08. Health and Wellbeing Education
Paper
Adolescents' Participation Opportunities in School. Consequences for Student Well-being Separated by Gender
Martina Ott, Katharina Meusburger, Gudrun Quenzel
University of Education Vorarlberg, Austria
Presenting Author: Ott, Martina;
Meusburger, Katharina
Whether students feel comfortable at school has become a key indicator for successful teaching (Hagenauer & Hascher, 2018), a cooperative school climate conducive to learning (OECD, 2017), and a factor influencing the further success of students' educational careers (Bücker et al., 2018). In recent years, studies have also increasingly focused on opportunities for participation and co-determination in schools and lessons (Anderson et al., 2022; Graham et al., 2022). Through active participation in school and lessons, students can experience basic democratic skills; they learn to articulate their own concerns and interests and to be taken seriously with them (Quenzel et al., 2023). The political self-efficacy experienced in this way strengthens the concrete sense of belonging to the (experienced) community and the abstract confidence in the legitimacy of democratic decision-making processes (Johnson, 2015).
Different studies also find evidence that participation opportunities have a positive impact on student well-being (Sykas & Peonidis, 2022). Quantitative studies on the relationship between participation and well-being, however, are rare to date. Additionally, participation in school includes a wide range of possible actions and can range from talking to student representatives to actively involving as many students as possible in the lessons and in all matters relevant to school. Studies on whether these various forms of co-determination (such as whether students are asked for their opinions or whether they can actively shape school and lessons) also have a different impact on well-being are still outstanding. Since participation also demands time and commitment, for example when differences of opinion are openly discussed and solutions have to be worked out, it is also theoretically conceivable that participation can reduce well-being. The research findings listed above and theoretical considerations suggest that it is important to investigate the question of whether and when student well-being is related to the opportunities for participation in schools. In this paper, we intend to address this question.
When analyzing the relationship between participation opportunities and student well-being, it seems central to take into consideration the gender of adolescents. Numerous studies show that girls suffer more frequently from physical and psychological complaints from puberty onwards and have lower life satisfaction than boys (Potrebny et al., 2019). In turn, the frequency of experiencing discomfort and life satisfaction is closely related to student well-being (Löfstedt et al., 2020). Although the relationship between health and student well-being is well established, a range of studies find little evidence of a relationship between gender and student well-being (Ott, 2021). In contrast, other studies do suggest differences between female and male adolescents in terms of their well-being (Palsdottir et al., 2012). Consequently, the findings on gender-specific student well-being are ambiguous. Simultaneously, the perceived participation opportunities are also assessed differently in the group of girls and boys. For example, Müller-Kuhn et al. (2021) were able to show that there is a correlation between the gender of the students and the assessment of participation opportunities, whereas girls feel that they can participate more in school. We will therefore discuss the relationship between participation opportunities and well-being separately by gender in order to examine whether the available participation opportunities in school influence the well-being of girls and boys differently.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFor this paper, data from the international project "Education and Participation" (Quenzel et al., 2023) of pupils from Vorarlberg (Austria) are used. The data was collected via online survey. The survey took place between March and June 2020 and was administered by the class teachers. The students are approximately 14 to 17 years old and are either at the end of lower secondary school or at the beginning of upper secondary school. This representative random sample was drawn by the Vorarlberg Regional Statistical Office. Despite COVID19-related school closures in spring 2020, the response rate is just under 65 percent. The realised sample comprises 1,526 young people from 92 classes. The data was weighted according to school type and gender. Student well-being is measured by two emotional aspects (school happiness, absence of school stress) and one cognitive aspect (school satisfaction). The student well-being scale is formed from the mean values of the variables school satisfaction (How satisfied are you overall with your situation at school?), school happiness (I actually like going to school.), and school stress (How do you feel about your everyday school life?). Based on these three components the scale student well-being (Cronbach's Alpha 0.68) is formed. For the analyses the following variables are included: (non-)involvement in decisions, pseudo-participation, active co-design, and conveying democratic values. In addition, we control for effects of language spoken at home, socioeconomic background, and educational background.
The analysis consists of three steps: In a first step, the mean values of female and male participants are compared for the scales student well-being and different forms of participation. The second step involves analysing the correlations between the variables presented. The third step of analysis is also conditioned by the structure of the data. Because of the clustered data structure, we estimate gender-separated multilevel models in which students are clustered within school classes. This analysis includes testing the empty model and the mixed model with two level (individual and class level).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe analyses show that there are minor differences between girls and boys when comparing the mean values. Boys feel more often than girls that they are not involved in decisions at all or only in an illusory way. In the area of active participation opportunities, there are no statistically significant differences between boys and girls. Female and male adolescents perceive with roughly equal frequency that they can actively participate in designing their school.
The teaching of democratic values at school and the well-being of pupils are clearly related for girls and boys. This means that students who experience their school as democratic also tend to feel more comfortable there. For girls, feeling that they have an active role in shaping their school is relevant to their student well-being. For boys, there is also a connection here, but it is somewhat less pronounced. Boys, in contrast, seem to react more sensitively to pseudo-participation.
Through the analyses in the mixed model it becomes clear that conveying democratic values at school is the dominant predictor and explains student well-being most strongly for both gender. In addition, it is evident that for girls the opportunity for active co-design has a slightly higher influence on well-being than for boys. For male adolescents, student well-being is more negatively influenced by the perception of pseudo-participation.
Students who have a voice in their school feel more comfortable. However, students are obviously sensitive to whether they are really participating or whether this is pseudo-participation. Positive effects on school well-being can therefore only be achieved if young people can really participate actively. This requires further research projects to gain a more precise understanding of successful participation processes.
ReferencesAnderson, D. L., Graham, A. P., Simmons, C., & Thomas, N. P. (2022). Positive links between student participation, recognition and wellbeing at school. International Journal of Educational Research, 111, 101896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101896
Bücker, S., Nuraydin, S., Simonsmeier, B. A., Schneider, M., & Luhmann, M. (2018). Subjective well-being and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 74, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.02.007
Graham, A., Anderson, D., Truscott, J., Simmons, C., Thomas, N. P., Cashmore, J., & Bessell, S. (2022). Exploring the associations between student participation, wellbeing and recognition at school. Cambridge Journal of Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2022.2031886
Hagenauer, G., & Hascher, T. (Hrsg.). (2018). Emotionen und Emotionsregulation in Schule und Hochschule. Waxmann.
Johnson, C. (2015). Local Civic Participation and Democratic Legitimacy: Evidence from England and Wales. Political Studies, 63(4), 765–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12128
Löfstedt, P., García-Moya, I., Corell, M., Paniagua, C., Samdal, O., Välimaa, R., Lyyra, N., Currie, D., & Rasmussen, M. (2020). School Satisfaction and School Pressure in the WHO European Region and North America: An Analysis of Time Trends (2002–2018) and Patterns of Co-occurrence in 32 Countries. Journal of Adolescent Health, 66, S59–S69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.03.007
Müller-Kuhn, D., Herzig, P., Häbig, J., & Zala-Mezö, E. (2021). Student participation in everyday school life—Linking different perspectives. Zeitschrift Für Bildungsforschung, 11(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-021-00296-5
OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ Well-Being. OECD Publishing.
Ott, M. (2021). Wie beeinflussen familiär-soziodemografische, unterrichtliche und individuell-schulbezogene Faktoren das Wohlbefinden von Schüler/innen? Annäherung mittels eines allgemeinen linearen Modells. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-020-00285-0
Palsdottir, A., Asgeirsdottir, B. B., & Sigfusdottir, I. D. (2012). Gender difference in wellbeing during school lessons among 10–12-year-old children: The importance of school subjects and student–teacher relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 40(7), 605–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494812458846
Potrebny, T., Wiium, N., Haugstvedt, A., Sollesnes, R., Torsheim, T., Wold, B., & Thuen, F. (2019). Health complaints among adolescents in Norway: A twenty-year perspective on trends. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0210509. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210509
Quenzel, G., Beck, M., & Jungkunz, S. (Hrsg.). (2023). Bildung und Partizipation. Mitbestimmung von Schülerinnen und Schülern in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Sykas, T., & Peonidis, F. (2022). Direct democracy in high school: An experiment from Greece. JSSE - Journal of Social Science Education, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.11576/jsse-4959
08. Health and Wellbeing Education
Paper
Student Participation as a Key Aspect of Wellbeing in Irish Primary and Post-primary Schools.
