Running head: FINAL REPORT 1

Theory to Practice Final Report

Mitchell Catalano, Jeffrey Eng, and Callie Moothart

Seattle University
FINAL REPORT 2

Theory to Practice Final Report

A review of the literature highlights three key areas of developing a successful college

preparatory program at the middle school level. First, the overall success of any college

intervention program, particularly when applied to middle school age students, must be

measureable and evaluated. Second, the impact of mentors and the positive development they

support in these programs is key for successful implementation and long term relationships.

Lastly, the engagement of families and parents in college preparation, particularly among low

socio-economic status, immigrant, and families of color, is necessary in developing long-term

and positive change in the attitudes and actions of middle school students regarding college.

Reviewing the overall success of these programs elucidates foundational understandings

of how college preparatory programs are organized and the types of learning outcomes they

produce. Both are critically important to understand if a comprehensive assessment of how to

best apply similar programs within the SUYI is to be accomplished. Three major themes of this

focus were identified across related research. First, these programs support college readiness for

students both academically and socially. Next, many of these programs focus on first generation

students and those of low socioeconomic status, which leads to better access to education in

marginalized communities. Finally, these types of preparatory programs promote positive youth

development and can offer alternative forms of capital and community cultural wealth for youth

and their networks (Yosso, 2005).

Each of these three key themes were identified for the particular importance they illustrated

to student development:

Across the literature, it was evident that college preparation programs increased both the

aspirations and practical skills of students who have limited access to college. (Huerta,
FINAL REPORT 3

2013; Bergerson, 2009; Radcliffe, 2013). Students are offered information and

experiences that can influence their understanding of what college is like and their

ambitions to get there. Some examples of the practical skills are greater understanding of

the college admissions process, touring college campuses to understand more about the

learning environment at college, accessing more advanced courses at their middle school,

or participating in specific mentoring programs such as AVID, CARES, or Summer

Learning Camps (Beer, 2008; Bergerson, 2009; Finch, 2003; Huerta, 2013; Jun, 1999;

Ng, 2014; Radcliffe, 2013; Schaffer, 2014).

Many of the college access and college readiness programs identified were created

specifically for first generation students and those of low socioeconomic status, which led

to success for students in these demographics. (Beer, 2008; Bergerson, 2009; Chung,

2015; Huerta, 2013; Jun, 1999; Ng, 2014). Benefits included increases in academic

achievement in high school or middle school, gathering more information about college

application processes, college standards, and responsibilities, and increased cultural

capital through the skills taught in these programs (Bergerson, 2009; Huerta, 2013; Jun,

1999; Ng, 2014).

Positive youth development was a process that was identified as an unintended

consequence of the preparatory programs in our literature (Bergerson, 2009; Huerta,

2013; Ng, 2014; Radcliffe, 2013). Literature in this area observes that offering

alternative programming combats at risk behaviors of youth, especially those from

disadvantaged backgrounds. Programs can also increase academic and social success,

resulting in patterns of positive psychological, physical, and social development. These

connections were identified by the literature as further enhancing community

FINAL REPORT 4

improvement (Catalano, 2014; Chung, 2015) and were directly fostered by different

college preparatory programs (Beer, 2008; Radcliffe, 2013).

Mentorship was identified in the literature as a major component of a college preparatory

program. Specific benefits of this guidance were identified in previous work in the field.

Highlighted most often were the relational benefits between the mentors and mentees in these

programs. These relationships become important not only in a support system of college

exploration, but also in developing positive relationships outside of parental and familial

engagement in the community. The major themes of this line of research included the type of

information provided through mentorship, how mentoring relationships can develop, and how to

best support mentorship programs.

These key themes were drawn out more specifically in how they are realized within college

preparation programs:

Mentorship offered students vital information on what they needed to do in order to

apply to college (Rivera, 2014), what skills they needed to learn in order to be

successful in college (Bird & Markle, 2012), and offered a network of social support

promoting a college going culture (Bergerson, 2009; Colvin & Tobler, 2013; Rivera,

2014).

Formal mentoring was best employed by offering a structured and intentional

approach to promote positive youth development, civic engagement, and college and

career exploration. One-on-one, as well as group mentoring was employed to work

with students towards a common goal. Mentors and mentees most often met on a
FINAL REPORT 5

schedule which was part of a larger event or program that the host organization put

together (Sipe & Roder, 1999; Allen & Eby, 2007).

