Page 115 - Ana Kozina and Nora Wiium, eds. ▪︎ Positive Youth Development in Contexts. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2021. Digital Library, Dissertationes (Scientific Monographs), 42.
P. 115
venting bullying: peer culture as the crucial developmental context in adolescence
key context for the social and emotional learning of all students. It holds
the potential to considerably shape the social behaviour of adolescents
and, considering their developmental needs, supports behaviours that ena-
ble them to achieve their social goals in ways that do not involve bullying.
Creating inclusive classroom contexts seems especially important in the
Slovenian school system because students usually spend the entire period
of elementary school (i.e. 9 years of schooling) in the same classroom envi-
ronment. Potentially unfavourable social dynamics in the class peer group
can therefore represent a very stable adverse developmental context.
The classroom as a developmental context in Slovenia’s school
system
The transition to adolescence is a developmental period characterised by
declines in students’ academic engagement (e.g. Gutman & Midgley, 2000;
Pintrich & Schunk 2002) and in changes in their social functioning (Yeager
et al., 2015). Many previous studies (see Roeser et al., 2000, for a compre-
hensive review) investigated the contextual factors that can contribute to
changes in the academic and social behaviour of students as they transition
to adolescence. These changes have been partly attributed to the transition
to a new educational level (e.g. Eccles et al., 1993; Wentzel, 2009). Eccles et
al. (1993) explained students’ school adjustment using the term stage–envi-
ronment fit. This concept derives from the model of person–environment
fit theory in that it proposes that individuals do best in settings in which
they fit well with the norms and aggregate characteristics of students and
do less well in settings in which they are an outlier. It is also consistent with
the relational developmental system theory (Overton, 2015), which empha-
sises the interplay of individual characteristics and contexts while arguing
that students’ behaviour and developmental outcomes should be studied
as a product of the two-way interaction between the individual and their
environment.
Given that contemporary conceptualisations of bullying strongly em-
phasise that the dynamic interplay of the characteristics of both the con-
text and individual students is crucial for understanding the dynamics of
bullying, studies investigating bullying within the PYD framework are sur-
prisingly scarce. A basic assumption of the PYD model is that students will
develop positively when their strengths are aligned with the resources in
their social contexts (Lerner, 2017) and that this positive development will
be reflected in more positive outcomes (e.g. intervening as a bystander in
115
key context for the social and emotional learning of all students. It holds
the potential to considerably shape the social behaviour of adolescents
and, considering their developmental needs, supports behaviours that ena-
ble them to achieve their social goals in ways that do not involve bullying.
Creating inclusive classroom contexts seems especially important in the
Slovenian school system because students usually spend the entire period
of elementary school (i.e. 9 years of schooling) in the same classroom envi-
ronment. Potentially unfavourable social dynamics in the class peer group
can therefore represent a very stable adverse developmental context.
The classroom as a developmental context in Slovenia’s school
system
The transition to adolescence is a developmental period characterised by
declines in students’ academic engagement (e.g. Gutman & Midgley, 2000;
Pintrich & Schunk 2002) and in changes in their social functioning (Yeager
et al., 2015). Many previous studies (see Roeser et al., 2000, for a compre-
hensive review) investigated the contextual factors that can contribute to
changes in the academic and social behaviour of students as they transition
to adolescence. These changes have been partly attributed to the transition
to a new educational level (e.g. Eccles et al., 1993; Wentzel, 2009). Eccles et
al. (1993) explained students’ school adjustment using the term stage–envi-
ronment fit. This concept derives from the model of person–environment
fit theory in that it proposes that individuals do best in settings in which
they fit well with the norms and aggregate characteristics of students and
do less well in settings in which they are an outlier. It is also consistent with
the relational developmental system theory (Overton, 2015), which empha-
sises the interplay of individual characteristics and contexts while arguing
that students’ behaviour and developmental outcomes should be studied
as a product of the two-way interaction between the individual and their
environment.
Given that contemporary conceptualisations of bullying strongly em-
phasise that the dynamic interplay of the characteristics of both the con-
text and individual students is crucial for understanding the dynamics of
bullying, studies investigating bullying within the PYD framework are sur-
prisingly scarce. A basic assumption of the PYD model is that students will
develop positively when their strengths are aligned with the resources in
their social contexts (Lerner, 2017) and that this positive development will
be reflected in more positive outcomes (e.g. intervening as a bystander in
115
