3. Individual skills 4. Recognition/reward of involvement and interaction Reinforces Reinforces Personal success
59
conditions, and such notions are certainly relevant in the broader social context and to the university experience.
Figure 3.3. Conditions supporting social bonding as modified from the CTC model (adapted from developmental research programs, 1997, p. 37).
In common with the Bronfenbrenner Model, SDT represents the interactions of broad social influences, which is further strengthened by the provision of a five-step strategy known as the Communities That Care (CTC), as shown in Figure 3.4, specifying how to mobilize community action. The CTC strategy identifies adolescent risk and protective factors in an effort to profile school strengths, prioritise challenges and investigate strategies that work across multiple domains. Data analysis then guides interventions design and implementation to retain protective factors and reduce risk factors, while subsequent evaluation action enables program refinement, as required.
The individual/student
Bonding between teachers & students
Teachers provide
rewards/recogni tion whenever
success is demonstrated Student develops healthy beliefs, values & standards
Teachers provide the training to develop these life
skills
Healthy behaviours
Teachers create
opportunities for
young people to learn for life
60
Figure 3.4. CTC Framework a five-step approach for developing a community prevention
program and mobilizing the community (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992).
The Social Development Model has certainly assisted high risk and school communities to construct knowledge and assist improvements by identifying risk and protective factors across their broad social environments. The CTC strategy has also been used to address mainstream health issues of diet, smoking and exercise (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992). The utilisation of consistent conditions to increase protections and student bonding (Seattle Public Schools, 2004) confirms that ‘levels of school bonding can be reliably changed with a community wide approach and that these changes are associated with improvements in positive development as well as reductions in problems behaviours’ (Catalano et al., 2004, p. 259). The collective approach of the CTC strategy also builds community capacity providing opportunities to gather input and exchange expertise from across settings, share baseline information and resource knowledge with a view to planning, implementing and evaluating, all of which are essential activities in university settings. In addition to assisting school support improvements, a unique contribution of the SDT is the inclusive focus across school, home and community which enable schools and universities to work across sectors to modify conditions in an effort to enhance student connectedness and a range of student outcomes.
4. Determine how to address the issues – take stock of materials and resources
1. Assess Risks and Protective Factors (Environmental and individual domains) 5. Implement and evaluate program
3. Analyse results to understand issues
2. Investigate risk and prevention strategies across the domains of family, school, peers and community
INPUT
61
However disadvantages of SDT, in relation to the proposed project, include the following:
1. Most of the research is based on high-risk communities;
2. Given the age range of university students, the types of risk, protections experimentation and outcomes may be different;
3. Beliefs and values are more established for older and diverse student groups; 4. Variables of family, peers and community, while important, are outside the
influence of universities;
5. Creating inclusive conditions of opportunities, skills and recognition to assist bonding/attachments will be a challenge given the diversity of university student educational social backgrounds; and
6. Building capacity/investment amongst supporters requires an essential review component which is not prominent in the model.
3.1.4 Gatehouse Project
Also underpinned by bonding theory, which is represented in the Social Development Theory (SDT), the well-known Australian Gatehouse Project indicates that caring supportive relationships ‘underpin wellbeing throughout life’ (Patton et al., 2003, p.4). This view is also supported by research where a sense of connectedness, caring relationships and student participation are associated with a wide range of health outcomes (McNeeley et al., 2002; Resnick et al., 1997). In contrast to the community wide approach of the CTC strategy, the Gatehouse Project (GHP) utilised a whole-school approach to support student connectedness and improve student learning and well-being outcomes (Patton et al., 2003) in an educational community which is of immediate interest for the current investigation.
The initial Gatehouse Project involved data collection from control and experimental schools, which included curriculum content and whole school strategies for intervention schools, in order to enhance student connectedness and outcomes. The GHP provided schools with student and school profile information, a conceptual framework, operational plan and implementation process enabling schools to establish working teams, identify priorities for action and implement preventative programs (Patton et al., 2003) where students and outcomes are supported across the educational community. The availability of a framework previously utilised in an Australian setting, to assist educational communities to enhance
62
student learning and well-being outcomes, certainly represents an enticing and viable platform to mainstream inclusive support and enhance outcomes success across formal and informal campus settings.
A significant difference between initial American research and the GHP research, which is related to the Australian context, is the deliberate decision by Gatehouseresearchers to avoid a ‘non- pathologising or problematising’ focus (Glover, Burns, Butler & Patton, 1998,p.4) to guide school improvements. In contrast, risk and protection profiles are used to share knowledge and develop whole-of-school interventions inclusive of curriculum, school environments and community. Furthermore, conditions of opportunities, skills and recognition, as presented in the Social Development Theory (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992), function to strengthen bonding/connectedness and outcomes, as measured in school completion and well-being outcomes, not just for at-risk students but for all students. Mainstreaming support for all students, across curriculum, campus settings and community is a significant and attractive element for universities needing to assist and realise success for exceedingly diverse student populations.
The GHP conceptual framework as shown in Figure 3.5 presents connectedness as the central concept that underpins and influences student wellbeing. The educational setting includes both social and learning contexts which house the skills and opportunities that enhance connectedness. The three priority areas of security, communication and positive regard (Glover et al., 2002), which are identified as fundamental ways to improve connectedness, also offer three platforms for encouraging the investigation of a broad range of strategies to deal with student issues and achieve supportive school environments. The notion of priority areas also offer a way forward for whole school collaboration on the core business of supporting student outcomes across a variety of social and learning environments.
63
Figure 3.5. Conceptual framework of the Gatehouse project (amended from Butler, Godfrey, Glover, Bond & Patton, 1999, p. 6; Glover et al., 2002, p.10).
The Gatehouse approach also offers a multilevel operational plan to raise awareness about the presence of risk and protection across the broader social and learning environments of the school. It specifically focuses on the curriculum, the whole school environment, and links with the community. In combination, the conceptual framework and operational plan position the campus to be in a state of readiness to take the necessary action to bring about whole-of- campus change which supports student connectedness and outcomes.
Furthermore, the exchange of teaching and learning school strategies, and a shared approach to prioritizing efforts and the use of resources to realise positive student development, also significantly enhances the capacity of the school community or university to take action. The
Improved Learning Outcomes Emotional Wellbeing OUTCOMES Focus 1 Security Safety to be myself, express point of view, participate in activities without fear of exclusion Focus 3 Positive Regard Perceptions of being able to participate in activities, be valued, recognised and acknowledged for their contribution
SOCIAL AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS