The growing interest in students' connectedness to school as a
key influence on educational outcomes coincides with the emergence of
middle years of schooling (Years 5-9) as an educational priority across
Australia (for example, Cole, Mahar & Vindurampulle, 2006). The
years spanning early adolescence (ages 10-15) are generally understood
to represent a critical stage of adolescent development (Barratt, 1998).
The rapid physical, cognitive and social changes, and often new and
increased expectations at school (Eccles & Midgley, 1990) are
demands that have the potential for overloading the adjustment ability
of the young person (Feldman, Rubenstein & Rubin, 1988). Australian
research has indicated that it is during these middle years of schooling
that the highest incidence of disengagement, boredom, alienation,
disruptive behaviour and disenchantment occur (Cumming & Cormack,
1996; Hill & Rowe, 1998). Understanding the factors relating to
school connectedness in the middle years may help education leaders and
school practitioners to design more effective school environments. Two
factors associated with adaptation in early adolescence, coping and
emotional wellbeing, are investigated here to identify the way in which
they may be related to school connectedness.
In order to navigate through life successfully and to deal
adequately with stress, individuals must learn to deal effectively with
problems. Problem-solving, an important coping skill, is essential as
effective problem-solving has been shown to moderate the effects of
stress (Printz, Shermis & Webb, 1999). While an individual's
ability to deal with problems is influenced largely by individual
characteristics such as life experience and personality, much can be
done to maximise coping abilities.
Coping is typically referred to as the cognitive and affective
responses used by an individual to deal with problems encountered in
everyday life. More formally, coping is defined as 'the ongoing
cognitive and behavioural efforts to manage specific external and/or
internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources
of the person' (Lazarus, 1993, p. 237). Individuals generally refer
to a certain repertoire of coping strategies when faced with stressful
events. The choice of these strategies can be influenced by the
situational context of the stressor.
Adolescents are likely to face a range of acute and chronic
stressors as well as daily hassles in their lives, such as those
relating to family, school and peers. While it is not possible to
eradicate these stressors, their severity can be reduced. Where a
stressful situation is amenable to change, adolescents appear more
likely to use problem-solving strategies. In contrast, emotion-related
strategies, such as worry or self-blame, are more likely to be used in
situations appraised as unchangeable (Folkman & Lazarus,
1980).compas, Malcarne and Fondacaro (1988) asserted that adolescents
assess academic stressors as more controllable. Adolescents are more
likely to employ problem-focused strategies for those stressors, whereas
interpersonal stressors are viewed as less controllable and
emotion-focused strategies tend to be employed as a response.
It is clear that there are many ways to cope with stressors and
that specific coping strategies are neither inherently good nor bad
because different situations call for different responses. But it is
possible to differentiate coping in terms of effectiveness and to
delineate coping into productive or non-productive strategies
(Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993a). The non-productive coping label has
originated from research that linked the use of strategies such as
withdrawal and avoidance to mental health problems (Ebata & Moos,
1991; Sandler et al., 1997). Both local and international studies have
shown that the use of non-productive strategies such as self-blame,
worry, keeping to self and wishful thinking have been linked with a
number of adverse outcomes in young people including depression
(Cunningham & Walker, 1999; Murberg & Bru, 2005; Seiffge-Krenke
& Klessmger, 2000). In comparison, productive coping strategies such
as solving the problem, working hard and relaxing have been associated
with better health outcomes (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1999).
Gender differences in coping have been consistently reported in the
literature with girls more likely to make use of non-productive coping
strategies, namely worry, wishful thinking and self-blame, while boys
make a greater effort to ignore problems and keep things to themselves
(Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993b; Wilson, Pritchard & Revalee, 2005).
What exactly constitutes effective coping is difficult to determine.
However, research in the field of coping has identified particular
characteristics that increase the likelihood of individuals' use of
effective coping strategies. These characteristics include temperament,
optimism, perceived personal control, positive familial factors,
positive relationships with teachers, flexibility and the availability
of social support (Frydenberg & Lewis, 2002; Luthar & Zigler,
1991; Zimmer-Gembeck & Locke, 2007).
To deal adaptively with the physical, intellectual and social
changes required in early adolescence, a positive state of emotional
wellbeing is deemed necessary. Coping with social and situational causes
of stress impacts specifically on an individual's subjective
wellbeing and self-efficacy, and more broadly affects relationships,
aspirations and academic performance (Greenglass, 2002).