Shivaun O'Brien, John O'Hara, Sharon Hogan, Jerrieann Sullivan, Peter Tobin, Fiona Joyce
Dublin City University, Ireland
Presenting Author: O'Brien, Shivaun
Student participation in schools and its link to a student's sense of belonging and wellbeing is a increasing concern among mainstream education providers in many jurisdictions and has been focus of numerous research studies internationally. Research studies focus on various aspects of student participation such as its link to antisocial behaviour, academic performance and well being (Gonzalez et al. 2020) or student participation in decision making (Cheng et al. 2020). Similar to education policy in most European countries, the Irish Department of Education aims to ensure that the experience of students throughout their primary and post primary education will be one that enhances, promotes, values and nurtures their wellbeing. The Wellbeing Policy Statement and Framework for Practice (Government of Ireland, 2018) highlights the importance of student participation and the inclusion of students in the life of the school in a manner that will enhance their sense of belonging, security and connectedness to school. This case study aims to explore student perceptions in terms of how they participate in classrooms, at a whole school level, and in decision making in relation to matters that affects them. Students were also asked about thier own sense of belonging in the school. This research was carried out by Dublin City University in conjunction with Educate Together (School Patron Body) and teachers in four Educate Together schools. The study was partly funded by the Teaching Council of Ireland under the John Coolahan Research Fund.
The key findings of the study highlight the classroom and whole school activities in which students participate most and least, the factors that students’ claim prevents their participation, student perception of the degree to which they are involved in decision making in the school and their level of influence on decision making. The findings also highlight students’ perception of belonging in the school and what helps them to feel a sense of belonging in the school.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe purpose of the research project is to explore the perception of students in relation to their participation at both a classroom and whole schools level and their sense of belonging in the school. Literature on student participation informed the development of a survey that was circulated to students in 4 Educate Together schools (2 primary (under 13 yrs) and 2 post-primary(13-18 yrs)). A teacher in each of the participating schools is a member of the research team and these teachers coordinated the distribution of surveys at a local level. A total of 201 students participated in the survey (125 primary and 76 post-primary) which was completed in 2022. The key research questions include: How do students perceive their level of participation in school at a classroom and whole school level? In which activities at the classroom and at a whole school level do students feel they participate in most and least? To what degree are students involved in decision making in the school? How do students perceive their sense of belonging to the school? Students completed a survey on Google Forms which was divided into 4 themes and included a series of Likert style statements about participation and belonging to which participants indicated their level of agreement. Each section also included open ended questions in order to explore examples of participation and supporting factors. The research project received approval from Dublin City University Ethics Committee, and required students to sign an assent form and their parents to sign a consent form should they agree to take part in the research/ agree their child may take part in the research.
Number of items for each section of the survey:
Participation inside the classroom (20 items);
Participation outside the classroom (13 items);
Participation in making decisions that affect students (20 items);
Overall experience of belonging in the school (18 items).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsA large volume of data arose from the study, and a number of key findings are outlined as follows: The majority of students felt that they have various opportunities to participate in activities in the classroom such as working with others, speaking in class, answering questions. Lower number of students feel that they have a voice in how the classroom is organised, in what activities they engage and classroom rules. Although the majority of students agree that there are activities and clubs (such as sports) that they can participate in outside of class, almost half of the students surveys do not participate in such activities and less that a third have participated in any kind of school committee or council. The majority of students feel that their school provides a safe space in which they can express themselves, and that their opinions are heard on matters that affect them. In comparison, less than half of the students agreed or strongly agreed that they are involved in the school self-evaluation process, are given feedback on how their opinion influenced decisions, or meet with staff about the running of the school. In terms of belonging the vast majority of students agreed or strongly agreed that they have friends at school and enjoy talking to others in school. Additionally, the vast majority of students feel good in school, are happy in school, and have fun in their schools. By contrast, over half of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they feel bored at school.
ReferencesAhmadi, S., Hassani, M. and Ahmadi, F., 2020. Student- and school-level factors related to school belongingness among high school students. International journal of adolescence and youth, 25(1), pp. 741-752.
Akar Vural, R., Yilmaz Özelci, S., Çengel, M. and Gomleksiz, M., 2013. The Development of the "Sense of Belonging to School" Scale. Eurasian journal of educational research, (53), pp. 215-230.
Cheng, E.C.K., Leung, Y.W., Yuen, W.W. and Tang, H.H.H. (2020), "A model for promoting student participation in school governance", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 737-749. https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1108/IJEM-06-2019-0186
Fielding, M. (2012). Beyond student voice: Patterns of partnership and the demands of deep democracy. Revista de Educación, 359, 45–65.
Fielding, M., 2004. Transformative approaches to student voice: theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British educational research journal, 30(2), pp. 295-311.
Flutter, J., 2006. 'This place could help you learn': student participation in creating better school environments. Educational review (Birmingham), 58(2), pp. 183-193.
