1

Social and Cultural Influences on Academic Achievement

Laura Scholes
Australian Catholic University, Australia

Recognition that sociocultural experiences impact on student academic achieve-

ment is becoming more visible within psychology. Increasingly, we understand that
cognition, memory, and other psychological constructs develop within particular
social and cultural environments. The term academic achievement includes many
aspects of a student’s accomplishments at school; however, the term is often associated
with academic core subjects such as literacy, mathematics, and the sciences. Less
frequently, the term is associated with broader curriculum domains such as music
and the visual and dramatic arts. Because of the emphasis placed on core subjects,
discussions around student academic achievement are often limited to comparisons
of benchmark testing scores on key indicators such as literacy. From a social and
cultural standpoint, adolescent achievement needs to be considered from multiple
perspectives and with an understanding that measures such as benchmark testing
only provide simplistic data that do not account for the contextual influences on
such achievement. For example, the Program for International Student Assessment
measures 15-year-old students’ reading, mathematics, and science literacy every 3
years to provide comparative achievement data. However, nuances associated with
such data need close examination as achievements on international high-stakes bench-
mark testing are clearly associated with gender and markers of disadvantage such as
socioeconomic background (household income, earners’ education, and occupation),
ethnicity (a cultural characteristic that identifies members of a particular ethnicity), and
geographical location (remoteness, rurality, or urbanity; Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2016). The gap in achievement is then
illustrated by disparity in measures of educational performance among subgroups
defined by socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, location, and gender. The ways that
these sociocultural factors impact on adolescent learning and subsequently influence
success at school are therefore significant considerations. Sociocultural influences,
however, are often left out of discussions about student achievement when there is a
focus on student intelligence.

The Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development. Edited by Stephen Hupp and Jeremy D. Jewell.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI 10.1002/9781119171492.wecad376
2 Biology, Neurology, and Cognition in Adolescence

1 Intelligence and Achievement

There are ongoing arguments about whether intelligence is inherited or whether it is
something that is developed through the environment, fueling the “nature versus nur-
ture” debates. However, the idea of interplay in the influence of both nature and nurture
on intelligence is becoming more accepted. More research is needed about how inher-
ited intelligence is influenced by the effects of child poverty and social exclusion; mater-
nal factors associated with alcohol, smoking, and drug use; and biological factors such
as race, age, and gender. Research in this area, however, is controversial, as heritability
estimates vary depending on the type of test used when the study is carried out, as well
as the population, country, and ethnic group (Sternberg, 1997).
Within educational contexts, the notion of intelligence is often associated with a stu-
dent’s cognitive abilities to learn and with how individuals demonstrate school academic
achievement, abstract thought, self-awareness, emotional knowledge, memory, plan-
ning, creativity, and problem solving. Intelligence, however, is a Western cultural con-
struct and is hard to assess in traditional Western ways in other cultures, as children
in places such as rural sub-Saharan Africa are more familiar with clay as a medium of
expression than they are with pencil and paper. Regardless, many students are described
as intelligent due to success on traditional scholastic endeavors; however, we cannot
assume capacities for academic achievement are premised solely on intelligence. Tech-
nological advances in neuroscience are accelerating our understanding of how the brain
works, with imaging techniques identifying brain areas and the relationships among
them that underlie psychological processes central to education, including learning,
memory, and attention.
Traditionally there was a belief that social, emotional, and cognitive learning were sep-
arate and that intellectual learning was more important. We now know that the brain is
an interdisciplinary mechanism and that information is processed across the brain, with
research showing that students learn through their relationships (social intelligence),
through their emotions (emotional intelligence), and by making sense of their world
(cognitive intelligence). In this way, neuroscience demonstrates the brain’s role in intel-
ligence and the many factors (biological and sociocultural) that enable or constrain the
development of learning capacities.

