2.10 Conclusion of Literature Review
2.10.1 Motivation for the Present Study
In summary, studies have indicated that students who experience social connectedness are less likely to experience subsequent mental health issues and are less likely to engage in health risk behaviours. The research indicates that such students are more likely to have good educational outcomes as a result. School connectedness, however, includes relationships with peers, teachers and learning. “Thus the challenge is not whether school or social connectedness is more important, but how we can promote both school connectedness and social connectedness in forms that promote learning and well-being” (Bond et al. 2007, p.357)
The literature also indicated a scarcity of attempts to pilot ‘whole school’ and school connectedness interventions in the South African context. Also indicated was a scarcity of studies that utilised both quantitative and qualitative methods in evaluating the efficacy of school connectedness interventions. A review of the literature revealed that many interventions abroad have been informed by quantitative findings (surveys, school climate profiles and questionnaires (Bond et al. 2007; Patton et al. 2006).
This study, thus attempted to address the gap in the literature which reveals a scarcity of piloting whole school interventions or school connectedness interventions in the South African Education context. As such it represents a shift from a focus on individual level interventions to community school level interventions. This study thus also attempted to expand our local knowledge of school connectedness through
81
the use of both quantitative and qualitative approaches and marks a shift from a dominance of quantitative research on school connectedness. This study is thus based on the premise that if the associations between school connectedness and promotion of mental health well-being, and academic motivation are shown to be similar to international evidence, it is probable that international ‘whole school’ intervention approaches will be successful in South African schools.
82 CHAPTER 3:
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 3.1 Ecological Framework
The ecological metaphor encourages researchers to recognise the ‘embededness’ of people in contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1997; Rappaport, 1977). This conceptualisation helps to shift the focus from individualistic explanations that are prone to victim- blaming towards more holistic, system oriented models of explanation.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory was concerned that developmental psychologists paid little attention to environmental influences on human development.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) theory embraces the person-in environment perspective by focusing on the individual and the context in which the individual functions (Fraser, 2004). Specifically, Bronfenbrenner (1979) argued that adolescents development is strongly influenced by the family, school, peer, neighbourhood and community contexts in which they live and interact. These environments significantly contribute to the healthy development of youth. Such environments present the opportunity to promote or cultivate positive overall youth development. In contrast, disruptions and instability in the primary settings (i.e., family school, community) in which adolescents’ competence and character are developed are risk factors inhibiting the healthy development of young people (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).
Bronfenbrenner’s theory views adolescents as developing within a complex system of relationships influenced by multiple levels of the surrounding environment (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Each system is seen to impact not only each other but also on individual development (Berk, 2009; Fraser, 2004). Bronfenbrenner’s theory is often depicted in an illustration of concentric circles or nested ecologies with
83
the individual youth in the centre (Berk, 2009; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In Bronfenbrenner’s original (1979) conceptualisation of ecological theory, the environmental contexts included the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) as discussed below :
Microsystem : the most immediate context for individual development (e.g., family, schools, peers). Microsystme contexts consist of the activities, roles, and interpersonal relationships of the individual.
Mesosystem : the interaction between two or more microsystems (e.g. parent involvement in schools, school community partnerships)
Exosystem: one or more setting that do not involved the developing person but may indirectly impact the person (e.g., school policies, neighbourhood programs)
Macrosystem: the broadest level, the wider social environment (e.g., cultural values; poverty)
Beginning with the individual’s immediate context and expanding in broadening circles, Bronfenbrenner’s environmental contexts were classified according to their level of influence (i.e., proximal; distal) (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The microsystem and mesosystem were found to have the most direct or proximal influence on adolescent development, while the exosystem and macrosystem were found to exert an indirect impact on adolescent development. To illustrate this, the systems are typically depicted as nested layers of influence with the individual in the middle (Darling, 2007). See figure 2).
84
Figure 2: Nested system level influences in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) Ecological Theory
In later versions of Bronfenbrenner’s work, he became concerned that the individual was being lost in the emphasis on context and stressed that the individual is an active, not passive, participant in environmental interactions (Darling, 2007). Instead of the environment, the person is the center of later iterations of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model of development (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994;
Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).
Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1993) thus positioned individual characteristics which play out in various contexts. The individual component of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) ecology model can be considered to be the personal experiences and characteristics that students bring with them to their school experiences. Bronfenbrenner (1993)
Macro-system Exosystem
Mesosystem
Microsystem
85
indicated that, ‘the attributes of the person most likely to share the course of