In order for mentorship programs on college campuses to have a lasting impact on

college-going behavior, they must be supported at the institutional level. Additional

staff and student workers may be employed to work on logistics, planning, and

training (Bergerson, 2009).

While beneficial programmatic structures like those above were covered extensively in the

literature, family and parent engagement in college preparation for middle school students was

not expansive. Many researchers who focused on college preparation for middle school students

noted the importance of engaging parents of families, but did not offer specific examples or

programs. Across the literature, a few key themes emerged about the roles and responsibilities of

families in preparing middle school students for college. Primarily, parent attitudes about

college, including their aspirations for their children, make a significant difference in a student's

predicted success (Jenkins, 2008). How these attitudes influences parents supportive behaviors

will have an even larger impact on student success (Hill, 2015). Finally, researchers across the

field noted that bringing students into college preparation programs in the first place is a

necessary step in exposing parents to the world of higher education (Cabrera, 2006, Radcliffe,

2010 and 2013).

To expand on these three themes:

Parents' attitudes and beliefs impact students' attitudes and preparedness for college.

Researchers who asked families about their aspirations for their students found that

parents and families are generally supportive of college dreams, and want their children
FINAL REPORT 6

to be successful in life (Jenkins, 2008). This impacts students opinion about themselves

and their future success in college.

The actions that parents take to prepare their students for college also have a meaningful

impact on student readiness and success. From saving money for college (Jenkins, 2008),

to helping with college paperwork (Radcliffe, 2013), and even exercising certain

parenting practices (Hill, 2015), the specific actions that parents take can help and hinder

student readiness for college.

By participating in college preparation programs, middle school students are exposing

their families to the world of higher education. Schools with these programs are finding

that students are more successful academically (Cabrera, 2006) and that families become

more aware of higher education options for the future (Ng, 2012).

Across these themes, it is evident that college preparatory programs best serve students from

low socioeconomic status in their ability to inspire positive development, deliver tangible skills,

and increase college aspirations. The inspiration that students find in this programs is identified

as increasing their own college aspirations. Mentor relationships only strengthen students goals

and connections. Conversely, those relationships also represent an important vessel for

delivering the general benefits of these programs. Aspirations are influenced by the actions,

attitudes, and beliefs owned by parents in preparing their children for college. These continue to

build upon the positive relational impacts which college preparation programs often support.

In further developing research and implementation about these programs, there are important

limitations to address. Mainly, varying foci of these programs, based on diversity in race or

ethnicity, are crucial to address as they influence each of the three key areas. Since
FINAL REPORT 7

socioeconomic status was used as a blanket term in the literature, it was difficult to identify how

different ethnic or racial populations might be best served in developing these programs. These

variables were also true of how to train mentors in addressing concerns of multicultural

competency in the student populations they serve, since multicultural competency is a

necessarily aspect of working with diverse populations of students (Pope, 2004). Similarly, the

general lack of research into the world of parental engagement failed to identify how family

structures varying by race or ethnicity could differentially effect students development in these

programs. Finally, how these programs have been offered through Jesuit pedagogies was largely

overlooked in the literature. These gaps in the research will look to be mitigated by promising

practices in the area of college preparatory programs and those recommendations drawn in the

conclusions to follow.

Promising Practices

Fairfield Universitys Cristo Rey Summer Camp Program

One promising practice is found at Fairfield Universitys Cristo Rey summer camp program.

The Cristo Rey system provides young students from underprivileged communities with a

college preparatory level of education. Fairfields program invites students to campus for the

week to explore academic and campus life. Students receive practical support concerning the

college admission process, and, uniquely, explore Jesuit ideologies such as Magis, cura

personalis, and being men and women for others. Off campus portions include trips to a variety

of colleges and universities in the area to explore other environments of higher education. The

program aims to present college as a realistic option for these students and build skills in college

level coursework and self-reflection (McCaffrey, 2008).

