08. Health and Wellbeing Education
Paper
Unpacking the Temporal Dimensions of School-based Wellbeing
Nis Langer Primdahl1, Ros McLellan2
1Aarhus University; 2University of Cambridge
Presenting Author: Primdahl, Nis Langer;
McLellan, Ros
Recent discussions on young people’s wellbeing in school settings have raised concerns about student wellbeing within the current culture of performativity in schools (Clarke 2023; Jerrim 2022). Furthermore, school performance demands have been linked to the accelerated pace of everyday youth life, the shortening of attention spans, and an inability to be in the present moment stemming from the rise of digital technologies. These in turn have been linked with difficulties in coping with anxiety concerning an uncertain future (Buddeberg & Hornberg 2017; Gibbons 2016).
A number of explanatory models behind these developments highlight a radical transformation in the temporal conditions that govern and regulate students' everyday life, thereby linking a decline in young people’s wellbeing to specific pathologies associated with a change in temporal dynamics at societal level (George 2014; Jennings et al. 2019; Rosa 2013). However, while the temporal dimension is explicitly referenced in problematisations of the youth wellbeing crisis, its significance for theoretical approaches to school wellbeing remains unclear and largely unexplored.
With this lack in mind, the aim of this conceptual paper is to outline the framings of temporality and wellbeing, examine their intersection and expand our understanding of the explicit and implicit assumptions about time and temporality at play in school-based wellbeing discourses. With specific emphasis on performativity cultures in schools, we pose the question of how the temporal dimensions of this notion are understood and addressed conceptually by examining the tensions inherent to various conceptualizations of performance and wellbeing in school contexts.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAiming to connect wider theoretical approaches revolving around temporality to existing conceptualisations within research on school wellbeing and performativity, we focus on connecting three central distinctions.
Firstly, we address an important analytical distinction, that of time as either a condition or an object of education. Timetables, periods and scheduling of the school day all represent instances where time functions as a condition or container of educational practices and activities: a class has a specified duration, the bell rings, recess has begun. This understanding treats time as a background or as a container inside of which educational practices take place (Compton-Lilly 2016). By contrast, Alhadeff-Jones (2017) highlights how educational science has generally not concerned itself with the experiential nature of time by arguing that time can also be understood as the object of what takes place in the classroom; i.e., that upon which a given educational practice is centered. This is linked to recent critiques and discussions within educational psychology on the ‘therapeutic turn’ in education (Ecclestone & Rawdin 2017) and on the need for cultivating spaces of deliberate slowdown and suspension in schools (Biesta 2020; Masschelein & Simons 2013; Vlieghe & Zamojski 2019).
Second, we unpack the significance of the distinction between externalised and internalised notions of time in education. External modes of time management refer to practices where time is conceptualized and administered as a quantifiable resource through which human actions can take place; e.g., learning to manage your schedule using a calendar or diary, calculating how long different tasks will take, or optimizing the time spent on school activities (Burrus et al. 2016). Within wellbeing promotion, a common goal is to decrease the risk of stress and burnout among students. Internal modes of time management refer to the ability to manage the self and one’s attitudes towards time, e.g. the promotion of specific methods of deliberate slowdown or deceleration of the pace of life.
Third, we link the two previous distinctions to the differentiation between hedonic and eudaimonic conceptions of wellbeing (Francesconi 2018). Hedonic conceptions of wellbeing can be characterised by being directed towards attainment of immediate, sensory wellbeing. Key factors are satisfaction, positive emotions and experiences as well as comfort. Eudaimonic conceptions, on the other hand, operate from the idea of personal growth or flourishing and can therefore be said to be less about momentary pleasurable experiences, and more about fulfillment of one’s capabilities and potential.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsBy illuminating the significance of temporality this paper will contribute with new understandings of wellbeing in school settings. This is significant as this theoretical enrichment can enable a more nuanced approach to wellbeing promotion in schools. For instance, this can form the basis of a framework for evaluating approaches schools already have in place to promote wellbeing and suggest avenues for further development. New light will also be shed on the role of temporality in education more broadly, which may have implications for school policies and practices more generally.
ReferencesAlhadeff-Jones, M. (2017). Time and the rhythms of emancipatory education: Rethinking the temporal complexity of self and society. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Biesta, G. (2020). Risking Ourselves in Education: Qualification, Socialization, and Subjectification Revisited. Educational Theory, 70(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12411
Buddeberg, M., & Hornberg, S. (2017). Schooling in times of acceleration. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2016.1256760
Burrus, J., Jackson, T., Holtzman, S., & Roberts, R. D. (2017). Teaching high school students to manage time: The development of an intervention. Improving Schools, 20(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216650309
Clarke, T. (2023). Do scores ‘define’ us? Adolescents’ experiences of wellbeing as ‘welldoing’ at school in England. Review of Education, 11(1), e3393. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3393
Compton-Lilly, C. (2016). Time in education: Intertwined dimensions and theoretical possibilities. Time & Society, 25(3), 575–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X15587837
Ecclestone, K., & Rawdin, C. (2016). Reinforcing the ‘diminished’ subject? The implications of the ‘vulnerability zeitgeist’ for well-being in educational settings. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2015.1120707
Francesconi, D. (2018). Eudaimonic Wellbeing and Education. In Routledge International Handbook of Wellbeing (pp. 317–323). Routledge.
George, L. K. (2014). Taking Time Seriously: A Call to Action in Mental Health Research. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 55(3), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146514542434
Gibbons, A. (2016). Do ‘we’ really live in rapidly changing times? Questions concerning time, childhood, technology and education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(4), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949116677921
Jennings, P. A., DeMauro, A. A., & Mischenko, P. P. (Eds.). (2019). The mindful school: Transforming school culture through mindfulness and compassion. The Guilford Press.
Jerrim, J. (2022). The mental health of adolescents in England: How does it vary during their time at school? British Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 330–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3769
Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2013). In defence of the school: A public issue. E-ducation, culture & Society Publishers. https://cygnus.cc.kuleuven.be/webapps/cmsmain/webui/_xy-11617872_3-t_8iZAq0nv
Rosa, H. (2013). Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity (J. Trejo-Mathys, Trans.). Columbia University Press.
Vlieghe, J., & Zamojski, P. (2019). Towards an Ontology of Teaching: Thing-centred Pedagogy, Affirmation and Love for the World (Vol. 11). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16003-6
08. Health and Wellbeing Education
Paper
Through the Educators’ Eye: Promotive and Risk Factors Impacting Learner Resilience During the 2020 COVID-19 School Closures in Kenya
Lucy Wakiaga1, Betty Merchant2
1APHRC, Kenya; 2University of Texas at San Antonio
Presenting Author: Wakiaga, Lucy
The onset and rapid spread of the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in school closures in many countries around the globe, affecting over 1.7 billion students according to UNESCO statistics (Zhao et al., 2022). Learners had varied experiences, depending on the socio-economic status of the home environments. The level of loss or sustenance of learning in the home environment depended on parental income and education level (Andrew et al., 2020; Zhang, Lu & Du (2022). Many parents experienced loss of jobs, psychological and physical health challenges and even loss of life, consequently impact financial resource levels of households. Learners in these households experienced more disruptions, including lack of access to learning resources, compared to their counterparts from more-resourced households (Andrew et al., 2020; Izci et al., 2022; Mathrani, Sarvesh & Umer, 2022). These varied levels of access to learning resources impacted the psycho-social wellbeing of the learners. Lack of basic needs, safety needs, uncertainty over return to school in order to experience learning normalcy all manifested as psychosocial stressors for learners in scarcity environments (Gittings, et al, 2021). Learners surrounded by supportive parents and friends adapted better to negative emotions and so had lesser psychological difficulties (Cui & Chi 2021). The converse was the case for learners who had inadequate social support, leading to feelings of loneliness and seeking of “safe, calm” environments in negative experiences such as use of drugs (Cui & Chi 2021), early marriages (ADEA & APHRC, 2023). Resilience, which is the process of overcoming the negative effects of risk exposure, coping successfully with traumatic experiences, and avoiding the negative trajectories associated with risks (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005), is supported by both risk and promotive factors. Learners successfully navigate traumatizing events, such as the Covid-19 pandemic if promotive factors are present, such as the individual’s internal disposition including competence, coping skills and self-efficacy. Externally, presence of parental support, adult mentoring, or community organizations, promote resilience (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). This study sought to explore the promotive and risk factors that impacted the psycho-social wellbeing of learners in Kenya’s schools during the 2020 school closures with the onset and rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This study was anchored on Richardson’s (2002) resiliency framework. He posits that when people experience planned disruptions or react to life events, they have the opportunity to consciously or unconsciously determine the outcomes of these disruptions. At the pre-disruption stage, people are at a state of biopsychospiritual homeostasis in which they are physically, mentally and spiritually in sync with themselves. This is what is known loosely as the “comfort zone” (Richardson, 2002). Disruptions to this biopsychospiritual homeostasis can be due to internal or external life prompts resulting in varied reactions across individuals. Resilient individuals are able to deal with these disruptions and revert back to their biopsychospiritual homeostasis. This is resilient integration and is characterized by a coping process that results in growth, knowledge, self-understanding and increased strength of resilient qualities (Richardson, 2002). For non-resilient individuals, disruptions result in negative outcomes since the individuals are in a state of helplessness, lacking hope, motivation or drive to effectively manage the demands from these life prompts (Richardson, 2002). Their reintegration is therefore characterized by dysfunction that is manifested in destructive behaviors in their attempts to deal with these disruptions. According to Richardson, the latter group require therapy to fill gaps they have in their introspective skills.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis was a cross-sectional qualitative study that was conducted between 2021 and 2022 across diverse schools in Kenya: primary, secondary, public, private, girls only, boys only, mixed day, mixed boarding, rural, and urban schools. Participants included 8 teacher Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) totalling 56 teachers across 8 schools. One FGD discussion consisting of 7 teachers, was conducted in each school for a total of 8 schools. 19 principals were interviewed across 19 schools. This consisted of principals from the 8 schools where the teacher FGDs were held and additional 11 principals from other schools. Being a qualitative study, sampling was purposive to ensure schools that participated in the study were a representation of the diversity nature of Kenya’s schools. The participants were a mix of gender: both female and male teachers and principals. Initial contacts were made with the school principals to break the ice and build rapport. Once this was established, the researcher set up a date and time for the FGDs and the principal interviews. Each FGD lasted slightly over one hour, while each interview lasted between 45 minutes to one hour. Given that movement continued to be limited in schools, especially in 2021, the FGDs and interviews were conducted virtually using Google Meet. The researcher provided internet bundles to the participants to enable them have internet connectivity.
