1. Young People’s Wellbeing and School Engagement in Kazakhstan
Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education
Cambridge University Faculty of Education
Astana, April 2017

2. Wellbeing and School Engagement
What is wellbeing?
Physical, financial, environmental, psychological
What is school engagement?
Turning up – physically, socially and mentally
Learning in school and across a lifetime
Are there universal principles?
Do these variables depend on time, culture and context?

3. Research project: to model young people’s wellbeing in Kazakhstan
Phase 1
May 2015: scoping visit to examine the performance of a UK wellbeing scale (McLellan & Seward, 2014) and to conduct first inquiry into how psychological wellbeing in schools is conceived and managed
Phases 2 & 3
November 2015 and May 2016: application of improved and contextualised psychological wellbeing scale and more detailed inquiry into the constructs of wellbeing in Kazakhstan
Phase 4
October 2016: final application of the wellbeing scale to assess its year-on-year validity

4. Mixed methods’ sample sizes

5. Aristippus of Cyrene (c. 435-356 BC)
Psychological Wellbeing: Hedonic Approaches - Subjective Wellbeing (Feelings)
Hedonism
Aristippus of Cyrene (c BC)
‘Subjective well-being is a broad category of phenomena that includes people’s emotional responses, domain satisfactions, and global judgments of life satisfaction.’
Diener et al, 1999

6. Psychological Wellbeing: Eudaimonic Approaches (Functioning)
Relatedness
Autonomy
Competence
Eudaimonia: Activity expressing virtue
Aristotle (384–322 BC)
Wellbeing

7. Languages spoken in the region

8. Phase 1: Focus groups and interview data ‘one shanyrak’
A FG of Vice Principals:
Our students don’t forget their Uighur culture and Uighur customs – this is what is particular for us. But in other spheres there are not any differences. For instance, they had a competition of patriotic upbringing among 22 schools and we got 1st prize… Moreover we have the annual competition which is called “under one shanyrak” and there our students demonstrate culture of different nationalities: Russian, Kazakh, Uighur, Tatar, Korean. The students perform there, cite poems, sing songs, show national clothes and so on…

9. Phase 1 Focus groups and interview data: ‘one shanyrak’

10. One model of Psychological Wellbeing
Self-perceptions of own psychological health formed from how one feels and how one functions – a state with longevity not mere moods

11. Phase 1 Survey data: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (UK scale used)

12. Phase 2: What was missing in the model?
Focus Group member 1 (female, Russian):
Happiness is my family, smiles of my family, and when my family is happy and healthy. This is very important for me, it makes me happy, also, music brings me happiness. It inspires me to new ideas, encourages me when I am in low spirit... Among negatives, I drew bad weather that influences my mood, my condition too. And I am against war, because it destroys the world and affects our health, our physical condition. Also drugs have bad influence on our life, on people, involve more people. It is not good. And different murders, robberies can happen under this addictive substance.

13. Phase 3: Place and community
Interviewee (male, Kazakh at rural school): Living in a village helps you become a good person because we are supportive of each other. Next is clean ecology. It is good for health and I value health over everything else because if I am healthy I can achieve any goal. Living in village develops your humanity and human values. For this reason I am very happy to have grown up in a village.

14. Phase 4 Survey data: the final model
CMIN/CFI = 4.34 RMSEA = Hoelter (0.01) > 523

15. The Psychological Wellbeing Model
Relatedness/Hedonism
Competence/ Eudaimonism
Negative affect
External validation
Social intelligence
Personal Beliefs
Not taking the person out of the situation.. health, money and access to support, if in need, are also critical and clearly important. Cushions to assist resilience. The roller-coaster effect mitigated.

16. Full wellbeing model
CMIN/df
7.254
RMSEA
0.060
Hoelter (0.05)
286

17. Psychological Wellbeing
Full Wellbeing Model
Overall Wellbeing
Psychological Wellbeing
Physical Wellbeing
Physical environment
Social support
Not taking the person out of the situation.. health, money and access to support, if in need, are also critical and clearly important. Cushions to assist resilience. The roller-coaster effect mitigated.

18. School Engagement

19. Our School Engagement model based on Martin (2015)

20. School Engagement Model
Positive attitude
Negative attitude and behaviours
Perceived Teachers’ encouragement
Positive behaviour
Not taking the person out of the situation.. health, money and access to support, if in need, are also critical and clearly important. Cushions to assist resilience. The roller-coaster effect mitigated.