Frost, R. and Holden, G., 2008. Student voice and future schools: building partnerships for student participation. Improving schools, 11(1), pp. 83-95.
Gilleece, L. and Cosgrove, J., 2012. Student civic participation in school: What makes a difference in Ireland? Education, citizenship and social justice, 7(3), pp. 225-239.
González, C., Varela, J., Sánchez, P.A. et al. Students’ Participation in School and its Relationship with Antisocial Behavior, Academic Performance and Adolescent Well-Being. Child Ind Res 14, 269–282 (2021). https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s12187-020-09761-5
Ryan, A. M., & Shin, H. (2018). Peers, academics, and teachers. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (2nd ed., pp. 637–656).
08. Health and Wellbeing Education
Paper
Children’s Perspectives on Wellbeing in Schools: Qualitative Study
Venka Simovska1, Else Nyborg Christensen2
1Aarhus University; 2Public School, Herning, Denmark
Presenting Author: Simovska, Venka
Wellbeing in schools is a field characterized by the proliferation of research over the last decade. Wellbeing is often used as a measure of quality of life, referring to a wide range of phenomena, socioeconomic indicators or subjective experiences. The conceptualizations draw upon different disciplines – from psychology and philosophy to childhood studies, economics, social welfare studies and political science. A recent systematic review focusing on bibliometric and network analysis of the research on wellbeing in educational contexts published in the years 1978-2018 identifies a pattern of an emerging discipline, with an initial 15-year inception period followed by a 10-year consolidation period and a decade of rapid exponential growth (Hernández-Torrano, 2020). The same review reveals that the most influential research is conducted in predominantly English-speaking countries dominated by the US, followed by the UK, Australia and Canada, while European and specifically Scandinavian research is scarce. This article engages with wellbeing in schools in the context of the Danish ‘Folkeskole’ (public primary and lower secondary schools, students aged 6-16 years).
Wellbeing has become a core issue in educational reforms and related scholarship, both internationally and in Denmark (e.g., Thorburn, 2018; McLellan, Faucher & Simovska, 2022). In the literature, wellbeing is typically defined as ‘being well’, or having an optimal psychological experience and functioning, positively associated with students’ motivation, learning and academic achievement (Adler, 2017; Bücker et al., 2018). Consequently, educational research, policy and practice have mostly endorsed the ‘transformative’ potential of the concept—that is, its potential to inform school development and interventions conducive to the thriving, inclusion and engagement of students (e.g.McCallum & Price, 2016). However, research has suggested that the (over)use of the concept can easily swing from being transformative to being ‘tyrannical’ (Simovska & Kousholt, 2021), excluding certain subjectivities and entailing the dominance of simplified ‘feel-good’, ‘positive thinking’ or similar individualistic agendas in schools (cf. Watson et al.). Furthermore, the aspirations of measuring and promoting school wellbeing are characterized by inconsistent and often contradictory uses of social and educational theory (Wright & McLeod, 2015; Spratt, 2017; Simovska & O'Toole, 2021) and a scarcity of children’s and young people’s perspectives.
Against this background and with an ambition to contribute to amplifying children’s voices related to wellbeing at school and refining the concept theoretically, in this article, we explore children’s perspectives on wellbeing in school.
For the analysys, we deployed the model of student wellbeing developed by Simovska and colleagues (Simovska, 2016; Simovska & Kousholt, 2021; O’Toole & Simovska, 2022). The model builds on the key theoretical assumptions originating in neurocognitive science, specifically the 4E approaches (Varela, Thompson & Rosch, 1991). In this theorizing, wellbeing is construed as Enactive, Embodied, Embedded and Extended. In other words, the mind and the body are treated as inextricably connected (enactive and embodied) and intertwined with the social, physical and material worlds (embedded and extended). Accordingly, conceptualizing school wellbeing entails accommodating students’ lived experience in the context of the material and discursive (power) relations, (in)equalities and opportunity/adversity dynamics they encounter in a specific historical, political and sociocultural setting of the school.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study was conducted at a Danish public primary school attended by 236 students in Years 0-6 and with 39 staff members. To access the diverse perspectives of differently aged children, three classes were recruited for the study: a year 2 class (8 years of age), a year 4 class (10 years) and a year 6 class (12 years). A total of forty-seven children and their teachers took part in the study.
In the planning and conducting of the research, we were guided by the notion of ethical reflexivity (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004), observing both ‘procedural ethics’ (informed consent and personal data protection) and ‘ethics in practice’ or situated, emergent ethics focusing on trust and care for vulnerability in all phases of the research. Aligned with the Danish code of conduct for research integrity, we followed the principles of honesty, transparency and accountability. All the participants in the study were pseudonymized.