The study was guided by the following research questions: When the students were home, how did the school know if learning was taking place? 2) Were there students who did particularly well during this period? If so, who were they and why? 3) Were there students who had a particularly difficult time during this period? If so, who were they and why? 4) How was the psychosocial and emotional being of your students during the school closure?
Data from the FGDs and interviews was analyzed using the thematic analysis approach. The data was transcribed, then uploaded in the NVivo qualitative analysis software and coded to determine prevalent patterns and themes in line with the research questions.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsResults showed that some learning did take place. Resourced households were able to provide learning gadgets to their children including smartphones and tablets. Teachers indicated that these learners had discipline, were self-motivated, were happier, had parental supervision and support, and collaborated better with the school, thus seemed to perform better on assignments. The learners from the less-resourced households relied on national radio programmes and the EDU TV that offered some lessons to learners in an effort to provide learning continuity. Life events resulting from the pandemic such as increased levels of family poverty due to parental job loss, domestic violence and parental drinking reduced these families’ resource capacity to support their children’s learning while at home such as accessing reading spaces, technology, and network connectivity. The teachers indicated that being isolated from their friends and the school environment, learners felt afraid. These events had a huge psycho-social impact on the learners, creating in them a lot of anxiety and stress. This led some learners to disengage from learning, drop out of school, indulge in drug use, and engage in employment resulting in child labor. Girls were especially susceptible to teenage pregnancies. The findings agree with the literature that promotive factors-including self-motivation, home and school support- increase the learner’s capacity to effectively deal with disruptions (risks) and thrive. Learners who lack these supports on a personal, family, and/or community level slide into destructive behaviors due to their reduced resilience. It was recommended that sustained tripartite engagements-the learner, home, and school- are critical in strengthening the psycho-social wellbeing of learners. The capacity building programs and trainings should be accorded to parents, learners and educators on matters mental wellbeing. To ensure such programs succeed, they should be institutionalized in policy and included in the annual school, county and national education budgets.
ReferencesADEA & APHRC. (2023). Report of Case Studies on Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Africa’s Educational Systems. Abidjan, Nairobi: Association for the Development of Education in Africa & African Population and Health Research Center.
Andrew, A., Cattan, S., Costa Dias, M., Farquharson, C., Kraftman, L., Krutikova, S., Phimister, A., & Sevilla, A. (2020). Inequalities in children's experiences of home learning during the COVID-19 lockdown in England. Fiscal Studies, 41, 653-683. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5890.12240
Cui, X., & Chi, X. (2021). The relationship between social support and internet addiction among Chinese adolescents during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A multiple mediation model of resilience and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 14, 1665-1674. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S305510
Fergus, S. & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 399–419. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144357
Gittings, L., Toska, E., Medley, S., Cluver, L., Logie, C. H., Ralayo, N., Chen, J., & Mbithi-Dikgole, J. (2021). ‘Now my life is stuck!’: Experiences of adolescents and young people during COVID-19 lockdown in South Africa. Global Public Health, 16(6), 947-963, doi: 10.1080/17441692.2021.1899262
Mathrani, A., Sarvesh, T. & Umer, R. (2022). Digital divide framework: Online learning in developing countries during the COVID-19 lockdown. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20(5), 625-640. doi: 10.1080/14767724.2021.1981253
Izci, B., Geesa, R. L., Chen, S., & Song, H. S. (2022): Home learning environments during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Caregivers’ and children’s perceptions. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. doi: 10.1080/02568543.2022.2143459
Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(3), 307-21. doi: 10.1002/jclp.10020.
Zhao, L., Ao, Y., Wang, Y., & Wang, T. (2022). Impact of home-based learning experience during COVID-19 on future intentions to study online: A Chinese university perspective. Fronters in Psychology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.862965
Zhang, R., Lu, Y., & Du, H. (2022). Vulnerability and resilience in the wake of COVID-19: Family resources and children’s well-being in China. Chinese Sociological Review, 54(1), 27-61. doi: 10.1080/21620555.2021.1913721
|
