This study examines the relationships between school climate and students’ wellbeing, moral identity and resilience, and the interrelationships between these
outcomes. Accordingly, in this chapter the researcher reviews literature related to school climate, student wellbeing, resilience and moral identity.
Section 2.2 explores the various definitions of school climate and the past research associated with this concept. Past research has drawn on various definitions of school climate; however, despite the variation, a commonality exists. The definitions of school climate all include a recognition of factors that affect the macro-environment (Glover & Coleman, 2005). Considering this and the review of past definitions, this study defines school climate as the “norms, values and expectations that support people feeling socially, emotionally, and physically safe” (Cohen, McCabe, Mitchelli, & Pickeral, 2009, p. 182).
Many studies have explored various school climate dimensions, highlighting the multi-faceted aspect of this concept (Anderson, 1982; Brand, Felner, Shim, Seitsinger & Dumas, 2003; Maslowski, 2006; Murray, 1938). Four key school climate dimensions that have been the main focus of past research are reviewed and important findings associated with them are highlighted. The four dimensions reviewed are: safety (Stockard & Mayberry, 1992; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013); relationships (Resnick, Harris & Blum, 1993; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013); teaching and learning (Cohen, 2001; Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993); and environmental-structural (Anderson, 1982; Stewart, 1979). Although past research has explored school climate dimensions, there is a dearth of research exploring the relationship between these dimensions and student wellbeing, moral identity and resilience. Therefore, this study addresses the research gap by investigating these potential relationships.
To conclude this section, a brief review of ten historically-significant school climate instruments is provided and an instrument, the WHITS (Aldridge & Ala’i, 2013), is identified as most appropriate for this study.
In the following section, the researcher provides a definition of wellbeing and an overview of past research related to wellbeing, with a review of past instruments. Research has used a number of wellbeing definitions both from a deficit framework (for example: Doyal & Gough, 1991) and from a positive one (for example:
Hamilton & Redmond, 2010; Seligman, Ernst, Gillham, Reivich, & Linkins, 2009). In research, wellbeing has been conceptualised as hedonic (defined in terms of pleasure attainment and pain avoidance and focused on happiness, Ryan & Deci, 2001), or eudemonic (defined in terms of “life satisfaction, autonomy, mastery, social connectedness, and personal security” (King, Renó, & Novo, 2014, p. 683)). After reviewing the literature, this study chose to define wellbeing within a positive framework, drawing on Ryan and Deci’s (2001) wellbeing definition, “optimal psychological feeling and functioning” (p. 142).
Since this study sought to explore the potential relationship between school climate and student wellbeing, a review of literature with this focus was provided. Early research by Olweus (1993) identified that social context was an important influence on an individual’s wellbeing and therefore drew connections with school climate and student wellbeing. Research that followed explored how a school climate contributed to a student’s wellbeing in terms of their poor health or positive mental health. This review indicated that there is a gap in research specifically related to an inclusive school climate and its relationship with student wellbeing.
To conclude this section, a brief review of nine historically-significant ‘wellbeing’ instruments is provided and an instrument, the WHO-5 Wellbeing Scale (WHO, 1998) is identified as most appropriate for this study because of its strong validity, reliability, use of simple positive language and above all, its strong theoretical grounding.
In the next section, the researcher explores the definition of resilience and past research related to resilience, including a review of past instruments. Early research in this field sought to measure an individual’s resilience by assessing risk and the presence of low levels of distress. In more recent times, resilience has been measured by assessing an individual’s capacity for successful adaptation. Regardless of which definition was utilised, a common finding in past research was that context and culture is an important influence on an individual’s resilience (Lee, Kwong, Cheung, Ungar, & Cheung, 2010; Notlemeyer & Bush, 2013; Ungar, 2008). Accordingly, since this study explores the relationship of school climate and resilience, a review of past research in this field follows. Research indicates that a school climate can have a
significant influence on a student’s resilience. Specifically, high expectations coupled with relevant support structures, relationships and community participation can all positively influence student resilience. This study therefore extends this research by including other school climate dimensions and their potential relationship with student resilience.
Since this study explores the inter-relationships between wellbeing, resilience and moral identity, a brief review of past research on resilience and wellbeing is included in Section 2.4. In short, research indicates that there is a strong correlation with student resilience and wellbeing (Agbakwuru & Stella, 2012; Klohnen, 1996; Mak, Ng, & Wong, 2011; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004; Werner & Smith, 1992; Yarcheski, Scholoveno, & Mahon, 1994; Zaleski, Levey-Thors, & Schiaffino, 1998). This study further extends past research, as the researcher explores this relationship.
This section concludes with a brief review of six historically significant resilience instruments; of these, the modified Resilience Scale RS-15 (Neill & Dias, 2001) was considered most appropriate for this study.
In the last section, the researcher explores the definition of moral identity and past research related to this term. Like the preceding sections, a review of past instruments is included. The origins of moral identity research are found in Piaget’s (1932) cognitive developmental theory. This theory proposed that moral identity is at the core of one’s being, and informed early research. From the 1960s, Kolhberg’s developmental theory dominated moral identity research, measuring moral identity by the degree to which moral judgements shape moral behaviour (Kohlberg, 1984). As research progressed, moral development was seen from a socio-cultural perspective (Cote & Levine, 2002; Kroger, 2007; Penuel & Wertsch, 1995; Sfard & Prusak, 2009; Tappan, 2006), recognising the significant influence of the social environment. Since the focus of this study is to explore the relationship between the school climate and students’ moral identity, a brief review of this research follows. In short, there is limited past research that explores this relationship specifically, and this study addresses this gap.
This section concludes with the researcher providing a brief overview of three historically-significant moral identity instruments; one, the Moral Identity Scale (MIS), developed by Aldridge, Ala’i and Fraser (2016), was considered as most appropriate for this study.
In conclusion, this literature review highlights existing gaps in past research and established the significance of the present study in bridging these gaps. In the following chapter the researcher presents the research methods used in this study.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 Introduction
Whereas the last chapter reviewed literature pertinent to the present study, in this chapter the researcher details the research methods used to investigate whether relationships exist between students’ perceptions of their school climate and their wellbeing, resilience and moral identity. The research methods used to collect and analyse the data are described under the following headings:
• Research objectives (Section 3.2);
• Development of the research model (Section 3.3); • Sample (Section 3.4);
• Instruments (Section 3.5); • Data collection (Section 3.6); • Data analysis (Section 3.7);
• Ethical considerations (Section 3.8); and • Chapter summary (Section 3.9).