21. Psychological Wellbeing factors School Engagement factors
Correlation coefficients of Psychological Wellbeing with School Engagement
Psychological Wellbeing factors
School Engagement factors A B C D E F 1 2 3 4
Relatedness (Hedonic)
.521
-.054*
.300
.448
-.353
.359
.353
-.190
.465
Competence (Eudaimonic)
-.169
.492
.570
-.382
.374
-.271
.459
Negative Affect
-.055*
-.107
.305
-.078*
n.s.
.232
Personal Beliefs
.391
-.159
.322
.295
-.106
.270
External Validation
-.377
.351
.414
-.269
.436
Low Social Intelligence
-.210
-.192
.427
-.339
Adaptive Cognitions
-.078
.433
-.120
.402
Adaptive Behaviours
-.137
.483
Maladaptive factors
-.206
Teachers’ Encouragement

22. Group Differences – Gender
Young men
(N = 614)
Young women
(N= 818)
Significant difference
Psychological Wellbeing A
Relatedness (Hedonic)
4.07
4.09
p > .05 B
Competence (Eudaimonic)
4.03
3.91
p = .001 C
Negative Affect
2.49
2.60
p = .023 D
Personal Beliefs
3.98
4.02 E
External Validation
3.82
3.81 F
Low Social Intelligence
2.33
2.41
p = .033
Social Support
4.20
4.21
Physical Health perceptions
3.69
p < .001
Physical Environment
4.00
3.92
p = .038
Young men
Young women
Significant difference
School Engagement 1
Adaptive Cognitions
4.24
4.40
p < .001 2
Adaptive Behaviours
3.62
3.68
p > .05 3
Maladaptive factors
2.69
2.76 4
Teachers’ Encouragement
3.75

23. Constancy of Psychological Wellbeing by Grade

24. Constancy of School Engagement by Grade

25. Significant differences
Variations by Grade
Grade 9 10
11 or 12
Significant differences
overall WB - Social support
4.15
4.26
4.21
G9 and G10
overall WB - Health perceptions
3.91
3.85
3.79
G9 and G11-12
Overall WB - Environs
4.00
3.99
3.88
SE - Maladaptive cog/behav
2.75
2.67
2.81
G10 and G11-12

26. Group Differences – Rural versus Urban - G9 only
Urban
(clusters 2-3)
(N =331 )
Rural
(clusters 4-5)
(N =296)
Significant difference
Psychological Wellbeing A
Relatedness (Hedonic)
4.05
4.16
p = .045 B
Competence (Eudaimonic)
3.89
4.07
p = .002 C
Negative Affect
2.51
2.52
p > .05 D
Personal Beliefs
3.92
4.02 E
External Validation
3.71
p = .005 F
Low Social Intelligence
2.43
2.32
Social Support
4.15
4.18
Physical Health perceptions
4.03
p = .017
Physical Environment
4.00
Urban
(clusters 2-3)
Rural
(clusters 4-5)
Significant difference
School Engagement 1
Adaptive Cognitions
4.27
4.29
p > .05 2
Adaptive Behaviours
3.74 3
Maladaptive factors
2.73
2.77 4
Teachers’ Encouragement
3.68
3.88
p = .010

27. Group Differences – Hobbies or not
Does hobbies
(N = 405)
Does not do hobbies or not important
(N = 202)
Significant difference
Psychological Wellbeing A
Relatedness (Hedonic)
4.09
4.08
p > .05 B
Competence (Eudaimonic)
3.97
3.94 C
Negative Affect
2.47
2.63
p = .034 D
Personal Beliefs
3.95 E
External Validation
3.83
3.68
p = .024 F
Low Social Intelligence
2.33
p = .042
Social Support
4.16
4.12
Physical Health perceptions
3.89
Physical Environment
4.04
3.93
Does hobbies
Does not do hobbies or not important
Significant difference
School Engagement 1
Adaptive Cognitions
4.29
4.23
p > .05 2
Adaptive Behaviours
3.68
3.78 3
Maladaptive factors
2.70
2.79 4
Teachers’ Encouragement
3.77
3.72