Schooling and children s subjective well-being Case Western - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
schooling and children s subjective well being
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Schooling and children s subjective well-being Case Western - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 17, 2023 143 likes •410 views

Schooling and children s subjective well-being Case Western Reserve February 6, 2014 Scott Huebner, Ph.D. USC Child Well-Being Lab Kim Hills, Ph.D. Susan Antaramian, Ph.D Xu Jiang, MA Ryan Kelly, MA Rachel Long, Ph.D

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Schooling and children’s subjective well-being

Case Western Reserve February 6, 2014

Scott Huebner, Ph.D.

slide-2
SLIDE 2

USC Child Well-Being Lab

▫ Kim Hills, Ph.D. ▫ Susan Antaramian, Ph.D ▫ Xu Jiang, MA ▫ Ryan Kelly, MA ▫ Rachel Long, Ph.D ▫ Michael Lyons, MA ▫ Zi Jia Ng, BS

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Does Children’s SWB Matter?

  • 1987 – Many school professionals said, “No”!
  • Many psychologist said, “No”!
  • Psychology focused on psychological problems
  • Mental health: the absence of symptoms
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Traditional Medical Model Measure

Reflected in measures of well-being focusing on symptoms

  • Half-Asked Assessments (Kovacs Depression Scale)

▫ I do not think of killing myself. ▫ I think about killing myself but I would not do it. ▫ I want to kill myself. ▫ I look ok. ▫ There are some bad things about my looks. ▫ I look ugly.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Subjective Well-Being (Diener, 1984)

  • SWB = absence of negatives and presence of

positives

  • Positive affect (PA) (joy, interest)
  • Negative affect (NA) (anxiety, anger)
  • Life satisfaction (life as a whole)
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Example of Positive Psychology Construct: Life Satisfaction

Andrews & Withey, 1976

  • Terrible
  • Unhappy
  • Mostly dissatisfied
  • Mixed (about equally satisfied & dissatisfied)
  • Mostly satisfied
  • Pleased
  • Delighted
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Dual Factor Model (DFM)

(Greenspoon & Saklofske, 2000)

Mental Health = Psychopathology (PTH) + Subjective Well-Being (SWB)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

DFM and School Outcomes

Antaramian et al. 2010

SWB PTH Average to High Low Low High

Flourishing N = 511 66.9% Vulnerable N = 62 8.1% Symptomatic but Content N = 132 17.3% Troubled N = 59 7.7%

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Mental Health Group Classification

  • SWB calculated by adding standardized LS and

PA scores and subtracting standardized NA scores

  • PTH classified as high or low using clinical

decision point of T ≥ 60

  • SWB classified as high or low using

corresponding decision point of T ≤ 40

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Mean Differences in Student Engagement

4.2 4.5 3.8 3.7 3.1 3.4 3.9 4.2 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.4 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Behavioral Engagement Emotional Engagement Cognitive Engagement

Flourishing Vulnerable Symptomatic/Content Troubled

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Mean Differences in Academic Achievement

3.2 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.2 3.0 2.2 2.4 2.1 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.1

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

GPA MAP Language MAP Math MAP Science

Flourishing Vulnerable Symptomatic/Content Troubled

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Cross-Sectional Results

  • Compared to Flourishing students, Vulnerable

students showed lower

▫ beh’l, cognitive, emot’l engagement (Cohen’s d = .86, 1.0, 1.2) ▫ GPA (Cohen’s d = .55) ▫ vulnerables differed little from troubled on GPA and engagement ▫ Suldo et al. studies ▫ reading scores ▫ academic-related goals ▫ physical health

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Longitudinal Results

Kelly et al. 2012

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Vulnerable Students

  • Lowest stability of groups
  • 29% remain vulnerable
  • 12% move to troubled grp in 5 months
  • 14% move to symptomatic but content grp
  • 55% stay same or get worse
slide-15
SLIDE 15

Origins of Group Differences

  • Vulnerables differed from Flourishing
  • Personality (neuroticism)
  • Environmental (family, peer, teacher support)
  • Cognitive (self-worth, locus of control, self-

perceived scholastic competence and physical attractiveness)

  • Major stressors differentiated Troubled from

Flourishing

slide-16
SLIDE 16

“Happy children are rarely mean, violent, or cruel.” “Happy children learn best.”

Noddings, 2003

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Summary of DFM Research

  • Noddings provided little

empirical support

  • More research needed, but

preliminary (8) studies suggest SWB is important in school (and at home & in community)

  • Happiness matters!
slide-18
SLIDE 18

Summary Continued

  • Measuring negative AND positive indicators of

SWB is more nuanced & comprehensive

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Implications

  • Research suggests a relation between SWB &

behavioral and academic outcomes: mentally healthy, but unhappy children appear at risk

  • Schools should monitor students’ SWB –

several brief measures available for free

  • Schools should aim to systematically maintain

positive student SWB (as well as academic learning)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Multidimensional SWB

  • According to Huebner and colleagues (1994), in addition

to global LS, there are five distinct domains that can be differentiated among students as early as 3rd grade: ▫ Family ▫ Friends ▫ Neighborhood ▫ School ▫ Self Li

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Model of Life Satisfaction

General Family Peers School Self Living Envt.

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (Huebner, 1991)

Global

  • I have a good life.
  • I would like to change things in my life.
slide-23
SLIDE 23

Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (Huebner, 1994)

Family I enjoy being at home with my family. My parents and I do fun things together. My parents treat me fairly. School I look forward to going to school. School is interesting. I feel bad at school. Friends My friends are nice to me. I have a lot of fun with my friends. Self I like myself. There are lots of things I can do well. I am good looking. Living Environment I like where I live. I wish there were different people in my neighborhood.

slide-24
SLIDE 24

References

Antaramian, S. P., Huebner, E. S., Hills, K. J., & Valois, R. F. (2010). A dual-factor model of mental health: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of youth functioning. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 462–472. Eklund, K., Dowdy, E., Jones, C., & Furlong, M. J. (2011). Applicability of the dual factor model of mental health for college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 25, 79-92. Greenspoon, P. J., & Saklofske, D. H. (2001). Toward an integration of subjective well-being and psychopathology. Social Indicators Research, 54, 81–108. Kelly, R. M., Hills, K. J., Huebner, E. S., & McQuillin, S. (2012). The longitudinal stability and dynamics of group membership in the dual-factor model of mental health: Psychosocial predictors of mental health. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27, 337–355. Lyons, M. D., Huebner, E. S., & Hills, K. J. (2013). The dual-factor model of mental health: A short-term longitudinal study of school-related outcomes. Social Indicators Research, 114, 549–565. Lyons, M. D., Huebner, E. S., Hills, K. J., & Shinkareva, V. S. (2012). The dual-factor model of mental health: Further study of the determinants of group differences. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27, 183-196. Suldo, S. M., & Shaffer, E. J. (2008). Looking beyond psychopathology: The dual-factor model of mental health in

  • youth. School Psychology Review, 37, 52–68.

Suldo, S., Thalji, A., & Ferron, J. (2011). Longitudinal academic outcomes predicted by early adolescents’ subjective well-being, psychopathology, and mental health status yielded from a dual factor model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 17–30.

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Questions & comments?

Contact: Scott Huebner, Ph.D. huebner@sc.edu