2 The Intersection of Psychological and Sociocultural

Domains
A range of prominent psychologists and social researchers have articulated the inter-
play between the psychological and sociocultural domains. In response, there have been
changing perspectives in psychology with a move from individualistic developmental
explanations of achievement toward theories that consider the impact of sociocultural
influences on neurological cognition in the learning process. Cultural neuroscience is a
relatively new interdisciplinary field that investigates the relationship between culture
(values, belief systems, practices shared by groups) and the interplay of human brain
functioning (Han et al., 2013). Cultural neuroscience explores how sociocultural sys-
tems structure the developmental experiences of students and their thoughts, behavior,
 Social and Cultural Influences on Academic Achievement 3

and interactions in everyday life in ways that are traceable at the neural level (Ames &
Fiske, 2010). From this perspective, the brain is a work in progress that is malleable as
ongoing social and cultural experiences affect brain development and long-term learn-
ing (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Risk factors for compromised learning include poverty,
developmental and learning disabilities, belonging to an ethnic minority, and speaking
English as a second language, among other things.
Increasingly, educators are challenged to enter discussions about the theoretical
perspectives that define achievement and the cultural and socially constructed nature
of learning. From a sociocultural perspective, the importance of social and cultural
processes associated with learning cannot be separated from biological influences as
the processes involved in cognition and learning are embedded in contextual learning
environments. The following sections consider how theorists such as Lev Vygotsky,
Jerome Bruner, and Urie Bronfenbrenner have contributed to understandings about
how sociocultural influences impact on adolescent learning and academic achievement.
The impacts of poverty, gender, culture, and race/ethnicity on learning and achievement
are also considered.

3 Sociocultural Theorists
Lev Vygotsky
Understandings about sociocultural perspectives associated with learning are often
attributed to the work of Russian-born psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934), who
built on the work of collaborators in Russia during the 1920s and 1930s. Primarily,
Vygotsky (1978) was a developmental psychologist who proposed a theory linking the
development of higher cognitive functions in students to interactions in their social
environment. Cognition, or mental activity, allows us to understand the world and
includes functions of learning, perception, memory, thinking, and reasoning. While
many psychologists were developing theories associated with explanations of human
learning that removed the student from the learning context, Vygotsky, significantly,
developed a theory that accounted for the richness associated with students’ lives.
Vygotsky offers us the opportunity to conceptualize the interplay and interdependence
of social and individual processes and consider the implications for facilitating students’
learning and achievement.
Vygotsky’s work primarily demonstrates how students’ thinking develops as a result
of their social knowledge, and how this knowledge is communicated by language and
cultural tools, such as counting systems. Learning then takes place through a process
that involves interactions between the students, adults such as parents or teachers, and
the environment, mediated through language. Key to his work, Vygotsky articulates
how the elementary mental functions of attention, perception, sensation, and memory
work to develop new concepts as a combination of biological and psychological fac-
tors contribute to cognitive development. As students interact within their sociocultural
environment at home and at school, these functions develop into more sophisticated
higher mental functions. These higher mental functions develop through social inter-
actions with significant people in a student’s life, such as older peers, parents, and teach-
ers. A student learns through these interactions the habits of mind of the specific culture,
4 Biology, Neurology, and Cognition in Adolescence

including speech patterns, written language, and other symbolic knowledge. Memory,
for example, can be an elementary mental function involved in a student storing initial
images and impressions of events. Higher mental functioning develops as the student
uses literate practices of their culture, such as symbolic signs, paper, or technology, and
various modes of communication to extend the natural memory function.
Vygotsky introduced the construct of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The
ZPD signifies the interdependence between individual and social processes in the con-
struction of knowledge. It is the difference between what a student can do without help
and what he or she can do with assistance from a more able peer, an adult, or a teacher.
Cognitive development is then a process of increased mental sophistication mediated
though social interactions within the ZPD. Important to development and learning in
the ZPD is matching learning with the student’s level of development and recognition
of the actual and potential levels of development. This involves first identifying what the
student can accomplish independently and then recognizing what the student can do
with assistance. The distance between what students can accomplish alone, and what
students can accomplish with guidance from someone more capable, is referred to as
the ZPD. In this way, the ZPD refers to the distance between a student’s actual develop-
mental level, as determined by independent problem solving, and the student’s level of
potential development, determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978). This zone becomes the space
where the student is cognitively prepared and then benefits from social interactions.

Jerome Bruner
An understanding of the ZPD is significant for teachers who wish to scaffold students’
learning and subsequently academic achievement. Scaffolding is often associated with
the work of psychologist Jerome Bruner (1915–2016). Bruner (1983) described scaffold-
ing as what takes place in the ZPD. He also emphasized the important roles of the social
environment and adults in assisting student learning. By providing carefully planned
assistance, resources, and questioning, the teacher can scaffold learning, contributing
to the student’s understanding of more complex knowledge domains and his or her
development of more sophisticated skills. This process includes careful observation and
assessment of a student and the development of curriculum experiences that facilitate
and support emerging learnings. The challenge for educators is to define the limits of
the zone, matching adult support with carefully planned curriculum and pedagogies to
scaffolding learning.
The ZPD is also a space that provides an opportunity for teachers and students to
work collaboratively, moving away from traditional authoritarian pedagogies toward
an intersubjective space for both students and teachers to learn from each other. In
this way the ZPD becomes a space that facilitates mentor and mentee to engage in
enquiry and learning together, reflecting Dewey’s (1984) notions of freedom, shared
authority, and openness to experience as means of learning. The teacher then moves
from being a guide to the role of co-inquirer or co-constructor with the student.
This involves the teacher posing questions, problems, or scenarios. The student then
needs a rich environment to explore knowledge domains in collegial ways such as that
between a mentor and mentee, with both bringing particular expertise to the learning
experience. Through mutual questioning, discussion, collaborative problem solving,
 Social and Cultural Influences on Academic Achievement 5

and reflection, teachers and students can create a learning environment that scaffolds
students’ evolving understandings and learning.

Urie Bronfenbrenner
Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917–2005), an American developmental psychologist who was
born in the Soviet Union, initiated a framework situating individual learning and devel-
opment within immediate contexts such as the school and home, and broader contexts
of the community and wider society. His framework is referred to as ecological sys-
tems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and highlights how students’ experiences always
take place within an environment that includes multiple dimensions. Student learning
then develops as a result of interactions and reciprocal relationships within immediate
and broader contexts. Ecological theory as advanced by Bronfenbrenner is evident in
research in many fields, including educational psychology, human development, student
welfare and protection, health, work–family relations, families dealing with incarcera-
tion, after-school programs and academic performance, and literacy development. The
framework also provides a lens for developing understandings about the multiplicity
and interconnected nature of contextual influences on students’ learning.

4 Ecological Systems Theory

Bronfenbrenner articulated the original ecological model of human development
in 1979. The model consists of hierarchical, nested structures that constitute the
layers of the environment affecting a developing student. These are referred to as the
microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem.

Microsystem: The Immediate Environment

The developing student is at the core of the microsystem of the inner circle of
Bronfenbrenner’s model and the microsystem includes the student’s experiences and
interactions within everyday environmental settings (such as the home, school, and
neighborhood) that construct the world of the student. These progressively more com-
plex interactions directly enable or constrain the student’s development, learning, and
achievement. As the student’s social, emotional, cognitive, and physical characteristics
develop, relationships within the environment change and the developing student
constructs the microsystem as much as he or she is shaped by it. The impact of poverty
can be influential at this level as social disadvantage can affect a student in terms of
the quality of relationships, levels of stress in the home, and language interactions with
significant adults.

Mesosystem: Home–School Relations

The mesosystem includes the relationships and interactions between significant people
in the student’s microsystem. These interrelationships make up the second level of the
ecological systems theory model and consist of relations between home and school, and
home and workplace environment. While the student may not be directly involved in
these relations, interactions between the student’s parents and the school, for example,
6 Biology, Neurology, and Cognition in Adolescence

indirectly influence the student’s everyday experiences as parent–teacher relationships

can influence learning in profound ways. Teachers’ perceptions of parents and their
beliefs about parental values can contribute to educational achievement in both positive
and negative ways. Teachers working in disadvantaged communities have been found
to work with very limited expectations of both parents and children, which can lead to
strained teacher–parent relations and relatively low-level, repetitive, and unchalleng-
ing activities in the classroom (Anyon, 1997). These stereotypical views are referred to
as middle-class bias. This bias can result in low expectations of students and less daily
classroom instruction in higher-level academic skills in schools in low socioeconomic
areas, leading to lower achievement.