FINAL REPORT 8

The summer camp design coincides with a primary method of college preparation courses as

demonstrated by Schaffer (2014). The program successfully targets students of low

socioeconomic status who are recruited by Cristo Rey high schools, advances students practical

skills to use within the higher education pipeline (Beer, 2008; Bergerson, 2009; Chung, 2015;

Finch, 2003; Huerta, 2013; Jun, 1999; Ng, 2014; Radcliffe, 2013; Schaffer, 2014), and bolsters

their knowledge of the variables included in aspiring to college (Bergerson, 2009; Huerta, 2013;

Jun, 1999; Ng, 2014).

In its Jesuit framework, this promising practice supports many values already present at

Seattle University. Practicing skills of Ignatian self-reflection aligns well with Seattle

Universitys own mission of developing students in the tradition of Jesuit education. This frame

of critical self-reflection also provides pre-college students with a glimpse of self-authorship

work, which becomes important in a higher education experience, as indicated by Marcia Baxter

Magolda (2001) (Evans et al., 2010).

H.E.S.S Mentoring Program

This mentoring program brings middle and high school students to Wheeling Jesuit

University every Wednesday where mentors and mentees build social support, educational

activities, and homework help. This program was started in 2003 and is funded through the Hess

Family Foundation. The program originated by bringing at-risk middle school students selected

by guidance counselors to campus, but expanded to include high school students. An important

note is that HESS high school students were all former HESS middle school students, which

speaks to the efficacies of programming. The program is run by one staff members, eight lead

student volunteers, and fifty volunteer mentors. Student meet on campus once a week from

3:00-7:00pm. This time frame allows students to utilize campus resources and exposes them to
FINAL REPORT 9

college life. The goal of each weeks programming is to help students dream of who they want

to be, which promotes self-authorship. Weekly meetings are broken down into three

components. 1) Classroom time with students and their mentors is given for homework,

studying, and goal setting. 2) Dinner is provided at a campus dining room where students

socialize with their mentors and peers. 3) Educational programming is offered. Examples of

educational programming include leadership trainings, physical activities, group games,

excursions to local museums, art classes, and science experiments (HESS Activities, n.d.).

Strong relationships are built between mentors and mentees, and both often stay together 3 to 4

years (C. Ryan, personal communication, November 12, 2015; H.E.S.S Mentoring Program,

n.d.). This consistency can be very beneficial to developing a positive mentoring relationship

between the middle school and college students, which has been shown to improve middle

school students attitudes and aspirations for college (Radcliffe 2013). This program is

promising because it has been running for 12 years, the length of time mentors and mentees stay

together, and the expansion of the program to include high school students.

Texas State University: Writing Marathon

Another promising practice found not at a Jesuit institution, but with Jesuit components,

is the writing marathon model at Texas State University. As part of a research project on middle

school college preparation programs (Radcliffe 2013), the concept of a writing marathon was

applied to a group of middle school students college visit to Texas State. Students were led by

what Radcliffe (2010) called pre-service teachers (student teachers), who had served in the

middle school classrooms in the months leading up to the writing marathon and campus visit.

Middle school students toured the campus, attended classes, ate lunch in the dining hall, and

heard stories from current college students. Periodically, students stopped and reflected on what
FINAL REPORT 10

they were experiencing, and wrote about it using a small word processing keyboard called an

Alphasmart (Radcliffe 2010). Students then shared what they had written with a small group of

their peers. Students writings revealed that they enjoyed the campus tour, appreciated learning

more about college, and could envision themselves attending (Radcliffe 2010). This model was

repeated at least four times, with similar results. Students grew in understanding and familiarity

with the college, and were able to visualize their own academic success and achievement in the

future (Radcliffe 2010).

Across promising practices, three themes emerged as key components of a successful program.

Theme #1: College Campus Visit

One theme that was shared across the three promising practices is that outreach

programming engages middle school students by inviting them to college campuses. Unlike the

current programming for SUYI where college mentors visit local schools, the promising

practices that we identified started with exposing middle school students to the college setting to

promote college aspirations. In addition, this builds cultural and social capital among students

by exposing them to campus resources and personnel. Incorporating an on campus visit

component would be simple as the middle school mentorship program is already established, and

Seattle Universitys Admissions Office already has experience providing tours to middle school

students.

