دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 37995
عنوان فارسی مقاله

میزان سرمایه اجتماعی خانواده و مدرسه برای ترویج بهزیستی ذهنی مثبت در میان کودکان مدرسه ابتدایی در شنزن، چین

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
37995 2011 10 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
The extent of family and school social capital promoting positive subjective well-being among primary school children in Shenzhen, China
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Children and Youth Services Review, Volume 33, Issue 9, September 2011, Pages 1573–1582

کلمات کلیدی
سرمایه اجتماعی - روابط - بهزیستی ذهنی - وضعیت - فقط وضعیت کودک - شهری چین
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله میزان سرمایه اجتماعی خانواده و مدرسه برای ترویج بهزیستی ذهنی مثبت در میان کودکان مدرسه ابتدایی در شنزن، چین

چکیده انگلیسی

Abstract This study aimed to examine, first, the extent to which variations in family and school social capital can be explained by child's differing socioeconomic and demographic background and school characteristics; and second, the extent to which family and school social capital in combination might be associated with variations in child subjective well-being in Shenzhen, China. This study was a cross-sectional survey design, using stratified random sampling. A total of 1306 sixth-grade primary school children and their parents were drawn from 16 schools, and a self-administered questionnaire was used. The results suggested that gender difference, the only child status at home and hukou status had impacts on family and school social capital accrued among primary school children in Shenzhen. There were also links between child's perception of connectedness to their parents, peers, and teachers, and their positive child subjective well-being.

مقدمه انگلیسی

. Introduction It is an undeniable fact that well-being of the new generation for the 21st century has experienced significant changes and the children are living in increasingly diverse society nowadays. Previous studies highlighted effects of radical socioeconomic and demographic changes on the well-being of children and young people. Empirical evidence showed associations between child poverty and well-being (Adamson et al., 2007 and European Commission Social Protection Committee, 2008), adolescents' health behaviour and their parental socioeconomic status (Fergusson et al., 2007 and Hanson and Chen, 2007), adolescents' health behaviour and their family and peer relationships (Currie et al., 2008 and Turbin et al., 2006), family and community social capital and children's educational achievement (Hango, 2007 and Israel et al., 2001). Hu's study also demonstrated effects of family background on the attainment of education, party membership and occupation in China (Hu, 2007). Chinese people and families put more emphasis on market-oriented development and free competition in light of China's social and economic transformation. Given China's one-child policy, parents try their best to let their children attend learning and social activities so as to be well-equipped for children's future development. Children nowadays shoulder various degree of parent expectation and the pressure of being his/her family's ‘only hope’ (Fong, 2004 and Wang and Fong, 2009). Nonetheless, the opportunity cost of the competition oriented programs is that children have less time to play together and learn appropriate social skills that will facilitate building social capital through trust, communication and cooperation with others. It takes time and effort to accumulate social capital. Bian's recent study also showed the growing roles of social networks as channels for new job search and occupational mobility in transitional China (Bian, 2009). As Sun argued, “in the course of economic transformation, a sense of free competition, a core concept of market economy, has been strengthened among Chinese people and families, which is also the case with parents' investment in their children's education….To a certain extent, augmentation of educational investment has improved children's development environment and fostered their development, but it sometimes goes to extremes. For example, over-investment on intellect that forces children to attend “interest classes”, with no interest at all, has made it a burden and put more pressure on children and, thus, deprived children of light-heartedness as well as time for developing other abilities” (Sun, 2005 (pp.4–5)). Several studies highlighted relationships between family background and variation of social capital accrued, and effects of social and cultural capital on child and adolescents' well-being in China. Yan and Lam's study was echoed by both Bian (Bian, 2008) and Lin et al.'s studies (Lin, Ao, & Song, 2009) who found variation of social capital accumulated over time associated with differential in social class and occupational life. Their study argued that the adolescents' disadvantaged socioeconomic background in the mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong may contribute to the unequal access to the social networks and their embedded resources which affects their employment opportunities (Yan & Lam, 2009). Children's education engagement in poor area of China is not only associated with their socioeconomic status, but also cultural capital, and family and school social capital (An, 2005). In addition, the dualistic household registration (hukou) system 1 in China is directly linked to people's life chances affecting their socioeconomic status and contributing to differential access to public services ( Wang, 2008 and Zhao and Li, 2006). Wu and Treiman's study reaffirmed that the hukou system (i.e. rural–urban institutional divide) still plays a significant role shaping stratification and mobility in China's economic transformation ( Wu & Treiman, 2007). In particular, Liang et al.'s studies showed effects of hukou status on education opportunities and health care access for migrant children in urban China ( Liang and Chen, 2007 and Liang et al., 2008). Wong et al.'s recent study highlighted the protective functions of relationships, social support and self-esteem in the life satisfaction of children of migrants in Shanghai ( Wong, Chang, He, & Wu, 2010). Lin's review also argued the issue of gender inequality in social capital contributing to gender differential in network diversity and size ( Lin, 2000). This paper aimed to enrich our understanding of the extent of family and school social capital promoting positive subjective well-being among primary school children in transitional China. More specifically, the current study contributed to the literature on social capital by focusing on the rarely studied age group between 11 and 12 years old. The study used the concept of social capital to frame the analysis of (i) the extent to which variations in family and school social capital be explained by child's differing socioeconomic and demographic background and school characteristics; and (ii) the extent to which family and school social capital in combination might be associated with variations in child subjective well-being in Shenzhen, China. All these have implications for life chance of the children and the accumulation of human and social capital in the Chinese society in the long run.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

