The Impact Of Social Environment On Scholar Activities Of Primary School’s Pupils

Abstract

Out of the numerous factors that influence the behaviour of children in the scholar environment, that is the hereditary factors, the psycho- social traits of the family, their social status, school management, we shall focus on this study on the impact the social environment of origin of these children has on the degree of school task performance and on their behaviour related to their didactic activities. The environment where the entire family lives represents the universe in which the child can find and make friends, or play fellows, the universe where they learn various social behaviours, by enculturation in some cases.. The purpose of the study is the analysis of the socioeconomic environment factors upon school activities of small age pupils. The following issues will be taken into account: the involvement degree on solving didactic tasks, the children’s behaviours during scholar activities and homework accomplishment. The methodology used in this investigative approach is the questionnaire applied on a group of 30 primary education teachers in the urban environment and 86 parents of the pupils. The findings and results of this study allowed the reaching the intended purpose by identifying a correlation between the social environment of origin and the involvement degree in scholar activities of the small age pupils as well as the quality of the accomplishment of these activities

Keywords: Sources of school resultsprimary educationscholar activitiessocial environment of origin

1.Introduction

The environment where the entire family lives represents the universe in which the child can find and

make friends, or play fellows, the universe where they learn various social behaviours, by enculturation in

some cases. As a consequence, the social behaviours of the elderly, with whom the children interact,

leave as well, to a great extent, their mark on later development of some positive or negative attitudes the

child has towards school, which may lead to educational task performance or to their elusion.

2.Paper Theoretical Foundation and Related Literature

The cultural climate of the family influences the student's academic performance, particularly by:

the aspiration of parents, their attitude towards school and education, the cultural baggage itself (language

use, cultural practices) and value system promoted by parents. Thus, the socio-cultural level of the family

determines to a large extent: the child's attitude toward school, and taste for culture, wealth and accuracy

of language, the aspirations of the child (which is usually directly proportional to the parents’),

motivational level, and the material conditions necessary for the assimilation of the culture. (Tăușan,

2012)

Family background is the key to student’s life outside of school, is the most important influence on

student learning and includes factors such as socioeconomic status, two-parents versus single-parents

household, parenting practices and aspirations, family size and neighbourhood (Majoribanks, 1996).

Studies shows that supportive and attentive parenting practices positively affect academic achievement

(Eamon, 2005), and high parent aspirations have been associated with increasing students’ interest in

education (Majoribanks, 1996) and it should be taken into consideration when designing the complex

learning situation students will be involved in school (Soare, 2015).

The findings from a study conducted by Yuping Zhang (2011)can be summarized into two main

points: first, net of objective measures of children’s family socioeconomic status and achievement at

school, teachers’ perceptions of the importance of children's home environment are closely associated

with teachers’ evaluations of children’s academic competence and behaviour in school; furthermore,

teachers’ perceptions of home importance are closely associated with teachers’ educational expectations,

both directly, and indirectly through teachers’ evaluations of children. Second, teachers’ expectations of

children’s future school attainment at an early point in time are significant predictors of children’s later

school persistence.

The family environment influences the students’ individual adaptation, especially their self-

esteem, adaptation and optimism, influences academic achievement and success in school more than the

schools’ environment (Szőcs, 2013). Family activities such as parents attending school activities, spending

time talking with their children, going on vacations and participating in fun activities may increase

schools test scores (Barry, 2006). Regarding the benefits identified by parents in term of education upon

the impact and the consequences that technology can have on children personality development, parents

placed on top: the speed of accessing information and communication in the electronic environment, the

development of mental abilities and the last was building and developing the skills for the use of PC and

leisure function. (Tudor, 2015)

The influence of the familial socio-cultural status extends to the leisure time and has

repercussions, indirectly, on school achievement. Children from disadvantaged families spend their free

time on spontaneous activities and functional games which develop physical and motor skills, preparing

them, to some extent, for life, but which do not favour intellectual maturity. Conversely, children from

higher social classes benefit from activities that stimulate intellectual and perceptual skills and have an

extensive experience with both the physical world and the social issues. Their psychic energy is

channelled into constructive activities that favour school acquisitions.

