— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Min search length: 3 characters / Max search length: 84 characters

Lost password?
sp_TopicIcon
Social Engineering to Counteract Natural Peer Selection?
RSS
Avatar
34 Posts
(Offline)
1
February 1, 2018 - 11:45 am

Juvonen lays out a convincing argument for the influence of peer relationships/social bonds on an individual’s behavior, particularly during adolescence (Juvonen, p. 666). Previous research in youth development has shown that social norms exert an enormous influence on adolescents’ participation in school, risk-taking behaviors (Gardner & Steinberg, 2005). Peer influence and social bonds affect an individual’s behavior during adolescence more so than for any other age group (Rodkin et al, 2013). In adolescents, the interaction between social relationships and school engagement may be amplified, although the relationship is far more complex than in elementary school students.

The relationship between social relationships and school success/achievement outcomes appear to be tangentially related– I believe that school engagement and academic success are two entirely separate dimensions. One may facilitate the other, but there is no one-to-one relationship. High achievers are not necessarily socially successful– thus the quality of social relationships may not be much of a predictor of achievement in adolescents.

In light of this ambiguous relationship between social bonds and school engagement during adolescence, most strategies that try to facilitate positive social relationships seem a bit like “social engineering”. An example of a possible strategy would be to hold weekly “advisory” group meetings led by the teacher or co-teacher (about a half-hour each). The “advisory” groups are similar to base groups, with the addition of the teacher who acts as a mentor. These groups can help form positive social relationships as well as stronger teacher-student supports. Within these groups, students will have a chance to interact with peers that may be outside of their normal circle while the mentor/facilitator can serve to build a supportive atmosphere.

Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study. Developmental psychology, 41(4), 625.

Rodkin, P. C., Ryan, A. M., Jamison, R., & Wilson, T. (2013). Social goals, social behavior, and social status in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49(6), 1139.

Avatar
51 Posts
(Offline)
2
February 3, 2018 - 3:17 pm

Hi Marissa, I enjoyed your thoughts! I see your point about there not necessarily being a “one-to-one” relationship between achievement and social stability. Rather than thinking of that connection as “tangential” though, I am inclined to think that there must be other variables complicating the correlation. Based on experience, I can’t generalize and say that socially adjusted students succeed (or vice versa), but I can confidently say that social politics is integral to students’ attitudes/perceptions of school. As we read in Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall (2014), most major motivational theories “emphasize reciprocal determinism or the interplay among the person, behavior, and the environment” (p. 91). I have to believe that relationships are critical to motivation and achievement, even if we don’t fully understand how yet.

Forum Timezone: America/Detroit
All RSS Show Stats

Top Posters:

galvins1: 51

richkat3: 50

albertsk: 43

moudgal1: 43

schellma: 41

liraamal: 39

Emilia: 35

zhumengd: 34

Forum Stats:

Groups: 6

Forums: 19

Topics: 97

Posts: 339

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 77

Moderators: 0

Admins: 5

Most Users Ever Online: 58

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)