Exosystem: National Curriculum

The exosystem comprises the links and processes that indirectly influence the student
through the educational environment and community. Government initiatives, educa-
tional policy, and local community structures are significant at this level. For example,
the current dominant culture of performativity—obsessed with academic outcomes
on high-stakes benchmark testing—filters into students’ everyday realities. A focus
on core subject measures can result in didactic teaching or “teaching for the test,” a
narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy, and decreased motivation by students (Polesel,
Dulfer, & Turnbull, 2012). The narrowing of curriculum to prepare for international
and national benchmark testing also contributes to elevated stress for students and
constrains the types of learning that take place in the classroom. National curricula
can also be value laden and developed at a particular time with a specific purpose.
Dominant valued knowledge is often portrayed as worthwhile while the knowledge
of marginalized groups is often invisible. The construction of curriculum influences
students’ experiences within the classroom as students learn or do not learn about
particular knowledge, as dictated by external forces.

Macrosystem: International Imperatives

The macrosystem consists of the dominant cultural, political, and economic environ-
ment of the time in a particular society. Valued knowledge, available resources, cultural
practices, workplace demands, and lifestyle opportunities indirectly influence students’
experiences at school. The current global value placed on literacy is significant at this
level as being literate provides access to valued resources and participation in the
dominant culture. Globalization affects local lives and identities as literacy becomes a
benchmark for success, influencing educational programs within the classroom. West-
ern cultures participate in the OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment
using a range of comparative measures of education that are used at an international
level. These broader influences impact what a student learns (valued knowledge), how a
student’s achievement is assessed (benchmark testing), and what is considered student
success (high test scores).
Bronfenbrenner’s work spanned six decades and offers educators ways to consider
the implications of developmental psychology and the interdisciplinary domain of the
ecology of human development. His original work was contrary to the predominant
view at the time, which advocated that student development was purely biological, with
 Social and Cultural Influences on Academic Achievement 7

no recognition of the influence of experience or environment. Ecological perspectives

provide a lens for developing understandings about the multiplicity and textured nature
of students’ experiences, which impact on their academic achievement. One of the main
concepts evident in Bronfenbrenner’s work has been the need to understand the imme-
diate and wider environmental influences on a student and to include the student’s
parents and community in any educational intervention.

5 Poverty, Gender, Culture, and Race/Ethnicity

Poverty
Students living in disadvantaged environments who experience poverty are at risk of
lower academic achievement. Environmental influences that affect the brain develop-
ment of students living in disadvantaged situations include risks associated with poor
health, low nutrition, high stress, parental instability, and parental unemployment.
Additionally, there may be risks associated with lack of emotional and educational
support and other related factors. Students from lower-income or disadvantaged
families tend to have lower educational outcomes at school and have more difficulties
on standardized tests (OECD, 2016). For example, one of the biggest single correlating
factors with poor literacy and numeracy skills is poverty. While factors related to
disadvantage, such as health-related issues, affect cognition and behavior, we are still
learning how experiences of advantage and disadvantage translate into brain structur-
ing. There is research that suggests a correlation between poverty and behavior, as being
born into deprived circumstances has negative effects on students’ outcomes and life
chances (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Family characteristics correlated with income and
parenting styles are believed to make a difference and have been used to predict how
well students develop and succeed (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). This is in part because
the development of skills that predict later success (including literacy, numeracy, and
character capabilities) have been associated with socioeconomic background and the
home learning environment. As the brain is responsible for cognition and behavior, it is
believed that there must be some differences in the brains of children living in poverty
compared to children not living in poverty.
Brain adaptation and learning are lifelong, and a student’s capacity to learn when he or
she enters school is strongly influenced by the neural wiring that takes place in the early
years of life (McCain, Mustard, & Shanker, 2007). Brain development is influenced by
the nature of students’ engagement in relationships with parents and carers, as children
in loving, caring relationships have lower stress responses than students in less secure
relationships (Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, & Juffer, 2005). A strong bond
with a caregiver increases a student’s attachment. Attachment, in turn, has been found to
lower levels of cortisol, a stress hormone that can disrupt brain development and func-
tioning. Students growing up in environments characterized by consistent, predictable,
nurturing, rich experiences have a tendency to develop neurobiological capabilities
that increase their chance for long-term health, happiness, productivity, and creativity
(Winter, 2010). On the other hand, if early nurturing relationships are compromised,
long-term constraints on neurodevelopment may develop (Perry, 2002). As nongenetic
influences contribute to differences in student achievement, interventions to help shape
students’ brain development and function are critical (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).
8 Biology, Neurology, and Cognition in Adolescence