Theme #2: Incorporating Jesuit Values and Self-Reflection

Another important theme shared throughout our research is incorporating Jesuit values in

Ignatian self-reflection and discernment in middle school outreach programming. These values

promote self-authorship and college-going behavior. SUYI mentors utilized Canvas modules for

self-reflective activities, but it is unclear if SUYI mentors participate in self-reflective activities

FINAL REPORT 11

with their mentees. However, incorporating this into the current middle school mentorship

program run by the Center for Community Engagement should be done to enhance mentorship

program outcomes, and further SU mission by promoting the holistic development of students.

Theme #3: Developing Critical Thinking Skills

Educational programming, goal setting, and self-reflection all engage students in

developing critical thinking skills. These skills are invaluable in the college preparation process

and future success in college. Currently at Seattle University, we have the Middle College High

School program, which is an alternative high school where students take classes for credit to

prepare them for college or university. One of the core themes in the curriculum is around

critical thinking and social justice. Perhaps these curricular aspects can be modified to inspire

middle school students college aspirations during their on-campus visits.

Recommendations

Summer Learning Camp

Our recommendation begins with a description of one of the more basic structures for a

middle school level college access program. Through careful examination of related literature

and a review of existing programs, our first recommendation is that the Seattle University Youth

Initiative adopt a summer learning camp program. The program should be offered to students

from underprivileged backgrounds who will benefit best from its pedagogy. Curriculum should

focus equally on developing practical academic skills, sharing information about how to access

the college pipeline, and introducing participants to mission based reflection.

Low socioeconomic status has been identified as a major barrier to college access (Beer,

2008; Bergerson, 2009; Chung, 2015; Huerta, 2013; Jun, 1999; Ng, 2014). The literature has

indicated that students from these backgrounds benefit most from college access programs for a
FINAL REPORT 12

number of reasons. Many of these students do not receive the same depth of education as those

in a higher education pipeline. These programs offer academic skills that are tangible, useful,

and set students up for further success in school. These programs success is measured by its

effectiveness in preparing students for college (Huerta, 2013; Bergerson, 2009; Radcliffe, 2013;

Finch, 2013; Ng, 2014), including the specific measure of how many students are able to move

on to advanced courses (Huerta, 2013). Additionally, college access programs aimed at this

population have been shown to increase important practical skills in accessing college. This has

been achieved through on-campus mentoring systems, campus tours, and experience with

campus cultures in residentially based programs (Beer, 2008; Bergerson, 2009; Finch, 2003; Jun,

1999; Radcliffe, 2013; Schaffer, 2014).

These kinds of beneficial learning outcomes can be accomplished in a residential summer

learning camp hosted on Seattle Universitys campus. The program will serve students drawn

from a local population of low socioeconomic backgrounds previously identified in the Seattle

University Youth Initiative. It can consist of a one-week exploration of academic and campus

life. Students could stay in on-campus residences or commute each day to class, offering access

and flexibility for families. Students will learn about college standards and responsibilities, and

what steps theyll need to take in high school to get to college. They will be taught skills for

applying successfully to college such as critical writing skills and preparation for college

entrance exams. Students can explore courses that interest them, check out university facilities,

and enjoy social activities with peers. Finally, guiding students on tours of both Seattle Central

College and the University of Washington will provide students with a glimpse of the diversity in

institutions of higher education benefitting their college search. These skills have been

implemented in currently existing programs at other Jesuit Universities including Upward Bound
FINAL REPORT 13

Math and Science at the University of San Francisco and Cristo-Rey Summer Learning Camps at

Fairfield University (McCaffrey, 2008; "SOE - Centers - Upward Bound").

The program will also reflect Seattle Universitys focus on Jesuit pedagogy by including

exploration of Jesuit ideologies. Using resources from Campus Ministry, students can learn

about important tenants such as magis, cura personalis, and being a person for others. These

subjects will be presented in a reflective frame from which students will begin to connect them to

their everyday experience both in the program and their communities. Again, this promising

pedagogy has been successfully implemented in other programs such as the aforementioned

Fairlfield University (McCaffrey, 2008).

At the end of the week, we would recommend a family night, where students can share

any projects they have created, the work they have done, and guide their families around their

campus home for the week. Furthermore, this evening could be used to offer families a glimpse

of what their students have learned about accessing college. Engaging parents and families is a

key step in creating a successful college intervention program (Jenkins, 2008, Cabrera, 2006),

and this closing evening would be a way to connect families with local resources, college access

programs, the Seattle University Youth Initiative, and other programs that can benefit their

students.