. Findings 4.1. Frequency distribution The socio-demographic background of sixth-grade primary school children in this study was compiled (Table 1). There were a higher proportion of male participant children (56.1%) than their female counterparts (43.9%). There were 52% of children who have household registration in Shenzhen, compared with 48% who do not. Half of participant children were the only child at home, compared with 31.7% with one sibling and 17.6% with two or siblings. An overwhelming majority of children (93.9%) were living in two-parent families. Seventy-three of either mother or father of the children had senior secondary educational level or above. Over three-quarter (87.5%) of respondents had a monthly family income of RMB 2000 or above (US$299, with US$ = 6.69). Over three quarters of children (76.8%) are studying in public schools, compared with 23.2% in private schools. There are one quarter (25.4%) of children studying in top rank school (i.e. ‘best’), compared with 21.3% who are in the lowest school rank. Table 1. Family background and school characteristics of primary school children. N (%) Gender Male 728 56.1 Female 569 43.9 Household registration in Shenzhen No 505 48.0 Yes 546 52.0 Number of children Only one child 573 50.7 2 children 359 31.7 3 or more children 199 17.6 Family structure Two-parent family 977 93.9 Single parent family 64 6.1 Parent's education Junior secondary or below 291 27.5 Senior secondary 304 28.8 Non-degree 228 21.6 Degree 188 17.8 Master degree or above 46 4.4 Monthly family income RMB < 2000 128 12.5 RMB 2000–4999 322 31.5 RMB 5000–9999 245 23.9 RMB 10,000–19,999 189 18.5 RMB 20,000–49,999 101 9.9 RMB > 50,000 38 3.7 Type of school Public school 997 76.8 Private school 301 23.2 School band 1 (Best) 330 25.4 2 457 35.2 3 235 18.1 4 276 21.3 Table options 4.2. Reliability analysis Table 2 shows the reliability analysis of family social capital comprising of bonds between children and parents (I) and perceptions of parent–child relationship (II); school social capital including interpersonal interactions with peers (IV), bonds between parents and schools (VI), and perceptions of connectedness to teachers (III), and peer (V); as well as child subjective well-being comprising of child's overall life satisfaction, as well as their education and health-related well-being. Cronbach's alpha for these three scales were 0.8434, 0.7025, and 0.4130 respectively. Table 2. Reliability analysis of family and school social capital and child subjective well-being. Alpha if item deleted Family social capital (20 items) Alpha = 0.8434 (I) Bond between children and parents — Structural social capital Discussing important issues with parents — Health .8331 Discussing important issues with parents — Relationship with classmates/friends .8298 Discussing important issues with parents — Relationship with teacher .8306 Discussing important issues with parents — Sports/extra-curriculum activities .8292 Discussing important issues with parents — Social events/news .8324 Discussing important issues with parents — School work .8348 Discussing important issues with parents — Future plan .8337 Interpersonal interactions with parents and children — Read or buy books .8328 Interpersonal interactions with parents and children — Join extra-curriculum classes .8426 Interpersonal interactions with parents and children — Shopping .8417 Interpersonal interactions with parents and children — Dinning out .8430 Interpersonal interactions with parents and children — Sports .8284 Interpersonal interactions with parents and children — Watching movie .8373 Interpersonal interactions with parents and children — Playing together .8316 (II) Bond between children and parents — Cognitive social capital Parent–child relationship — Parents understand me .8361 Parent–child relationship — Parents care about me .8389 Parent–child relationship — Parents respect my opinions .8360 Parent–child relationship — Parents do not know my good friends a .8461 Parent–child relationship — Parents care about my study than any other things a .8480 Level of trust — Family members .8397 School social capital (18 items) Alpha = 0.7025 (III) Teacher–student relationship — Cognitive social capital Teacher–student relationship — Teachers cared about them .6879 Teacher–student relationship — Teacher treated all the students the same fairly in their schools .6875 Level of trust — teachers .6799 (IV) Peer relationship — Structural social capital Participation in social activities with classmates and friends — Celebrating holidays .6838 Participation in social activities with classmates and friends — Celebrating birthdays .6840 Participation in social activities with classmates and friends — Sports .6882 Participation in social activities with classmates and friends — Watching movie .6896 Participation in social activities with classmates and friends — Studying/reading groups .6778 Participation in social activities with classmates and friends — In-depth conversations/sharing .7011 Participation in social activities with classmates and friends — Inviting friends to one's home .6859 Reciprocity and trust with peers and schoolmates — Participate in study group to help each other .6851 Reciprocity and trust with peers and schoolmates — I was bullied by other children in school a .7032 (V) Peer relationship — Cognitive social capital Reciprocity and trust with peers and schoolmates — Others will help if I have difficulties in study .6821 Level of trust — good friends .6904 Level of trust — classmates .6894 (VI) Bonds between parents and schools — Structural social capital Parental involvement in school activities — Weekend activities .7075 Parental involvement in school activities — Seminars organized for parents .7001 Parental involvement in school activities — Parents meetings .7006 Child subjective well-being (3 items) Alpha = 0.4130 Self-reported happiness .2126 Feel pressured by schoolworka .4285 Self-rated health status .3522 a Negatively worded item (reverse coded). Table options 4.3. Family social capital, school social capital and child subjective well-being by family background and school characteristics Table 3 summarizes the family and school social capital accrued among children with differing socioeconomic and demographic background, and school characteristics. Females had relatively weak interpersonal interactions with their parents at home than males. On the other hand, girls had strong peer relationships at school than boys. The only child status and urban hukou in Shenzhen would contribute to have strong interpersonal interactions between children and parents, and perception of connectedness to their parents, while those children who are not the only child at home, and those whose hukou are not in Shenzhen perceived that they had close teacher–student relationship, and their parents had active involvement in school activities. Family structure was not significant to family and school social capital accrued among children. Again, children whose parents with higher education attainment and monthly family income had close child–parent relationship, and social interactions with friends than those who were in disadvantaged positions. The latter perceived that they had close ties with school teachers, and their parents with close connection with schools. Children studying in public schools and top rank schools had strong ties with their parents and peers (i.e. both structural and cognitive social capital) whereas children studying in private schools and lower rank schools cognitively had close teacher–student relationship, and close bonds between parents and schools. Children who agreed/strongly agreed that “school campus is safety” are those with close interactions with parents, friends and peers, their parents who had close ties with school, and cognitively had close child–parent relationship, peer relationship, teacher–student relationship. Table 3. Family and school social capital by family background and school characteristics. N Mean rank Sig. N Mean rank Sig. N Mean rank Sig. Bond between children and parents (I) Bond between children and parents (II) Teacher–student relationship (III) Gender .012 .468 .007 Male 681 633.00 702 636.58 716 666.49 Female 539 582.07 557 621.70 567 611.07 Number of children .032 .001 .000 Only one child 549 453.70 