Students who experience disadvantage may develop the neural networks needed to
survive in the adverse situations in which they grow up. Experiencing overwhelming
challenges on a daily basis may require brain adaptation to suboptimal conditions in
ways that undermine school performance. Unpredictable environments that require stu-
dents to find ways to adapt to them may contribute to the development of neural systems
and functional capabilities that reflect disorganization (Perry, 2002). However, while an
impoverished environment may deprive students of the richness required for optimal
development, we cannot contend that extra stimulation leads to increased synaptic con-
nections, as overstimulating babies has been found to have the opposite effect (Garrison,
Liekweg, & Christakis, 2011). Appropriately stimulating activities may enhance learning
by helping students to learn specific skills and developing students’ ability and motiva-
tion concerned with learning generally.
Studies considering the links between disadvantage and cognition are ongoing. For
example, a study by Noble et al. (2015) investigated the possible relationship between
socioeconomic factors and brain morphometry (the measurement of brain structures
and changes) independent of genetic origin. The researchers studied nearly 1,100 indi-
viduals who were between the ages of 3 and 20, collecting data on their socioeconomic
background and conducting MRI brain scans and cognitive tests. They found a posi-
tive association between family income and brain surface area, largely in brain areas
linked to skills associated with language, reading, executive functions, and spatial skills.
This research suggests an association between socioeconomic background and brain
surface area, with income related most strongly to brain structure among the most
disadvantaged children. These disadvantages, however, can be mediated through envi-
ronmental changes associated with student participation at school, including the facil-
itation of healthy school lunches, an engaging curriculum, quality teaching, innovative
after-school programs, and other nurturing initiatives that impact positively on brain
development, cognition, and educational outcomes (Noble et al., 2015). While students
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may provide challenges to teachers, teaching
quality can offset the devastating effects poverty has on students’ academic achievement
(Scholes et al., 2017).

Gender
The impacts of factors such as gender, poverty, and culture on students’ learning are
often interdependent and interrelated. For example, the notion of gender is significant in
students’ daily life from when they start school at 4 or 5 years of age. School peer groups
and the desire for group belonging then become significant in the construction of mas-
culine and feminine stereotypes. However, social constructions of masculinity and fem-
ininity stereotypes are never just about gender but are reflections of the many different
ways gender combines with socioeconomic background and ethnicity to produce differ-
ing and enduring forms of identity. Homogenizing boys and girls as two binary entities is
problematic, and exploring differences among groups of boys and girls makes visible dif-
ferences that are not always accounted for. To this end there is growing acknowledgment
of the salience of social class (or social and economic status), the influence of boys’ and
girls’ experiences at school, and the interactional complexities associated with academic
achievement (Nagel & Scholes, 2017).
 Social and Cultural Influences on Academic Achievement 9

To understand how boys’ and girls’ experiences at school affect learning and achieve-
ment, we need to consider how notions of gender have been shaped by the societies
and cultures in which we live. Consideration of the complexities associated with gender,
socioeconomic status, and achievement has entered educational enquiry and discus-
sions at the policy level, but the general implications of these dialogs have not filtered
down into schools. There are barriers, as recognition of differences among groups of
boys and girls is not always evident in schools, as traditionally educators and policy
makers position all boys and all girls as two homogeneous groups.
Both boys and girls attending schools in disadvantaged communities are more likely
than their counterparts from higher socioeconomic communities to position themselves
in opposition to schooling and underperform. But there are also performance differ-
ences according to the nature of the subject. For example, it is boys who underperform
in reading, compared to girls, at all levels of socioeconomic status; however, boys from
low socioeconomic backgrounds make up the lowest group (OECD, 2016).
Adolescence is a time when boys and girls are developing their identity. While this
can be a turbulent time, studies suggest that students from more privileged upbringings
more successfully develop positive school identities. There are, however, many social
and cultural factors that contribute to developing social identities, from a student’s
capacity for resilience to how they engage with social media. Adolescents from more
disadvantaged communities are believed to be more at risk of being exposed to an
environment that can be detrimental to their development. Romantic involvement
also becomes more visible during the adolescent period. Romantic partners’ grades are
often related in adolescence, suggesting a tendency to select partners who are achieving
at school at the same level. In a similar manner, peer group influences can significantly
impact on motivation during this phase, affecting school-related behaviors such as
study habits and personal academic development.

Culture and Race/Ethnicity

Certain characteristics of adolescence are influenced by culture more than human biol-
ogy or cognitive structures. Culture is learned and socially shared, and it affects all
aspects of an individual’s life, including social responsibilities, sexual expression, and
belief systems. How adolescents dress, the music they play, and how they use social
media can be culturally specific. Furthermore, how they value and engage in educational
opportunities can also be influenced by cultural attitudes.
The notions of culture and ethnicity are often used interchangeably in reference to
people from diverse ethnic groups who share a particular race, nationality, language,
or religious background. Culture, however, can extend to systems of belief, knowledge,
values, and behavior shared by members of a group, with the potential for cultural differ-
ences to exist between people of different ethnic backgrounds, different social classes,
and different genders. When identifying specific cultural groups, it should be remem-
bered that no group is homogeneous and there are in fact subgroups with diverse charac-
teristics. For example, within Indigenous communities there are hundreds of subgroups
that have their own languages, territories, and attributes.
Discrimination based on culture or ethnicity has the potential to affect students’
well-being and subsequently their learning and achievement at school. Racism in
schools is experienced by students directly and indirectly, through harassment, abuse,
10 Biology, Neurology, and Cognition in Adolescence

and prejudice. For students from diverse backgrounds, issues relating to whiteness are a
significant influence driving the pressures associated with normalization that students
often encounter from other students in school contexts. Racism can be destructive to
students’ emotional well-being and educational outcomes. Teachers can be proactive
in terms of challenging racist behavior (such as teasing), providing a culturally sensitive
curriculum with content that includes examples from diverse cultures, facilitating
equity for students from diverse groups, providing an empowering classroom culture,
challenging cultural assumptions, and directly challenging prejudices as they arise.
There are challenges for students when they arrive at school with particular back-
grounds where culture is transmitted through oral language. There are also challenges
for teachers when students arrive with particular views about learning and behavior
reflecting their carers’ parenting styles and educational goals. While there may be
group generalizations that can be made about a particular ethnic group, students
also bring with them experiences that reflect their own development in terms of
cognition, memory, emotion, personality, identity, and other psychological constructs.
Quantifying or measuring how students think and learn is largely a Western notion
that draws on the skills that are valued in a particular society. Non-Western societies
do not always value the same skills or place priority on the same abilities as Western
societies (Grigorenko et al., 1999).

6 Conclusion
There is a need to be cautious when considering the measurement of academic skills and
what we classify as academic achievement, as there are cultural biases that impede parity
of participation by students. Discrimination according to race or culture is a factor that
interacts with gender and socioeconomic status to influence students’ learning experi-
ences at school. A racist whiteness mentality can drive bullying, harassment, and phys-
ically abusive practices at school, although for boys the threats may be of physical vio-
lence and for girls they may be more about teasing, taunting, and intimidation. Physical
and nonphysical forms of discrimination and bullying are equally detrimental to boys’
and girls’ psychological well-being and, in turn, their learning and academic achieve-
ment. Adolescent learning and scholastic achievement are intertwined and embedded in
contextual processes. Moving on from binary understandings of psychology and socio-
cultural processes makes visible the impact of contextual sociocultural influences such
as socioeconomic background, gender, and race/ethnicity on students’ development,
learning, and achievement at school.

