An urgent call for change: Flow, motivation and well-being in French School students

Fabien Fenouillet*, Charles Martin-Krumm**, Jean Heutte*** & Maud Besançon*, 03 July 2014 *CHArt (EA 4004) Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense ; ** CREAD (EA 3875) Rennes 2 ; ***CIREL (EA 4354) Lille1

Why study well-being at school ? •  UNICEF report of 2007 on subjective well-being states that

France is in third last position in the ranking

•  This research's main objective is to study well-being in French schools.

•  A further objective is to study the relationship between well-being and motivation as well as school evaluation

Sample

•  Different  groups  from  several  years  of  studies  •  1.662  students  (52%  girls  and  48%  boys)  •  Mage  =  14.73  (SD  =  2.6;  Min  =  8;  Max  =  21)  •  Schools  from  several  French  ciIes  and  regions:  Paris,  Lille,  

Bordeaux,  Normandie,  Dordogne.  

CM2 6ème 3ème 2nde 1ère Terminal 5th grade US (Y6 UK)

6th grade US (Y7 UK)

9th grade US (Y10 UK)

10th grade US (Y11 UK)

11th grade US Y12 (UK)

12th grade US (Y13 UK)

201 238 471 228 142 382

Wellbeing

From    Randolph,  Kangas  &  Ruokamo  (2009)  

Wellbeing  scales:  life  saIsfacIon  •  SaIsfacIon  With  Life  Scale  (SWLS  -­‐  Diener  &  al.,  1985;  Blais  &  

al.,  1989):  1  dimension  (5  items)  •  Students    Life  SaIsfacIon  Scale  (SLSS  -­‐  Huebner,  1991):  1  

dimension  (7  items)  •  Life  SaIsfacIon    Scale  for    Children  (LSSFC  -­‐  Huebner,  1994;  

Fenouillet  &  al.,  in  press):  4  dimensions  (40  items)  ;  Self,    School,  Living  Environment  ,  Friends,  Family.  

•  The    Children’s    Overall    SaIsfacIon    with    Schooling    Scale    (COSSS;    Randolph    &    al.,  2010):  1  dimension  (6  items)    

Wellbeing  scales:  affects  •  Scale  of  PosiIve  and  NegaIve  Experience  (SPANE  –  Diener  &  al.,  2010):  2  dimensions  (12  items)  ;    posiIve  –negaIve  

•  Center  for  Epidemiologic  Studies  Depression  Scale  (CES-­‐D  –  Radloff,  1977;  Moullec  &  al.,  2010):  4  dimensions  (20  items);  Depressed  affect,  PosiIve  affect,  SomaIc  complaints,  Disturbed  interpersonal  relaIonships  

MoIvaIon  •  EduflowScale  (Heuce  &  al.,  under  soumission):  4  dimensions  (12  items);  cogniIve  absorpIon,  Ime  transformaIon,  loss  of  self-­‐consciousness,  well-­‐being  (D4)  

•  Academic  Interest  (Fenouillet  &  al.,  under  soumission):  3  dimensions    (15  items);  french,  mathemaIcs,  school.  

•  Academic  self-­‐efficacy  (Masson  &  al.,  2013):  3  dimensions  (11  items);  french,  mathemaIcs,  school.  

DescripIve  StaIsIcs   N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

LSSFC   family 1019 1.00 7.00 5.36 1.34 school 1019 1.00 7.00 3.92 1.23

friends 1019 1.00 7.00 6.17 .93

living 1018 1.00 7.00 4.83 1.62

self 1018 1.00 7.00 5.06 1.11

Global 1019 1.00 7.00 5.07 .76

CESD Global 1097 1.00 4.00 1.97 .56 SC 1097 1.00 4.00 2.06 .61

PA 1097 1.00 4.00 2.71 .53

DA 1096 1.00 4.00 1.88 .74

IP 1092 1.00 4.00 1.70 .78

SWLS 1657 1.00 7.00 4.87 1.32 COSSS 438 1.00 5.00 3.10 .93 SLSS 273 2.00 6.00 3.99 .60

SPANE   Positif 435 1.00 5.00 3.63 .80 Négatif 432 1.00 5.00 2.51 .86

F[5,  1651]=27.87,  p<.001,  η2=.06  

SWLS  

F[2,  435]=2.34,  p<.001,  η2=.04  

COSSS    

F[1,  271]=2.50,  ns  

SLSS  

F[2,  432]=1.60,  ns   F[2,  432]=9.78,  p<.001,  η2=.04  

PosiIve   NegaIve  SPANE    

F[4,  1287]=26.79,  p<.001,  η2=.07  

Interest  

F[5,  1652]=48.51,  p<.001,  η2=.13  

Flow  

F[5,  1453]=25.52,  p<.001,  η2=.07  

SEP  

Latent  profiles  Analysis  (LPA)  CESD,  eduflow,  interest,  self  efficacy,  SWLS  and  LSSFC  

n=907   2   3   4   5   6  

AIC   40711   40150   39614   39196   39011  

BIC   40919   40429   39965   39619   39507  

Sample  Size  Adjusted  BIC   40782   40245   39733   39340   39180  

Entropy   .81   .82   .82   .84   .85  

Vuong  Lo,  Mendell,  Rubin  Test   p<.001   p<.10   p<.05   p<.05   ns  

Lo-­‐Mendell-­‐Rubin  adjusted  LRT   p<.001   p<.10   p<.05   p<.05   ns  

bootstrapped  parametric  likelihood  raFo  test  

p<.001   p<.001   p<.001   p<.001   p<.001  

Profile  1:  Depressive  •  N=81  (9%)  •  CDESD  strongest  and  weakest  SWLS  •  Scores  LSSFC  (family,  friends,  living,  self)  is  the  lowest  of  all  profiles  •  School  Flow  lowest  profile  comparable  to  profile  2  •  academic  interest  Higher  than  that  of  the  profile  2,  but  less  than  

that  of  the  other  profile  •  self  efficacy  in  the  mean      Depressive  students  with  general  existenIal  difficulIes  which  have  an  impact  on  school  percepIon  

Profile  2:  DemoIvated    •  N=160  (18%)  •  CDESD,  SWLS  and  LSSFC  for  family,  friends,  self  equal  to  profiles  

3  and  4  •  Self-­‐efficacy,  school  interest,  school  LSSFC    are  lowest  profiles  

Students  demoIvated  and  suffering  in  the  school  system.    Outside  school,  these  students  are  fairly  happy  in  their  lives.  

Profile  3:  Only  demoIvated  in  mathemaIcs  

•  N=209  (23%)  •  CDESD,  SWLS,  LSSFC,  EduFlow,  school  interest  in  the  mean  •  in  french  both  strong  self-­‐efficacy  and  strong  interest    •  in  mathemaIcs  both  low  self-­‐efficacy  and  low  interest    

Student  who  enjoys  school  for  literature  but  on  the  other  hand  hates  math  

Profile  4:  Only  demoIvated  in  french  

•  N=279  (31%)  •  CDESD,  SWLS,  LSSFC,  EduFlow,  school  interest  in  the  mean  •  in  mathemaIcs  both  strong  self-­‐efficacy  and  strong  interest    •  in  french  both  low  self-­‐efficacy  and  low  interest    

Student  who  enjoys  school  for  math  but  on  the  other  hand  hates  french  

Profile  5:  I  am  ok  

•  N=178  (20%)  •  All  scores  are  top  in  comparison  with  all  other  scales  

Student  who  feels  good  in  school  and  outside  and  is  moIvated  by  all  school  subjects.  

Profiles M SD n 1-depressive 1.67 1.17 24 2 -demotivated 1.35 0.95 40 3-only demotivated in mathematics 2.11 1.10 61 4-only demotivated in french 2.14 1.15 87 5-I am ok 2.68 1.12 28 Total 2.02 1.16 240

RelaIonship  between  profiles  and  learning  outcomes  

RelaIonship  between  profiles  and  learning  outcomes  

•  The  assessments  focus  on  results  in  naIonal  examinaIons  (Brevet  and  Baccalauréat):  0  (refused)  to  4  (excellent  average  grade)  

•  (Profile1=  Profile2)<(Profile3=  Profile4)<  Profile5  

•  27%<54%<20%  

Conclusion  •  1/3  of  students  (27%)  of  our  sample  are  suffering  in  the  French  school  system  

•  For  ½  of  the  students  (54%)  moIvaIon  for  some  subjects  but  lack  of  moIvaIon  for  others.  

•  Less  than  a  quarter  of  students  (20%)  feel  perfectly  well  in  school,  are  moIvated  in  all  subjects  and  succeed.  

General  Conclusion  •  A  drasIc  reducIon  in  well-­‐being  and  moIvaIon  seems  to  happen  in  middle  school.  We  should  further  examine  the  roots  of  this  phenomenon  

•  Analysis  profiles  indicate  that  only  20%  of  students  feel  posiIve  in  the  French  school  system,  while  27%  are  suffering.  

Thank  you!  

Fabien Fenouillet*, Charles Martin-Krumm**, Jean Heutte*** & Maud Besançon*

*CHArt (EA 4004) Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense ; ** CREAD (EA 3875) Rennes 2 ; ***CIREL (EA 4354) Lille1