556 473.08 564 429.46 2 or more children 329 415.80 344 414.01 350 502.69 Household registration in Shenzhen .000 .000 .000 No 475 449.07 490 471.16 497 572.70 Yes 517 540.07 523 540.57 534 463.23 Family structure .955 .309 .595 Two-parent family 923 491.87 946 505.83 960 513.24 Single parent family 60 493.98 60 466.71 63 493.12 Monthly family income .000 .071 .000 RMB < 2000 123 405.74 123 438.73 125 558.47 RMB 2000–4999 297 456.51 312 481.13 320 550.92 RMB 5000–9999 231 491.19 238 515.28 239 511.14 RMB 10,000–19,999 178 550.26 179 532.36 183 447.43 RMB 20,000–49,999 99 513.42 97 490.78 100 384.36 RMB > 50,000 36 483.35 38 472.86 38 445.64 Parent's education .000 .000 .000 Junior secondary or below 268 399.51 279 423.41 286 599.01 Senior secondary 287 509.19 296 525.05 300 534.64 Non-degree 217 534.62 219 550.79 225 497.41 Degree 183 570.62 182 553.25 183 438.32 Master degree or above 41 557.61 44 587.48 44 350.03 Type of school .000 .000 .039 Public school 947 632.08 970 664.74 986 630.94 Private school 274 538.15 290 515.98 298 680.76 School band .000 .000 .000 1 (Best) 317 694.24 320 678.53 325 518.21 2 435 656.53 448 691.69 453 661.26 3 219 499.43 225 552.51 234 606.92 4 250 523.97 267 535.98 272 790.38 School campus is safe .001 .000 .000 Strongly disagree 54 522.95 56 395.55 59 290.31 Disagree 144 571.10 147 468.61 149 437.96 Agree 565 579.85 586 616.06 599 588.07 Strongly agree 442 652.76 456 709.62 464 805.42 Peer relationship (IV) Peer relationship (V) Bonds between parents and schools (VI) Gender .000 .266 .830 Male 684 575.27 718 651.48 517 478.22 Female 540 659.66 564 628.80 435 474.46 Number of children .933 .487 .005 Only one child 542 437.43 567 453.83 488 378.75 2 or more children 333 438.92 349 466.09 304 424.99 Household registration in Shenzhen .000 .040 .009 No 466 455.24 494 497.04 429 479.19 Yes 520 527.79 538 534.37 481 434.37 Family structure .950 .907 .557 Two-parent family 922 490.36 962 512.77 850 451.24 Single parent family 58 492.74 62 508.35 54 472.30 Monthly family income .003 .220 .001 RMB < 2000 118 406.13 127 504.63 111 533.00 RMB 2000–4999 301 456.11 316 489.73 270 457.69 RMB 5000–9999 230 520.91 242 494.01 218 421.90 RMB 10,000–19,999 174 504.45 182 538.45 173 418.08 RMB 20,000–49,999 98 484.26 100 474.07 83 408.39 RMB > 50,000 37 516.43 38 571.54 35 444.46 Parent's education .008 .271 .000 Junior secondary or below 270 443.30 286 512.84 251 514.31 Senior secondary 288 505.85 298 498.83 268 465.64 Non-degree 213 531.63 227 544.16 193 440.89 Degree 178 517.22 184 520.98 163 406.18 Master degree or above 43 508.17 44 581.18 44 399.08 Type of school .000 .009 .841 Public school 943 653.13 983 656.62 739 476.06 Private school 282 478.82 300 594.08 214 480.25 School band .000 .002 .000 1 (Best) 317 667.37 325 661.37 242 425.60 2 429 646.05 452 680.05 344 491.66 3 219 626.49 234 578.78 164 438.34 4 260 480.82 272 610.01 203 544.67 School campus is safe .000 .000 .002 Strongly disagree 55 446.97 59 388.52 39 459.10 Disagree 147 542.40 149 535.24 110 381.46 Agree 577 594.79 600 587.02 440 480.45 Strongly agree 442 675.39 466 766.72 353 489.77 Note: Kruskal Wallis Test. Table options 4.4. Correlations between child subjective well-being, family social capital and school social capital Child subjective well-being was positively correlated with child–parent interactions (I) (r = .245, p < .001), perceived child–parent relationship (II) (r = .434, p < .001), perceived teacher–student relationship (III) (r = .337, p < .001), social interactions with peers (IV) (r = .342, p < .001), and perceived peer relationship (V) (r = .265, p < .001) (Table 4). There were also positive associations between self-reported happiness and perceived parent–child relationship (r = .407, p < .001), teacher–student relationship (r = .306, p < .001), social interactions with peers (r = .368, p < .001) and perceived connectedness to peers (r = .318, p < .001). Further, there were also links between children felt pressured by school work and perceived connectedness to their parents (r = .315, p < .001), and to their teachers (r = .237, p < .001). Table 4. Correlations between child subjective well-being, and family and school social capital. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (1) SWB 1 .650⁎⁎⁎ .757⁎⁎⁎ .639⁎⁎⁎ .245⁎⁎⁎ .434⁎⁎⁎ .337⁎⁎⁎ .342⁎⁎⁎ .265⁎⁎⁎ .052 (2) Self-reported happiness 1 .239⁎⁎⁎ .275⁎⁎⁎ .269⁎⁎⁎ .407⁎⁎⁎ .306⁎⁎⁎ .368⁎⁎⁎ .318⁎⁎⁎ .053 (3) Feel pressured by school work 1 .122⁎⁎⁎ .093⁎⁎ .315⁎⁎⁎ .237⁎⁎⁎ .168⁎⁎⁎ .085⁎⁎ .029 (4) Self-rated health status 1 .193⁎⁎⁎ .174⁎⁎⁎ .165⁎⁎⁎ .213⁎⁎⁎ .202⁎⁎⁎ .035 (5) Bond between children and parents (I — SSC) 1 .373⁎⁎⁎ .161⁎⁎⁎ .249⁎⁎⁎ .520⁎⁎⁎ .067⁎ (6) Bond between children and parents (II — CSC) 1 .311⁎⁎⁎ .356⁎⁎⁎ .318⁎⁎⁎ .049 (7) Teacher–student relationship (III — CSC) 1 .388⁎⁎⁎ .212⁎⁎⁎ .135⁎⁎⁎ (8) Peer relationship (IV — SSC) 1 .345⁎⁎⁎ .092⁎⁎ (9) Peer relationship (V — CSC) 1 .050 (10) Bonds between parents and schools (VI — SSC) 1 ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001. Table options 4.5. Hierarchical regression of child subjective well-being by socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, family and school social capital A hierarchical regression analysis was performed to examine the relative effects of family background, school characteristics, and family and school social capital on subjective well-being of sixth-grade primary school children in Shenzhen (Table 5). With reference to previous studies (Israel et al., 2001, Rees et al., 2010, Smyth et al., 2010 and Wong et al., 2010), personal characteristics, family background, and school characteristics variables were entered in the first, second, and third steps respectively. Interactions with parents and perceived parent–child relationships (i.e. family social capital), and social interactions with peers, parental involvement in school activities, and perceived teacher–student and peer relationships (i.e. school social capital) which were considered to have significant impacts on child subjective well-being were put into the fourth and fifth steps accordingly. With reference to model 1, personal characteristics account for 0.5% of the variation (i.e. R2 = .005) in subjective well-being of sixth-grade primary school children. The other four indicators of family background are included in model 2 and the value increases to 1.0% of the variance in child subjective well-being. In other words, if personal characteristics account for 0.5%, family background account for additional 0.5%. Model 3 showed that school characteristics explained 8.3% of the variance in subjective well-being of sixth-grade primary school children, particularly perceived school safety was found to be significantly related to child subjective well-being. School characteristics accounted for additional 7.4%. Models 4 and 5 showed the explained variances of family social capital and school social capital in child subjective well-being were 27.1% and 30.5% respectively, which accounted for additional 18.7% and 3.5% respectively. Table 5. Hierarchical regression of subjective well-being of sixth-grade primary school children by socioeconomic and demographic background, family and school social capital variables. Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Personal characteristics Gender − .050 − .052 − .061 − .022 − .014 Number of siblings − .046 − .033 − .027 − .013 − .023 Family background Hukou status in Shenzhen − .020 − .039 − .027 − .034 Family income − .046 − .046 − .012 − .022 Parent's education .064 .043 − .011 .013 Whether the parents got divorce −.054 − .057 − .039 − .038 School characteristics School campus is safe .264⁎⁎⁎ .154⁎⁎⁎ .077⁎ Type of school − .038 − .006 .015 School band − .078 − .016 − .055 Family social capital Bond between children and parents (I — SSC) .116⁎⁎ .073 Bond between children and parents (II — CSC) .401⁎⁎⁎ .326⁎⁎⁎ School social capital Teacher–student relationship (III — CSC) .157⁎⁎⁎ Peer relationship (IV — SSC) .042 Peer relationship (V — CSC) .102⁎⁎ Bonds between parents and schools (VI — SSC) − .020 R .070 .099 .289 .520 .553 R2 .005 .010 .083 .271 .305 Adjusted R2 .002 .001 .072 .260 .291 F 1.776 .875 19.123⁎⁎⁎ 91.661⁎⁎⁎ 8.812⁎⁎⁎ R2 change .005 .005 .074 .187 .035 ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001.

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.