Capturing and conceptualising young people's wellbeing using culturally sensitive tools
This poster summarises and describes work conducted to date by the Faculty of Education and Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education through an Institutional Links partnership to conduct a large-scale research project examining secondary
school children’s wellbeing and school engagement in Kazakhstan. The collaborative research process commenced in April 2015 and has funding until Jun 2017. Funding is provided by the Newton – Al-Farabi Partnership Programme and coordinated by the
JSC Science Fund and the British Council. Further details of the project are available here: http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/research/academicgroups/psychology/research/projects/kazwellbeing/
Research Questions
Aims of the research
To adapt Western scales of wellbeing to provide a culturally sensitive and appropriate instrument
that will assist in identifying and then improving students’ wellbeing in secondary schools




How well do existing models of educational wellbeing apply in the context of Kazakhstan?
How do schools define and contextualise the wellbeing of students throughout the academic
year, especially in vulnerable populations or those under extreme academic stress?
How does school engagement relate to overall wellbeing?
BACKGROUND
FINDINGS
QUALITATIVE DATA
KAZAKHSTAN:CONTEXT
YOUNG PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVES
Kazakhstan is a country in Central Asia. It is the world's largest landlocked country by land area and the ninth largest country in the
world. In 1936 it was known as the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, considered an integral part of the Soviet Union. Kazakhstan was
the last of the Soviet republics to declare independence following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The wide-reaching and ongoing social changes in life conditions and lifestyles have also transformed values. This period of economic
prosperity has contributed to the transition from a collectivist approach to individualism, which is complicated and controversial in
Kazakhstani traditional society.
THEORIES OF WELLBEING
Psychological Wellbeing: Hedonic Approaches (Feelings)
Psychological Wellbeing: Eudaimonic Approaches (Functioning)
Eudaimonia
(Activity expressing virtue):
Aristotle (384–322 BC)
Hedonism: Aristippus of Cyrene (c. 435-356 BC)
Subjective Wellbeing
‘Subjective wellbeing is a broad
category of phenomena that
includes people’s emotional
responses, domain satisfactions,
and global judgments of life
satisfaction.’
Psycho
logical
YOUNG PEOPLE’S CONCEPTUALISATION OF THEIR WELLBEING
PHASE 1
THE IMPORTANCE OF POSITIVE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP
PHASE 2 FOCUS GROUP DATA
WHAT IS WELLBEING & WHAT IS MISSING IN OUR MODEL
‘In general we discuss children’s problems at the meeting with
parents together with their tutors. For example, if there is a group
with a lot of problems, we conduct different trainings together with
the parents. … the parents should understand their children no
matter what grades they get. Children who feel their parents’ love try
to make good relationships with teachers and other people from the
social environment they meet in their lives. Children who do not feel
their parents’ support will have difficulties to find their place in any
environment’. (female, school psychologist)
‘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’. (group member 1, female, Russian)
PHASE 3
VARIATION IN WELLBEING
PHASE 3
VARIATION IN WELLBEING
Wellbeing as it varies by location, social group and interests of the
individual.
Wellbeing as it varies by location, social group and interests of the
individual.
‘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’. (male, rural Kazakh school)
‘We (students) organize visits and events in orphan houses, nursing
homes and shelters for abandoned seniors and war veterans. Before
we went to the orphan house, we spent a month preparing. We pooled
our resources to collect toys and money and then we gave it to the
orphans. Even some kids from grades 4 and 5 brought their toys to us
and asked us to pass them to the orphans. Some of the kids gave us
bracelets they had made’… (female, urban Russian school)
Diener et al, 1999
MEASURE DEVELOPMENT
CULTURALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH INTO WELLBEING
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
a presence of positive emotions and moods; an absence of negative emotions;
a satisfaction with life; and a sense of fulfilment and positive functioning
(Diener, 2000; Ryff & Keyes 1995)
a presence of relational wellbeing to assess wellbeing at the level of one’s
relationships as collectivist societies are likely to place importance upon relationships
and the group process (Cross, Gore, & Morris, 2003)


School Engagement Theory and Model
School engagement model for Phase 4: intra-individual model plus
the influence of teachers
recognizing that wellbeing is derived, maintained and challenged by the cultural
systems from which it originated (Izquierdo, 2005)

DATA COLLECTED
Phase 1 - May 2015: scoping visit to examine the performance of a UK wellbeing scale and to conduct first in
inquiry into how wellbeing in schools is conceived and managed
Phases 2 & 3 - November 2015 and May 2016: application of improved and contextualised well-being scale and
more detailed inquiry into the constructs of well-being in Kazakhstan
Phase 4 - October 2016: final application of the wellbeing scale to assess its year-on-year validity
Phase
1
2
3
Locations
(number of schools)
Focus groups
(2-8 people)
Interviews
Surveys
Almaty (3), Shymkent (2),
Astana (2), Pavlodar (2)
Σ=9
9 with students
2 with psychologists
9 with tutors/teachers
2 with psychologists
9 with VPs, teachers, tutors
Σ = 31
2198
Akmola (3), Atyrau (6), Kokshetau (1),
Kostanay (1), Oskemen (4), Shymkent
(6), Zhambyl (1)
Σ = 22
41 with students
10 with psychologists
18 with tutors/teachers
5 with psychologists
4 with school nurses
11 with VPs, tutors, social worker
Σ = 89
Akmola (2), Atyrau (6), Kokshetau (2), Oskemen (4) Shymkent (6), Zhambyl (1)
Σ = 22
5 with parents
37 with students
Akmola (1), Aktau (6), Almaty (4), Karaganda (3), Kyzylorda (4), Semey (4)
Σ = 22
19 with teachers
15 locations and 55 schools
112 focus groups
2403
1 with a principal
1767
Σ = 20
Total
Final overall wellbeing model for Phase 4: psychological wellbeing plus effects of
environs (place of residence and SES), physical health (perceptions of own health and
damaging behaviours) and social support (family, friends and community).
2385
(1119 Phase 2)
Σ = 42
4
Psychological wellbeing model for Phase 4: original three factors from Phase 1 of
relatedness/hedonism; competence/eudemonic function; negative affect plus additional
three factors of: personal beliefs; external validation; and low social intelligence.
70 interviews
Σ = 182
Note: Physical health is represented with perceptions of own health plus single items on hunger, over-use of electronic
devices and unsafe behaviours such as drugs, alcohol etc.
7634
Research team members:
Dr. Ros McLellan1 (Principal investigator), Prof. Carole Faucher2 (Principal investigator), Dr. Daniel Torrano2, (Co-principal Investigator)
Dr. Liz Winter1, Dr. Eva Brown Hajdukova1, Dr. Kairat Kurakbayev2 & Dr. Anna CohenMiller2.
1
Cambridge University, Faculty of Education. 2Nazarbayev University, Graduate School of Education.