In the past, the discussion of wellbeing has often been framed
within a deficit model (Fraillon, 2004). There is a growing trend to
reframe notions of wellbeing to incorporate more positive states of
being. Within this paradigm, the focus tends to be on general indicators
of wellbeing such as health, resilience, self-concept, self-efficacy and
achievement. Positive indicators of emotional wellbeing may include
being able to express a point of view, having friends to talk to who can
be trusted, being valued by others, and feeling safe from harm.
Consistent with the coping literature, age and gender differences
have also been reported in wellbeing research. In a sample of British
adolescents, Bergmann and Scott (2001) identified a marked gender
difference in wellbeing: girls reported lower self-esteem, higher
negative self-efficacy and unhappiness, and more frequent experiences of
worry compared with boys. Additionally, these gender differences have
been reflected both in the use of avoidant coping strategies such as
wishful thinking or immersing oneself in other preoccupations, and in
physical and psychological health symptoms, such as anger, depression
and negative mood (Wilson et al., 2005).
A systematic and extensive review of the literature on child and
adolescent wellbeing was conducted by Pollard and Lee (2003) from which
they concluded that there was a lack of consistency of definitions of
wellbeing in the literature and in the range of measures used. Pollard
and Lee identified the following dimensions as sufficient to represent
the wellbeing construct: physical, economic, psychological, cognitive
and social. Notwithstanding the multidimensionality of this perspective,
for the purposes of this study, wellbeing is defined by the presence of
positive affect as opposed to the absence of distress.
As with the concept of wellbeing, school connectedness has been
studied under various names with a variety of definitions (Blum &
Libbey, 2004). Examples of terms used include 'school
belonging' (Osterman, 2000; Willms, 2003), 'student
engagement' (Taylor & Nelms, 2006), 'school bonding'
(Catalano et al., 2004), and 'teacher support' (Klem &
Connell, 2004; Reddy, Rhodes & Mulhall, 2003). Libbey (2004)
reviewed studies that are designed to measure students'
relationships to their schools. She found the definitions of the
construct appeared to vary based on the indicators used, which included
students' attitude and motivation toward school and learning, the
degree to which students felt they were liked by others at school, and
students' commitment, involvement and belief in school rules. For
the purpose of this study, school connectedness was defined as
students' perceptions of being accepted by the school and
identifying themselves as being part of the school.
Previous studies have shown strong relationships between school
connectedness and students' academic and psychological outcomes
(see Bond et al., 2007; McGraw et al., 2008; McNeely & Falci, 2004;
Nutbeam et al., 1993; Resnick et al., 1997; Shochet et al., 2006).
School connectedness has been found to be related to low levels of
health-compromising behaviour, such as substance abuse (Carter et al.,
2007). One Australian study examined the associations between adolescent
students' social relationships, mental health, substance use,
school engagement, and school achievement. A total of 2678 Year 8
students participated in the study, which found that having both good
school connectedness and peer relationships in Year 8 were associated
with the most positive outcomes two to four years later. Students who
only had good peer relationships but poor school connectedness were at a
greater risk of anxiety or depressive symptoms and substance abuse (Bond
et al., 2007). In a one-year longitudinal Australian study of around
2000 early adolescent students, poor school connectedness was found to
be a predictor of future mental health problems (Shochet et al., 2006).
The findings from these studies highlight the importance of school
connectedness for students' psychological wellbeing and academic
achievement while they are at school and beyond.
The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in the USA (90
118 subjects) found an individual student's sense of school
belonging was inversely related to depression, social rejection and
school problems. When the data were aggregated at school level,
belonging was positively related to greater reports of social rejection
and school problems, and to higher-grade point averages. The researchers
suggested that the results might imply that schools where most students
felt that they belong perform better academically. At the same time,
those students who did not find themselves belonging to the school felt
a greater sense of rejection and therefore reported more school problems
An understanding of the relationships between school connectedness
and students' coping behaviour may help to devise better school
interventions to improve students' psychological wellbeing.
Student engagement is one of the terms that has been used
interchangeably with school connectedness. The Longitudinal Surveys of
Australian Youth Research (Fullarton, 2002) defined engagement as
students' participation in extracurricular activities. This
definition is similar to Jenkins's (1997) reference to school
bonding. Regardless of differences in terminology, some clear findings
have been established. As Resnick and colleagues (1997) demonstrated in
their study of 12 118 adolescents from 80 high schools in the USA,
school and parent connectedness are key factors in resiliency.
Interrelationships between coping,wellbeing and school
The authors have not found studies that examine the
interrelationships between coping, wellbeing and school connectedness.
Studies generally indicate positive bivariate relationships between
productive coping strategies and a sense of wellbeing (for example,
Frydenberg & Lewis, 2009), wellbeing and school connectedness (for
example, Carter et al., 2007), and positive coping and school
connectedness, in the form of positive relationships with teachers (for
example, Zimmer-Gembeck & Locke, 2007). An examination of these
relationships leads to speculation that they are interrelated.
Within the field of wellbeing research, there have been a number of
studies (see Braun-Lewensohn et al., 2009; Heubeck & Neill, 1999)
that investigated facets of wellbeing using the Adolescent Coping Scale
(Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993a). There is also support for the use of
coping as a correlate of wellbeing (Frydenberg & Lewis, 2009).
Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that students who report more
frequent productive coping behaviour appear to have a better sense of
emotional wellbeing (Frydenberg & Lewis, 2009). In a study of coping
and self-efficacy, Jenkin (1997) found that the best predictors for
distinguishing between high and low self-efficacy were three coping
strategies. These were focusing on the positive, solving the problem and
working hard to achieve.
In Australia, Patton and colleagues (1997) found that a low level
of emotional wellbeing in adolescence was a risk factor for major
depression, substance abuse and self-harm behaviour. Another study of
wellbeing compared young people aged 12-18 years characterised by
behavioural, psychological and physical problems with a group of healthy
adolescents (Ebata & Moos, 1991). The study measured use of both
active and passive coping styles, and used perceived happiness and
self-worth as measures of wellbeing. Results demonstrated a link between
greater use of active coping (positive appraisal, guidance or support or
both, problem-solving) and higher levels of wellbeing.
Positive affect can be helpful in participating in the activities
that are important in the classroom (Schutz et al., 2006). The
'broader mindset' with a positive mood state encourages
exploration, extension of self and the sharing of information. Resnick
and colleagues (1997) interviewed young people for emotional distress,
suicidal thoughts and behaviour, violence, use of substances
(cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana) and two types of sexual behaviour (age
of sexual debut and pregnancy history). They found that 18.4 per cent of
9th to 12th graders experienced significant distress. Thus, it can be
expected that--while most young people go through their school years
with a healthy positive affect--there are many for whom dealing with
their emotional wellbeing is imperative.
Other studies have investigated the relationships between
wellbeing, coping and academic achievement (Noto, 1995; Parsons,
Frydenberg & Poole, 1996; Skinner & Wellborn, 1997). Research
findings generally indicated positive relationships between academic
achievement and coping. In particular, Parsons, Frydenberg and Poole
(1996) identified that academically capable students are less likely to
declare that they do not have the strategies to cope; such students use
more active coping, particularly social support. While it may be deduced
from these findings that academically high-achieving students experience
greater wellbeing, it appears that it is the perception of academic
ability as opposed to actual achievement that is more greatly related to
adolescent life satisfaction and subsequent well being (Suldo, Riley
& Shaffer, 2006).
It has been recognised that students who feel connected to their
school report fewer depressive symptoms (Shochet et al., 2006). This
leads to an assumption about the likelihood of a positive relationship
between school connectedness and wellbeing. Additionally, there are
indications that adolescents are less likely to report a sense of
wellbeing when they report use of negative coping strategies (Frydenberg
& Lewis, 2002; 2009). As stated earlier, Australian research has
indicated that during the first years of secondary school (middle years)
adolescents face a higher incidence of disengagement, alienation,
disruptive behaviour, disenchantment and boredom (Cumming & Cormack,
1996; Strategic Initiatives Directorate, 2005) demonstrating the
importance of focusing on this adolescent population as these factors
are likely to have a substantial impact on wellbeing.
In summary, the literature that is available to date on wellbeing,
coping and school connectedness appears to indicate that the
relationship between each of these constructs could provide insights
that may facilitate healthy adaptation. The aim of this study is to
examine the contribution of productive and non-productive coping
behaviour to both emotional wellbeing and school connectedness. If there
is some clarity about how these constructs interrelate, and knowing that
coping skills can be developed, this may provide information about
teaching coping skills in ways that specifically target emotional
wellbeing and school connectedness. It is expected that the major impact
on emotional wellbeing will be through greater use of productive coping
and lesser use of non-productive coping. Since school connectedness is
likely to be influenced by a range of factors (for example, school
climate, educational progress, and peer and teacher relationships),
increasing productive coping and thus emotional wellbeing is not in
itself likely to be sufficient but could be beneficial. The findings
from the study could identify potentially useful approaches to maximise
adolescent wellbeing in the school context and hence student
connectedness through the development of coping skills (Hayes &
Figure 1 shows the hypothesised model. Coping behaviour is
hypothesised to be directly associated with both emotional wellbeing and
school connectedness; productive coping will have positive associations
and non-productive coping will have negative associations. This coping
behaviour is also anticipated to have an indirect influence on school
connectedness mediated by emotional wellbeing. Productive and
non-productive coping types of behaviour are assumed to be uncorrelated.
Data was collected from 536 students (241 boys and 295 girls) in
nine Melbourne metropolitan Catholic schools. Participants were aged
between 12 and 14 years, and were all enrolled in Year 8 English
classes. Of this sample, 93.6 per cent of participants were born in
Australia. Most (75 per cent) indicated that they spoke English at home,
22 per cent spoke English and another language, while 3 per cent spoke a
language other than English at home.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Procedure and measures
As part of a larger longitudinal study, self-report data on school
connectedness, emotional wellbeing and coping styles were collected in
the students' regular school setting. Parental consent was obtained
for all students to participate.
School connectedness School connectedness was measured by a set of
five items that focused on students' perception of their
connections with the school (Table 1). The items were measured on a
five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =
neither disagree nor agree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The items
were adapted from the Pickett and Fraser's (2002) What is Happening
in This Class? questionnaire, the Beyondblue (2003) student survey, and
the Drug Education Evaluation and Monitoring (DEEM) Project survey
(Insight SRC, 2005) (Cronbach's alpha coefficient = .86).
Coping styles Coping style was assessed using the Adolescent Coping
Scale-Short Form (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993a), in which participants
were asked to indicate what they generally do and feel when they
experience a stressful event. The short form of the Adolescent Coping
Scale consists of 18 items constituting three styles of coping:
productive (for example, 'Work at solving the problem to the best
of my ability'), reference to others (for example, 'Talk to
other people about my concern to help me sort it out'), and
non-productive (for example, 'Worry about what will happen to
me'). Each item is answered on a five-point Likert scale, ranging
from 'I never do this' to 'I do this a lot'. For
this study, the productive and non-productive coping styles were used
(Table 1). Given the possibility of shared variance across the reference
to others' coping styles and the school connectedness scales,
inclusion of this coping scale would not contribute to clear
understanding of the interaction between coping and connectedness. The
productive coping scale comprised six items (Cronbach's alpha
coefficient = .71) and the non-productive coping scale comprised seven
items (Cronbach's alpha coefficient = .76).
Emotional wellbeing The emotional wellbeing index comprised six
items reflecting an optimistic outlook, an interest in life, feeling
relaxed, loved and needed, happiness, and self-worth. Five of the items
were adapted from the Mental Health Inventory (Vert & Ware, 1983)
while one item was from Rosenberg's (1979) Self-Esteem Scale. Items
were measured on a six-point Likert scale (1 = none of the time, 2 = a
little of the time, 3 = some of the time, 4 = a good bit of the time, 5
= most of the time and 6 = all of the time). The items were summed to
generate a composite measure indicating positive affect or life
satisfaction (Cronbach's alpha coefficient = .79).
Table 1 includes items contributing to all four scales together
with labels to facilitate understanding of Figure 2.
The scales were checked for multivariate normality, analysed for
gender differences and entered into a path analysis.
The items contributing to each of the school connectedness,
emotional wellbeing, and coping scales were added to obtain a total
score. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to
examine gender differences on the four scales; productive coping,
non-productive coping, emotional wellbeing, and school connectedness.
There was a multivariate difference according to gender F(1,531) =
5.90,p < .001, n2 = .04. From the univariate tests it was evident
that this difference was attributable primarily to school connectedness.
On the school connectedness measure, females (M = 20.60, SD = 2.92)
scored higher than males (M = 19. 41, SD = 3.26), F(1,534) = 19.96,p
< .001, partial n2 = .04. The boys and girls did not differ
significantly in their non-productive coping, F(1,534) = .09, p = .76;
productive coping, F(1,534) = 1.57, p = .21; or emotional wellbeing,
F(1,534) = 3. 34, p = .07. Since the effect size of the difference in
the one significant measure was very small, gender differences were not
controlled for in subsequent analyses.
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of the four scales
based on their raw scores for both genders.
Before carrying out path analysis, the measurement model was
tested. The loading of the items in the various constructs were examined
using AMOS 7.0 (Arbuckle, 2006) confirmatory factor analysis with
maximum likelihood estimates. The analysis found the items loaded
satisfactorily onto the respective constructs, x2 (246, N = 536) =
599.7, p<. 05, %2/df = 2.44; Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = .91;
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGF) = .89; Root Mean Square Residual
(RMR) = .06; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .05.
Due to the known issue with excessive skewness in two of the
measures (school connectedness and non-productive coping), data were
then analysed using the AMOS analysis of covariance structure approach
to path analysis and maximum likelihood estimates with bootstrapping.
Zimmer-Gembeck and colleagues (2006) recommended the combination of
these techniques for increasing the power to detect the direct and
indirect effects of variables, and analysing multivariate non-normal
data. Figure 2 shows the results of testing the framework for the study.
The indicators of each scale are identified by the item labels shown in
An assessment of normality produced a Mardia coefficient of 106. 8,
which is greater than the critical value of 35.0. This indicated
deviations of the data from normality, confirming the appropriateness of
the use of the bootstrapping technique.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Note: Fit statistics X2 (247, N = 536) = 613.7, p < .05, X / df
= 2.49; Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = . 91; Adjusted Goodness of Fit
Index (AGF) = .89; Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) = .07; Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .05.
As can be seen in Figure 2, the data fit the model in an acceptable
way. The model as a whole explains 59 per cent of variance in emotional
wellbeing and 35 per cent of variance in school connectedness. As
predicted, productive coping was found to have positive relationships
with emotional wellbeing (.65) and school connectedness (.28).
Non-productive coping, on the other hand, had weak negative
relationships with emotional wellbeing (-.41) and school connectedness
(-. 19). Emotional wellbeing had a weak but positive relationship with
school connectedness (. 29). All of the regression weights mentioned
were statistically significant (p < .05). These estimates were
similar to the bootstrapped estimates.
In order to elucidate the contribution made by non-productive
coping to wellbeing and connectedness, the model was tested with
non-productive coping removed. The variance explained for connectedness
remained similar to the full model at .34 while the variance explained
for emotional wellbeing reduced to . 48. The path from productive coping
to wellbeing increased slightly to .70, and from wellbeing to
connectedness from the full model path value of .29 to .41. This
indicates the inhibiting influence of non-productive coping through
emotional wellbeing on connectedness.
The results of this study supported the hypothesised
interrelationships between coping styles, emotional wellbeing, and
school connectedness. Students who use more productive coping strategies
had a better sense of wellbeing and reported greater connectedness with
their school. The negative associations of nonproductive coping with
wellbeing and with connectedness tend to support the findings of Shochet
et al. (2006) who showed that poor school connectedness predicts
depressive symptoms in adolescents and depressive symptoms have been
found to be associated with the use of non-productive coping strategies.
These results indicate that students who reported a higher usage of
non-productive coping strategies had a lower sense of wellbeing and
school connectedness, although these relationships were less strong than
those associated with productive coping.
Wellbeing's positive relationship with productive coping and
inverse relationship with non-productive coping are consistent with
Frydenberg and Lewis' (2009) study of active and negative avoidant
Teaching coping skills is one way to contribute to the effort to
improve student wellbeing and school connectedness. The stronger
relationships between productive coping and wellbeing imply that there
is substantial benefit in investing effort into developing and
augmenting the use of productive coping strategies.
While reducing the use of non-productive coping strategies is
desirable, it appears to be secondary to the benefit derived for
wellbeing from the use of productive strategies. Nevertheless, given the
frequently reported relationship between nonproductive coping and
depression (for example, Cunningham & Walker, 1999; Murberg &
Bru, 2005) it is deemed advisable also to emphasise reduction in
nonproductive coping strategies. Both the increased use of productive
coping and the reduced use of non-productive coping are likely to
influence school connectedness, as demonstrated by these data. One of
the limitations of the path analysis is that the results do not imply
causal relationships. It needs to be pointed out that it may also be
important to increase school connectedness in diverse ways since strong
student connectedness to school may encourage the use of productive
rather than nonproductive coping strategies, albeit indirectly.
What is clear is that there is a strong relationship between
productive coping and wellbeing. Similarly wellbeing is associated with
minimisation of use of nonproductive coping strategies. The weaker
association between coping and school connectedness is mediated through
wellbeing. Those young people who are more likely to use productive
coping over non-productive coping have a greater likelihood of
experiencing wellbeing. To a lesser extent, those who use productive
coping and have a good sense of wellbeing are more likely to be
connected to school. This does not deny the fact that young people with
good school experiences and subsequent connectedness are also likely to
have positive wellbeing, which may facilitate their use of helpful
coping strategies. It would be helpful to explore the predictive paths
between these constructs in order to inform the development of
appropriate intervention programs within the school system.
This paper reports part of a larger two-year study that was
supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council through the
Linkage Projects Scheme (Project Number LP00667931). The authors would
like to acknowledge the support and additional contributed funding for
this research by the Catholic Education Office, Melbourne.
Anderman, E. M. (2002). School effects on psychological outcomes
during adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 795-809.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). AMOS Version 7. 0. 0 (Build 1140). Spring
House, PA: Amos Development Corporation.
Barratt, R. (1998). Shaping middle schooling in Australia: A report
of the National Middle Schooling Project. Canberra: Australian
Curriculum Studies Association.
Bergmann, M. M., & Scott, J. (2001). Young adolescents'
wellbeing and health-risk behaviours: Gender and socio-economic
differences. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 183-197.
Beyondblue. (2003). Schools Research Initiative: The year 8 student
survey. Melbourne: Author. Blum, R. W., & Libbey, H. P. (2004).
Executive summary. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 231-232.
Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes,
G., & Patton, G. (2007). Social and school connectedness in early
secondary school as predictors of late teenage substance use, mental
health, and academic outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(4), 357.
Braun-Lewensohn, O., Celestin-Westreich, S., Celestin, L. P.,
Verleye, G., Verte, D., & Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I. (2009). Coping
styles as moderating the relationships between terrorist attacks and
wellbeing outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 32(3), 585-599.
Carter, M., McGee, R., Taylor, B., & Williams, S. (2007).
Health outcomes in adolescence: Associations with family, friends and
school engagement. Journal of Adolescence, 30(1), 51-62.
Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B.,
& Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school for
healthy development: Findings from the social development research
group. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 252-261.
Cole, P., Mahar, S., & Vindurampulle, O. (2006). Understanding
Year 9 Students: Implications for policy and practice (Paper No. 8, Part
B). Melbourne: Research and Innovation Division, Office of Learning and
Teaching, Department of Education and Training.
Compas, B. E., Malcarne, V. L., & Fondacaro, K. M. (1988).
Coping with stressful events in older children and adolescents. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 405-411.
Cumming, J., & Cormack, P. (1996). From alienation to
engagement: Opportunities for reform in the middle years of schooling.
Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
Cunningham, E., & Walker, G. (1999). Screening for at risk
youth: Predicting adolescent depression from coping styles. Australian
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 9(1), 37-46.
Ebata, A. T., & Moos, T. (1991). Coping and adjustment in
distressed and healthy adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 12, 33-54.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1990). Changes in academic
motivation and self-perception during early adolescence. In R.
Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. Gullotta (Eds.), From childhood to
adolescence: A transitional period? (pp. 134-155). Newbury Park, CA:
Feldman, S. S., Rubenstein, J. L., & Rubin, C. (1988).
Depressive affect and restraint in early adolescents: Relationships with
family structure, family process and friendship support. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 8(3), 279-296.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in
a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
Fraillon, J. (2004). Measuring student wellbeing in the context of
Australian schooling: Discussion paper. Melbourne: Ministerial Council
on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1993a). Adolescent Coping Scale
Administrator's Manual (Research edition). Melbourne: ACER Press.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1993b). Boys play sport and girls
turn to others: Age, gender and ethnicity as determinants of coping.
Journal of Adolescence, 16, 252--266.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1999). Academic and general
wellbeing: The relationship with coping. Australian Journal of Guidance
Counselling, 9(1), 19-36.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (2002). Adolescent wellbeing:
Building young people's resources. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Beyond
coping: Meeting goals, visions, and challenges (pp. 175-193). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (2009). Relations among wellbeing,
avoidant coping, and active coping in a large sample of Australian
adolescents. Psychological Reports, 104, 745-758.
Fullarton, S. (2002). Student engagement with school: Individual
and school-level influences (Research Report No. 27). Melbourne:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Greenglass, E. R. (2002). Proactive coping and quality of life
management. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Beyond coping: Meeting goals,
visions, and challenges (pp. 37-62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hayes, C., & Morgan, M. (2005). Evaluation of a
psychoeducational program to help adolescents cope. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 34(2), 111-121.
Heubeck, B., & Neill, J. T. (1999, July). Stability and change
of adolescent coping styles and mental health: An intervention study.
Paper presented at the Australasian Human Development Association
Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Hill, P. W., & Rowe, K. J. (1998). Modelling student progress
in studies of educational effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 9(3), 310-333.
Insight SRC. (2005). Drug education evaluation and monitoring
(DEEM) project secondary student survey. Melbourne: Insight SRC Pty Ltd.
Jenkin, C. (1997). The relationship between self-efficacy and
coping: Changes following an outward bound program. Unpublished
Master's thesis, University of Melbourne.
Jenkins, P. H. (1997). School delinquency and the school social
bond. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 34(3), 337-367.
Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter:
Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal
of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present,
and future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 234-247.
Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school:
Attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School
Health, 74(7), 274-283.
Luthar, S. S., & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and
competence: A review of research on resilience in childhood. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 6-22.
McGraw, K., Moore, S., Fuller, A., & Bates, G. (2008). Family,
peer and school connectedness in final year secondary school students.
Australian Psychologist, 43(1), 27-37.
McNeely, C., & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and the
transition into and out of health-risk behavior among adolescents: A
comparison of social belonging and teacher support. Journal of School
Health, 74(7), 284-292.
Murberg, T. A., & Bru, E. (2005). The role of coping styles as
predictors of depressive symptoms among adolescents: A prospective
study. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 385-393.
Noto, S. S. (1995). The relationship between coping and
achievement: A comparison between adolescent males and females.
Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Melbourne.
Nutbeam, D., Smith, C., Moore, L., & Bauman, A. (1993).
Warning! Schools can damage your health: Alienation from school and its
impact on health behaviour. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health,
29(Supplement 1), S25-30.
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students' need for belonging in the
school community. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 323-367.
Parsons, A., Frydenberg, E., & Poole, C. (1996).
Overachievement and coping strategies in adolescent males. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 109-114.
Patton, G. C., Harris, R., Carlin, J. B., Hibbert, M. E., Coffey,
C., Schwartz, M., & Bowes, G. (1997). Adolescent suicidal
behaviours: A population-based study of risk. Psychological Medicine,
Pickett, L. H., & Fraser, B. J. (2002, April 1-5). The role of
learning environment, achievement, and student and teacher attitudes in
a science mentoring program for beginning elementary school teachers.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Pollard, E. L., & Lee, P. D. (2003). Child wellbeing: A
systematic review of the literature. Social Indicators Research, 61 (1),
Printz, B. L., Shermis, M. D., & Webb, P. M. (1999).
Stress-buffering factors related to adolescent coping: A path analysis.
Adolescence, 34(136), 715-734.
Reddy, R., Rhodes, J. E., & Mulhall, P. (2003). The influence
of teacher support on student adjustment in the middle school years: A
latent growth curve study. Development and Psychopathology, 15(1),
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris,
K. M., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm:
Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10), 823-832.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. Malabar, FL: Robert E.
Kreiger Publishing Company.
Sandler, I. N., Wolchik, S. A., MacKinnon, D., Ayers, T. S., &
Roosa, M. W. (1997). Handbook of children's coping: Linking theory
and intervention. New York: Plenum Press.
Schutz, P., Hong, J., Cross, D., & Osbon, J. (2006).
Reflections on investigating emotion in educational activity settings.
Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 343-360.
Seiffge-Krenke, I., & Klessinger, N. (2000). Long-term effects
of avoidant coping on adolescents' depressive symptoms. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 29(6), 617-630.
Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006).
School connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in adolescent
mental health: Results of a community prediction study. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35(2), 170-179.
Skinner, E. A., & Wellborn, J. G. (1997). Children's
coping in the academic domain. In S. A. Wolchik & I. N. Sandler
(Eds.), Handbook of children's coping: Linking theory and
intervention (pp. 387-422). New York: Plenum Press.
Strategic Initiatives Directorate. (2005). Focus on the middle
years of schooling: A summary of a Strategic Initiatives Directorate
response to excellence and innovation. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from
Suldo, S. M., Riley, K. N., & Shaffer, E. J. (2006). Academic
correlates of children and adolescents' life satisfaction. School
Psychology International, 27(5), 567-582.
Taylor, J., & Nelms, L. (2006). School engagement and life
chances: 15 year olds in transition. Melbourne: Brotherhood of St
Veit, C., & Ware, J. (1983). The structure of psychological
distress and wellbeing in general populations. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 51 (5), 730-742.
Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of
belonging and participation. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development. Retrieved September 7, 2009, from
Wilson, G. S., Pritchard, M. E., & Revalee, B. (2005).
Individual differences in adolescent health symptoms: The effects of
gender and coping. Journal of Adolescence, 28(3), 369-379.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Chipuer, H. M., Hanisch, M., Creed, P. A.,
& McGregor, L. (2006). Relationships at school and stage-environment
fit as resources for adolescent engagement and achievement. Journal of
Adolescence, 29(6), 911-933.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Locke, E. M. (2007). The socialization
of adolescent coping behaviours: Relationships with families and
teachers. Journal of Adolescence, 30(1), 1-16.
Erica Frydenberg is Coordinator of the Master and Doctor of
Educational Psychology Program and Associate Professor in the Melbourne
Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne.
Esther Care is Deputy Director of the Assessment Research Centre
and Associate Professor in the Melbourne Graduate School of Education,
University of Melbourne.
Esther Chan is an Educational Psychologist who is currently an
Australian Research Council Postgraduate Award holder in the Melbourne
Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne.
Elizabeth Freeman is Coordinator of the Master of Education
(Student wellbeing) and a Senior Lecturer in the Melbourne Graduate
School of Education.
Table 1 Items contributing to the emotional wellbeing and school
Label Emotional wellbeing items
EW1 How much of the time have you felt that the future looks
hopeful and promising?
EW2 How much of the time has your life been full of things
that were interesting to you?
EW3 How much of the time did you feel relaxed and free of
EW4 How much of the time have you felt loved and wanted?
EW5 How much of the time were you a happy person?
EW6 How much of the time have you felt that you are a person
of worth, as good as other young people of your age?
School connectedness items
SchCon1 Other students in this school are friendly towards me
SchCon2 I feel comfortable with others in this school
SchCon3 Other students in this school listen to my ideas
SchCon4 I feel accepted by others in this school
SchCon5 I think that I 'fit in' at this school
Productive coping items
Coping 2 Work at solving the problem to the best of my ability
Coping 3 Work hard
Coping 6 Improve my relationship with others
Coping 15 Look on the bright side of things and think of all that
Coping 17 Make time for leisure activities
Coping 18 Keep fit and healthy
Non-productive coping items
Coping 4 Worry about what will happen to me
Coping 7 Wish for a miracle
Coping 8 I have no way of dealing with the situation
Coping 9 Find a way to let off steam for example, cry, scream,
drink, take drugs
Coping 11 Shut myself off from the problem so that I can avoid it
Coping 12 See myself as being at fault
Coping 13 Don't let others know how I am feeling
Table 2 Means and standard deviations of productive and
non-productive coping, emotional wellbeing and school
Variable Mean Standard Deviation
Male 23.85 3.77
Female 24.25 3.58
Male 18.35 5.30
Female 18.50 5.71
Male 26.53 4.45
Female 27.22 4.31
Male 19.41 3.26
Female 20.60 2.92