The value of this program can be weighed in its ability to connect theory to practice.

Applications of community cultural wealth are apparent in this program. Community cultural

wealth is a model proposed by Tara J. Yosso (2005) examining the use of alternative forms of

cultural capital. For example, in contrast to privileged forms of socio-historical capital,

communities of color illustrate aspirational capital wherein these communities strive for greater

aspirations than their less privileged backgrounds would assume to provide. This acts as unique
FINAL REPORT 14

capital they can utilize in their continued development and success (Yosso, 2005). Our proposed

program would provide increased ability specifically in this form of community cultural wealth.

Students would be provided with data and guidelines about accessing the college pipeline, giving

concrete steps to students aspirations toward college and making their goals more attainable.

Our program utilizes the community cultural wealth in the students representative communities,

and increases other forms of capital for students themselves.

The program also offers a brief exploration into the world of self-authorship. Using the

definition suggested by Marcia Baxter Magolda (2008), we define self-authorship as the

internal capacity to define ones beliefs, identity, and social relations (Evans et al., 2010).

Setting themselves within Jesuit frameworks like cura personalis and magis, students in this

program will practice critical self-reflection skills. While they will not be at the developmental

level to fit the progression of self-authorship, they will still benefit from exposure to the type of

mental exercises that increase this kind of work. The program would be positively investing in

these students future far beyond its intended scope.

In spite of both practical and theoretical benefits, there are possible limitations to the

proposed program. These limitations are sourced by the difficulty in organizing the necessary

human resources to provide a program of this magnitude. Student service professionals as well

as invested faculty would have to volunteer time during periods of pause to successfully

coordinate this program in collaboration with Center for Community Engagement. An advantage

at Seattle University to mitigate these concerns is the quarter system. The final quarter of the

academic year is held from mid-June to late July. Utilizing staff and faculty that will be required

to remain on campus during this period would supply a body of resources that would otherwise

be inaccessible during other portions of the summer. Seattle Universitys College of Education
FINAL REPORT 15

students, particularly in the Student Development Program, could also apply their internship

requirements to execute this program.

Adopting a program like the one outlined herein would provide tangible academic skills,

increase college aspiration, and make college accessibility more equitable. These are all defining

factors of a successful college preparatory/access program (Beer, 2008; Bergerson, 2009; Chung,

2015; Finch, 2003; Huerta, 2013; Jun, 1999; Ng, 2014; Radcliffe, 2013; Schaffer, 2014). In an

applied way, this program would also support positive youth development amongst the students

it serves. This is generally defined as offering any alternative programming which combats at-

risk behaviors of youth, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. In increasing

academic and social success, patterns of positive psychological, physical, and social

development are achieved (Catalano, 2004; Chung, 2014).

Formal Mentorship Program

A formal mentorship program should be created on the campus of Seattle University to

mentor middle school students through the Seattle University Youth Initiative. A review of the

literature strongly supports that mentorship offers students vital information on what they needed

to do in order to apply to college (Rivera, 2014) as well as provide a network of social support

that promotes a college going culture (Bergerson, 2009; Colvin & Tobler, 2013; Rivera, 2014).

The mentorship program can be housed in the Center for Community Engagement as they are the

headquarters for the Seattle University Youth Initiative, and have infrastructure to train mentors

on how to work with a diverse group of students. Seattle University students are already active

participants in tutoring, volunteering, and service learning opportunities. More than 270 Seattle

University students are long term volunteers through the Center for Community Engagement,

and more than 2,900 students participate in a service learning course each year (2015 Annual
FINAL REPORT 16

Report). College mentors should be trained on multicultural competence, and identity

development theories (Banks, 2010; Bergerson, 2009; Colvin & Tobler, 2013). Using culturally

relevant pedagogy creates a safe place for students to talk about their life experiences, and feel

that their voices are valued, which enhances their service learning experience (Colvin & Tobler,

2013). A lesson on community cultural wealth would help mentors build on mentees strengths,

and allow for mentors to identify gaps in capital that students could access (Yosso, 2005).

