R. R. (1991). The plight of Chicano students: An overview of schooling conditions and outcomes. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990s (The Stanford Series on Education and Public Policy; pp. 3-26). London: Falmer Press.

Valencia, R. R. (1997). Latinos and education: An overview of sociodemographic characteristics and schooling conditions and outcomes. In M. Barrera-Yepes (Ed.), Latino education issues: Conference proceedings. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Whitworth, R. H., & Barrientos, G. A. (1990). Comparison of Hispanic and Anglo graduate record examination scores and academic performance. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 80, 128-132.

Jason W. Osborne, University of Oklahoma

Copyright Howard University Fall 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved