printThe Main Factors of Schoolchildren Agency:
Empirical Analysis
Goshin M.E.
Cand. Sci. (Chem.), Research Fellow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia. m.goshin@mail.ru
Sorokin P.S.
Sci. (Sociol.), Leading Researcher, Head of the Laboratory for Human Capital and Education Research, Institute of Education, HSE University, Moscow, Russia psorokin@hse.ru
Grigoryev D.S.
Cand. Sci. (Psychol.), Research Fellow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia. dgrigoryev@hse.ru
Goshin M.E., Sorokin P.S., Grigoryev D.S. The Main Factors of Schoolchildren Agency: Empirical Analysis. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2024. No 3. P. 106-121
The article is devoted to schoolchildren agency, understood as the ability to make decisions and proactively act in various contexts and spheres of public and personal life, supporting or transforming social environment. The focus of the study is aimed at examining interrelationships between the level of schoolchildren agency and factors related to the family environment, as well as academic performance and participation in extracurricular activities. The data were obtained by surveying 4,603 schoolchildren from 4th to 8th grade of schools in Yaroslavl. Another data source was a survey of 1,910 parents whose children attend extracurricular activities, as part of the Monitoring of education markets and organizations (http://memo.hse.ru/en/), from 8 federal districts of the Russian Federation in 2022. The level of agency was assessed using a specially developed methodology that takes into account the child’s activity in different areas (family or relationships with peers). It has been established that the socio-economic status of a family, primarily the parental level of education, is poorly related to the agency level, whereas older age and higher academic performance of schoolchildren demonstrate a slightly stronger positive relationship. The gender factor as a whole is not significant, however, boys display somewhat both higher and lower agency levels, while girls are characterized by average indicators. A strong positive relationship has been revealed between the level of schoolchildren agency and their participation in extracurricular activities most pronounced for classes in specialized organizations outside of school. The strongest relationship with the agency level is demonstrated by sports, art, social activities, technology and crafts.
Дополнительное образование детей: Единое многообразие / Под общ. ред. С.Г. Косарецкого, И.Д. Фрумина; науч. ред. Я.И. Кузьминов, И.Д. Фрумин. М.: НИУ ВШЭ, 2019. [Extracurricular education of children: Unified diversity. (2019) General ed. by S.G. Kosaretsky, I.D. Frumin; scientific ed. Ya.I. Kuzminov, I.D. Frumin. Moscow: NIU VSHE. (In Russ.)]
Поливанова К.Н, Бочавер А.А. Возможна ли детская самостоятельность в современной школе? // Психологическая наука и образование. 2022. Т. 27. № 3. С. 6–15. [Polivanova K.N., Bochaver A.A. (2022). Is students’ autonomy possible at contemporary school? Psihologicheskaya nauka I obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education]. No. 27(3): 6–15. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2022270301. (In Russ.)]
Сорокин П.С. Проблема «агентности» через призму новой реальности: состояние и направления развития // Социологические исследования. 2023. № 3. С. 103–114. [Sorokin P.S. (2023) The problem of “agency” through the prism of a new reality: conditions and perspectives. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 3: 103–114. DOI: 10.31857 S013216250022927-2. (In Russ.)]
Сорокин П.С., Фрумин И.Д. Образование как источник действия, совершенствующего структуры: теоретические подходы и практические задачи // Вопросы образования. 2022. № 1. С. 116–137. [Sorokin P.S., Froumin I.D. (2022) Education as a Source for Transformative Agency: Theoretical and Practical Issues. Voprosy obrazovaniya [Educational Studies]. No. 1: 116–137. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250022927-2. (In Russ.)]
Флигстин Н., Макадам Д. Теория полей / Пер. с англ. Е.Б. Головляницыной. М.: ВШЭ, 2022. [Fligstein N., McAdam D. (2022) Fields theory. Moscow: HSE. (In Russ.)]
Abebe T. (2019) Reconceptualising children’s agency as continuum and interdependence. Social Sciences.Vol. 8. No 3: 1–16. DOI: 10.3390/socsci8030081.
Baharom M.N., Sharfuddin M., Iqbal J. (2017) A systematic review on the deviant workplace behavior. Review of Public Administration and Management. Vol. 5. No. 3: 1–8. DOI: 10.4172/2315-7844.1000231.
Baker C.N. (2008) Under-represented college students and extracurricular involvement: the effects of various student organizations on academic performance. Social Psychology of Education. Vol. 11. No. 3: 273–298. DOI: 10.1007/s11218-007-9050-y.
Barber B.L., Eccles J.S., Stone M.R. (2001) Whatever happened to the Jock, the Brain, and the Princess? Young adult pathways linked to adolescent activity involvement and social identity. Journal of Adolescent Research. No. 16: 429–455. DOI: 10.1177/0743558401165002.
Carbonaro W., Maloney E. (2019) Extracurricular activities and student outcomes in elementary and middle school: causal effects or self-selection? Socius. No. 5: 1–17. DOI: 10.1177/2378023119845496.
Cavazzoni F., Fiorini A., Veronese G. (2021) How do we assess how agentic we are? A literature review of existing instruments to evaluate and measure individuals’ agency. Social Indicators Research. Vol. 159. No. 3: 1125–1153. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-021-02791-8.
Fletcher A.C., Nickerson P., Wright K.L. (2003) Structured leisure activities in middle childhood: links to well‐being. Journal of Community Psychology. Vol. 31. No. 6: 641–659. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.10075.
Gallagher M.W., Long L.J., Richardson A., D’Souza J. M. (2019) Resilience and coping in cancer survivors: The unique effects of optimism and mastery. Cognitive Therapy and Research. Vol. 43: 32–44. DOI: 10.1007/s10608-018-9975-9.
Gilman R., Meyers J., Perez L. (2004) Structured extracurricular activities among adolescents: findings and implications for school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools. Vol. 41. No. 1: 31–41. DOI: 10.1002/ pits.10136.\
Gurdal S., Sorbring E. (2018) Children’s agency in parent–child, teacher–pupil and peer relationship contexts. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being. Vol. 13: 1565239. DOI: 10.1080/17482631.2019.1565239.
Kirby P. (2019) Children’s agency in the modern primary classroom. Children & Society. Vol. 34. No. 1: 17–30. DOI: 10.1111/CHSO.12357.
Klemenčič M. (2017) From student engagement to student agency: Conceptual considerations of European policies on student-centered learning in higher education. Higher education policy. Vol. 30. No. 1: 69–85. DOI: 10.1057/s41307–016–0034–4.
Lareau A., Weininger E.B. (2008) Class and the Transition to Adulthood. Social Class: How Does It Work. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Manyukhina Y. (2022) Children’s agency in the National Curriculum for England: a critical discourse analysis. Education 3–13. No. 50: 506–520. DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2022.2052232.
Michalos A.C. et al. (ed.) (2014) Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Nunes F., Mota C.P., Ferreira T. et al. (2023) Stability and change in adolescents’ sense of agency: contributions of sex, multiple risk, pandemic stress, and attachment to parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. No. 52: 1374–1389. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-023-01766-x.
Oberle E., Ji X.R., Guhn M. et al. (2019) Benefits of extracurricular participation in early adolescence: associations with peer belonging and mental health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. No. 48: 2255–2270. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-019-01110-2.
OECD (2018) Education 2030: The Future of Education and Skills, Paris: OECD.
Oswell D. (2013) The Agency of Children: From Family to Global Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peterson T., Fowler S., Dunham T.F. (2013) Creating the Recent Force Field: A Growing Infrastructure for Quality Afterschool and Summer Learning Opportunities. Expanding Minds and Opportunities. Washington, DC: Collaborative Communications Group.
Ruscoe A., Barblett L., Parrath-Pugh C. (2018) Sharing power with children: repositioning children as agentic learners. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. Vol. 43. No.3: 63–71. DOI: 10.23965/AJEC.43.3.07.
Schoon I., Cook R. (2021) Can individual agency compensate for background disadvantage? Predicting tertiary educational attainment among males and females. Journal of Youth and Adolescence.
Schoon I., Heckhausen J. (2019) Conceptualizing individual agency in the transition from school to work: a socio-ecological developmental perspective. Adolescent Research Review. Vol. 4. No. 5: 135–148. DOI: 10.1007/s40894-019-00111-3.
Shanahan M.J. (2003) Pathways to adulthood in changing societies: variability and mechanisms in life course perspective. Annual Review of Sociology. No. 26: 667–692. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.667.
Sirkko R., Kyrönlampi T., Puroila A.M. (2019) Children’s agency: opportunities and constraints. International Journal of Early Childhood. Vol. 51. No. 3: 283–300. DOI: 10.1007/s13158-019-00252-5.
Steiner-Khamsi G. (2016) Standards are good (for) business: standardised comparison and the private sector in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education. Vol. 14. No. 2: 161–182. DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2015.1014883.
Thoits P.A. (2006) Personal agency in the stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. No. 47: 309–323. DOI: 10.1177/002214650604700401.
Udehn L. (2002) The changing face of methodological individualism. Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 28. No. 1: 479–507. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.140938.
Veronese G., Pepe A., Cavazzoni F., Obaid H., Perez J. (2019) Agency via life satisfaction as a protective factor from cumulative trauma and emotional distress among bedouin children in Palestine. Frontiers in Psychology. No. 10. Article 1674. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01674.