Training mentors on how to help students set measurable goals and reflecting through journaling

will allow supervisors to assess the effectiveness of programing (Banks, 2010; Colvin & Tobler,

2013; Ing, LaCombe, Martinez-Lopez, & Haberer 2012). In order for the mentorship program to

have a lasting impact on college-going behavior, it must be supported at the institutional level.

Additional staff and student workers would need to be employed to work on logistics, planning

and training (Bergerson, 2009).

The mentorship program should be structured around students visiting the Seattle

University campus once a week so that students can utilize campus resources, and expose them

to college life. Weekly meetings could be modeled after similar programs at Jesuit universities,

including time for homework, studying, and goal setting, dinner on campus, and educational

programming for students. These activities could focus on career opportunities, exploring the

neighborhood, visiting museums, guest lectures from faculty or college students, and of course

sharing information about how to work toward a college degree. One-on-one as well as group

mentoring should be employed to work with students towards goals of positive development,

civic engagement, and college and career exploration (Allen & Eby, 2007; Sipe & Roder, 1999).

Further, parent and family engagement would be a crucial part of this mentorship

program. We recommend a monthly parent and family night, where families are also invited to
FINAL REPORT 17

campus to share in activities and information sessions that strengthen their own understanding of

how their students can get to college. With guidance from community members and local

leaders, families could begin to explore the steps they will need to take to help their students

achieve success in college. With the research showing that many families are not familiar with

the finances, academic preparation, and even the paperwork needed to attend college (Jenkins,

2008), this family night could provide education and strengthen the relationships between the

student mentees, their families, Seattle University, and the greater community.

Writing Marathons

Seattle Universitys Youth Initiative aims to engage students, faculty, and staff, to advance

the field of higher education and community engagement, and to improve high school graduates'

preparation for college ("Vision and Goals"). These goals are a key framework when expanding

the Youth Initiative to middle school students. In order to fulfill both the mission of the Youth

Initiative and to create a compelling model for universities everywhere, Seattle University should

strongly consider adopting a writing marathon model to engage local middle school students.

This model could be useful to Seattle University in a few ways. Seattle University already

hosts middle school tour groups throughout the year for campus tours, scavenger hunts, and

information sessions (A. Hodos, personal communication, November 19, 2015). These students

are usually part of AVID, GEAR UP, or other college preparation programs, and are given

information about Seattle University as well as general information about applying to college (A.

Hodos, personal communication, November 19, 2015). Seattle University could add the writing

marathon component to these regularly scheduled middle school tours. Seattle University Youth

Initiative could also integrate the writing marathon model with the mentoring program

recommended above, or in partnership with local middle schools throughout the year. Any
FINAL REPORT 18

permutation would reinforce visiting students writing and reflective skills, encourage them to

apply to college in the future, and strengthen community ties.

The reflective aspect of a writing marathon aligns with Seattle Universitys Jesuit values and

emphasis on self-reflection and discernment. The model also utilizes different aspects Kolbs

theory of the learning cycle, engaging students in concrete experience, reflective observation,

and active experimentation (Evans et al., 2010). Seattle University could tap into the resources

of service learning courses, College of Education students, and the Center for Community

Engagement to create a similar model on campus. The academic benefits of a writing marathon

model contribute greatly in preparing students for college work, in addition to introducing them

to life on campus and the advantages of a college degree. Students were motivated, encouraged,

and reflective during the writing marathon process (Radcliffe, 2010), all attributes that are valued

at a Jesuit University like Seattle University.

These recommendations do not encompass the wealth of options for implementing college

preparation programs for middle school students. However, they take into account the Jesuit

values of Seattle University and the diversity of middle school students that are in our

neighborhood. Any and all could be implemented by Seattle University, and each would serve

the university, our community, the middle school students, and their families in an

interdependent and beneficial relationship.

FINAL REPORT 19

References

2015 Annual Report - Center for Community Engagement. (2015). Retrieved November 10,

2015, from

https://www.seattleu.edu/uploadedFiles/Center_for_Service_and_Community_Engageme

nt/Content/About/CCE 2015 Annual Report_Final.pdf

Allen, T.D. & Eby, L.T. (2007). The blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspective

approach. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Banks, K. H. (2010). A qualitative investigation of mentor experiences in a service learning

course. Educational Horizons, 89(1), 68-79.

Beer, G., Le Blanc, M., & Miller, M. J. (2008). Summer Learning Camps: Helping Students to

Prepare for College. College Student Journal, 42(3), 930-938.

Bergerson, A. A., & Petersen, K. K. (2009). CARES: Mentoring through university outreach.

Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 13(1), 45-65.

Catalano, R.F., Berglund, M.L., Ryan, J.A.M., Lonczak, H.S., Hawkins, J.D. (2004). Positive

Youth Development in the United States: Research Findings on Evaluations of Positive

Youth Development Programs. Annals of American Academy of

Political and Social Science, 59(1), 98-124. doi. 10.1177/0002716203260102

Chung, S., & McBride, A. M. (2015). Social and emotional learning in middle school curricula:

A service learning model based on positive youth development. Children & Youth
FINAL REPORT 20

Services Review, 53192-200. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.04.008

Colvin, J., & Tobler, N. (2013). Cultural speak: Culturally relevant pedagogy and experiential

learning in a public speaking classroom. Journal of Experiential Education, 36(3), 233-

246. doi:10.1177/1053825913489104

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F. (2010). Student Development in College: Theory, research,

and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Finch, N. L., Cowley, K. S., & AEL, I. W. (2003). Fairmont State College GEAR UP project:

Year 4 baseline seventh-grade survey and tenth-grade follow-up survey (2002-2003).

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs.

H.E.S.S. activities - Wheeling Jesuit University. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2015, from

http://www.wju.edu/hess/activities.asp

H.E.S.S. mentoring program (help enrich someone special). (2015, November 16). Retrieved

from http://www.wju.edu/ssac/hess.asp

Huerta, J. J., Watt, K. M., & Butcher, J. T. (2013). Examining Advancement Via

Individual Determination (AVID) and its Impact on Middle School Rigor and Student

Preparedness. American Secondary Education, 41(2), 24-37.

Ing, M., LaCombe, N., Huang, P., Martinez-Lopez, Y., & Haberer, E. D. (2012). Creating

opportunities for reflection: Analyzing middle school student work during a service-

learning course on solar cells. International Journal for Service Learning In

Engineering, 7(1), 53-61.

Jun, A., & Tierney, W. G. (1999). At-Risk Urban Students and College Success: A Framework

for Effective Preparation. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, 9(4), 49-

60.
FINAL REPORT 21

McCaffrey, M. (2008, July 2). Fairfield University. Retrieved November 11, 2015, from

http://www.fairfield.edu/lassochannel/press/pr_index/index.lasso?id=2071

Neighborhood Seattle University Youth Initiative. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2015, from

https://www.seattleu.edu/suyi/neighborhood/

Ng, J., Wolf-Wendel, L., & Lombardi, K. (2014). Pathways From Middle School to College:

Examining the Impact of an Urban, Precollege Preparation Program. Education & Urban

Society, 46(6), 672-698. doi:10.1177/0013124512470161

Pope, R., & Reynolds, A. (2004). Multicultural competence in student affairs. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Radcliffe, R. A., & Bos, B. (2013). Strategies to Prepare Middle School and High School

Students for College and Career Readiness. Clearing House, 86(4), 136-141.

doi:10.1080/00098655.2013.782850

Radcliffe, R., & Stephens, L. (2010). Writing Marathons Help Build Middle School Students

College Aspirations and Strengthen Their Literacy Skills. The Clearing House: A Journal

of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 20-25.

Rivera, G. J. (2014). What high-achieving Latino students need to apply to college:

Environmental factors, individual resiliency, or both?. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

Sciences, 36(3), 284-300. doi:10.1177/0739986314542936

Schaefer, M. B. (2014). Facilitating college readiness through campus life experiences.

Research in Middle Level Education Online, 37(7), 1-19.

SOE - Centers - Upward Bound. (2015, June 2). Retrieved November 11, 2015, from

https://www.usfca.edu/education/centers-institutes/upward-bound

Sipe, C.L. & Roder, A.E. (1999). Mentoring school-age children: A classification of programs.
FINAL REPORT 22

Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Vision and Goals Seattle University. (n.d.). Retrieved October 25, 2015. Retrieved from

https://www.seattleu.edu/suyi/vision/

Yosso, T.J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community

cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.