Different data generation methods were used with a view to accommodating the age, individual communicative competences and preferences of different children. The children were given more or less free rein with regard to both the form and content of their accounts of wellbeing. As a result, some children produced drawings or paintings, while others wrote stories or poems, built Lego models, or recorded films or audio narratives. All this was treated as data records and analysed.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe analysis showed that the children see wellbeing at school as a complex phenomenon that cuts across lessons, breaks and both school and leisure time. They take a critical stance toward certain aspects of the institutionalized frameworks and culture of schooling, such as the length of the schooldays, the workload and the time schedules, the layout and furnishing of classrooms and the affordances provided by other physical spaces in and around school.
The separation between the physical and the intellectual, or rather the marginalization of the body at school, is also something that the children experience as hindrance to their wellbeing at school.
Further, the analysis points to the students’ desire for more opportunities for engagement and influence on decisions made at school—both everyday matters and more substantial decisions at the organizational level.
They experience wellbeing as closely linked to a sense of togetherness, doing things together with classmates, and having friends at school. However, the children also stated that the sense of belonging is not a given; many examples emerge in the data where the children portray situations in which they feel out of place and express a desire for a more inclusive school environment that is sensitive to diversity and conducive to subjectification.
Relationships with adults, both teachers and other school staff, are also viewed as important for wellbeing at school.
According to the dimensions of the deployed conceptualization of wellbeing in schools, it is clear that the children often refer to the agency dimension when discussing the other dimensions categorized as being, belonging or becoming, indicating that being engaged and having meaningful influence over school matters is vital to children’s wellbeing at school.
In conclusion, we argue that research that treats children as experts in their school wellbeing and takes their voices seriously has a better potential to inform and improve school-based wellbeing promotion.
ReferencesAdler (2017). Well-Being and Academic Achievement: Towards a New Evidence-Based Educational Paradigm. In: White, M. A., Slemp, G. R., & Murray, A. S. (Eds.) Future Directions in Well-Being. (pp. 203-208) Springer, Cham.
Bücker, S., Nuraydin, S., Simonsmeier, B. A., Schneider, M., & Luhmann, M. (2018). Subjective well-being and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 74, 83-94.
Biesta, G. (2015). What is Education For? On Good Education, Teacher Judgement,
Hernándes-Torrano, D. (2020). Mapping Global Research on Child Well-Being in School Contexts: A Bibliometric and Network Analysis (1978–2018). Child Indicators Research13: 863–884.
McCallum, F., & Price, D. (2016). Nurturing wellbeing development in education: from little things, big things grow. Abingdon: Routledge.
McLellan, R., Faucher, C. & Simovska, V. (eds.) (2022). Wellbeing and Schooling: Cross Cultural and Cross Disciplinary Perspectives. Springer.
O'Toole, C. & Simovska, V. (2022). Wellbeing and Education: Connecting Mind, Body and World. In: McLellan, R., Faucher, C. & Simovska, V. (eds.) Wellbeing and Schooling: Cross Cultural and Cross Disciplinary Perspectives. Springer.
Simovska, V., & O'Toole, C. (2021). The Making of Wellbeing Measurement: A (Kind of) Study Protocol. Outlines: Critical Practice Studies, 22(1), 170-194. https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/125608/172609
Simovska, V., & Kousholt, D. (2021). Trivsel - et befordrende eller tyrannisk begreb? Skitsering af et udvidet begreb om skoletrivsel. [Wellbeing – a transformative or tyrannical concept? Outlining an extended concept of school wellbeing]. Pædagogisk Psykologisk Tidsskrift, [Educational Psychology Journal], 58(1), 54-64.
Skovraad-Jensen, S. & Reimer, D. (2021). The effect of COVID-19-related school closures on students’ well-being: Evidence from Danish nationwide panel data. SSM - Population Health, 16, [100945]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100945
Spratt, J. (2017). Wellbeing, Equity and Education, Inclusive Learning and Educational Equity. Springer.
Thorburn, M. (Ed.) (2018). Wellbeing, Education and Contemporary Schooling. New York: Routledge.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., and Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Watson, D., Emery, C., Bayliss, P. with Boushel, M., & Mclnnes, K. (2012). Children’s social and emotional wellbeing in schools: A critical perspective. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Wright & J. McLeod (Eds.) 2015). Rethinking Youth Wellbeing: Critical Perspectives. Springer.
|