SEE ALSO: Adolescent Suicide; Eating Disorders; Same-Sex Relationships and LGBTQ
Youth; Self-Harm

References
Ames, D. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2010). Cultural neuroscience. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,
13(2), 72–82.
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press
 Social and Cultural Influences on Academic Achievement 11

Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2005). Disorganized

infant attachment and preventive interventions: A review and meta-analysis. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 26(3), 191–216.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York, NY: Norton.
Dewey, J. (1984). The later works of John Dewey 1929: The quest for certainty. Carbondale,
IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Garrison, M. M., Liekweg, K., & Christakis, D. A. (2011). Media use and child sleep: The
impact of content, timing, and environment. Pediatrics, 128(1), 29–35.
Grigorenko, E. L., Geissler, P. W., Prince, R., Okatcha, F., Nokes, C., Kenny, D. A., …
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The organization of Luo conceptions of intelligence: A study of
implicit theories in a Kenyan village. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
25(4), 367–378.
Han, S., Northoff, G., Vogeley, K., Wexler, B. E., Kitayama, S., & Varnum, M. E. W. (2013). A
cultural neuroscience approach to the biosocial nature of the human brain. Annual
Review of Psychology, 64(1), 335–359.
McCain, M., Mustard, F., & Shanker, S. (2007). Early years study 2: Putting science into
action. Toronto, ON: Council for Early Child Development.
Nagel, M., & Scholes, L. (2017). Gender, diversity and engagement in the classroom. In M.
Hyde, L. Carpenter, & S. Dole (Eds.), Inclusivity, diversity and engagement in Australian
schools (3rd ed., pp. 93–110). Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.
Noble, K. G., Houston, S. M., Brito, N. H., Bartsch, H., Kan, E., Kuperman, J. M., … Sowell,
E. R. (2015). Family income, parental education and brain structure in children and
adolescents. Nature Neuroscience, 18(5), 773–778. doi:10.1038/nn.3983
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 results.
Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Perry, B. (2002). Childhood experience and the expression of genetic potential: What
childhood neglect tells us about nature and nurture. Brain and Mind, 3(1), 79–100.
Polesel, J., Dulfer, N., & Turnbull, M. (2012). The experience of education. Sydney, NSW:
Whitlam Institute.
Scholes, L., Lampert, J., Burnett, B., Comber, B., Hoff, L., & Ferguson, A. (2017). The
politics of quality teacher discourses: Implications for preservice teachers in high
poverty schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 19–43. Retrieved
December 7, 2018, from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol42/iss4/3
Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of
early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong learning and
success. American Psychologist, 52, 1030–1037.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winter, P. (2010). Engaging families in the early childhood development story. Ministerial
Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs. Retrieved
February 13, 2019, from http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/
documents/Reports%20and%20publications/Publications/Early%20childhood
%20education/Engaging%20Families%20in%20the%20ECD%20Story-Neuroscience
%20and%20ECD.pdf
12 Biology, Neurology, and Cognition in Adolescence

Further Reading
Evans, G. W., & Wachs, T. D. (Eds.). (2010). Chaos and its influence on children’s
development: An ecological perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Nelson, C. A., de Hann, M., & Thomas, K. M. (2006). Neuroscience of cognitive development:
The role of experience on the developing brain. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Shiraev, E., & Levy, D. (2010). Cross-cultural psychology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Spear, L. P. (2010). The behavioral neuroscience of adolescence. New York, NY: Norton.
Verburgh, L., Konigs, M., Scherder, E. J. A., & Oosterlaan, J. (2014). Physical exercise and
executive functions in preadolescent children, adolescents and young adults: A
meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 48(12), 973–979.
Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? Teaching styles and student
adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287–301.

Laura Scholes (PhD, The University of Queensland, 2011) is an Associate Professor

at the Institute of Learning Sciences and Teacher Education, Australian Catholic
University, Australia. Her areas of expertise include educational research examining
the roles of literacy, gender, economic and geographical disadvantage, and teaching
pedagogy on student experience. She is currently Lead Investigator on an Australian
Research Council nationally funded research project investigating the influence of
gender, race/ethnicity, and class on inequities in academic success in literacy. She is
the author of Boys, Masculinities and Reading: Gender Identity and Literacy as Social
Practice (2017, Routledge).