Besides the predominant influence of the familial socio-cultural status which is widely recognized,

there is also a considerable influence of economic conditions on the child’s schooling. Within vulnerable

environments, parents are often concerned about material problems, sometimes serious, and cannot be to

their children’s disposal. The lack of affective relationship strengthens cultural effects of family poverty.

Moreover, housing and overcrowding are likely to cause some tensions and disrupt the family

atmosphere. And, finally, quantitative and / or qualitative chronic malnutrition, insufficient sleep or

disrupted by bad material conditions are harmful to the psychological balance of the child’s physical

development and, consequently, to his schooling.

Parents’ education level and the family income level have a lower impact on the school

performances of small age pupils. Langa (2012) underlines once more the necessity to establish a more

solid partnership between school and family to make easier the pupils’ way to school success.

Pointing the importance the environment has in the process of developing pupils’ social behaviour,

Ezechil (2015) underlines the necessity of a reform targeting – on the one hand - to restructure the

content of pupils’ behaviour in the classroom and also - on the other hand -to restructure the content of

the relation teacher-pupil, pupil-pupil and the relation of the pupil with himself.

3.Methodology

4.Findings and Results

The first hypothesis “There are significant differences among children who come from different

residential areas as regardsthe involvement degree on solving didactic tasks”was tested through chi

square test In Table 2 the results of the Person χ2 test show that students involvement in solving teaching

tasks in the school environment depend on the children’s residential areas [χ2 (3) = 23.182, p <0.01].

According to the teachers included in the investigation, the residence of students is an important factor in

terms of their attitude towards school activities. Students from disadvantaged residential areas tend to be

less involved in solving school tasks and need to be constantly stimulated by teachers. Children who live

in a safe environment are more involved in school duties in that they are more willing to answer teachers’

questions and are more attentive to instructions needed to perform various school tasks.

See Full Size >

According to the results obtained (table 3) through the application of the Person χ 2 test for the

verification of the second hypothesis, there are no significant differences between the pupils that spend

time with their friends as regards involvement degree on solving didactic tasks [ χ 2 (12)= 26.093, p>0.01].

In the teachers’ opinion, the time children spend with their friends has not a decisive influence on their

involvement and performance of school tasks.

See Full Size >

The third hypothesis “There are significant differences among children who come from different residential areas as regards a consistent way of doing their homework” was tested through Person χ 2 test.

According to the results obtained (table 4), there are significant differences between the parents who live

in different residential areas as regards a consistent way of doing their homework [ χ 2 (3) = 68.666,

p<0.01]. Parents who come from disadvantaged backgrounds claim they cannot give more support to

their children to homework, because of material deprivation, inappropriate living space and the length of

time they have to spend at work to ensure an acceptable standard of living. On the other hand, parents

who live in safer residential areas, give more support to their children to homework and to fostering a

favourable attitude toward school.

See Full Size >

Through Person χ 2 test was tested the fourth hypothesis “There are significant differences between

children left to spend their spare time with the elderly and those having a stable program to spend with

their friends, as regards a consistent way of doing their homework”. According to the results obtained

(table 5), there are significant differences between the parents who give full freedom to children in

deciding on the length of time they spend with their friends, and the parents who establish, for their

children, a program of spending time with peers as regardsthe consistent way of doing homework. [ χ 2

(12) = 78.866, p<0.01]. At this particular age, the parents are those that can control the work and

relaxation time of their children. Children who spend more than 3 hours a day together with their friends

do not pay too much attention to a consistent way of doing their homework.

See Full Size >

5.Discussions and Conclusions

As they grow up, from small schooling to preadolescence, adolescence, the social environment

becomes a second family, which will prepare children for their adult life. Student performance and

failures are largely conditioned by the real support of their parents and the influence of the domestic

socio-economic environment.

Each parent should try to answer the following questions: Have I given a few hours to correctly

and critically observe my child’s performance? How much time have I spent playing with my child? Have

I been able to step in with the first responsibilities? Have I managed to establish a balanced program of

work and play?

A parent who is constantly aware of its role and understands its mission, will know how to guide

the child on the path of knowledge, will know how to be a good partner in order to act simultaneously in

his/her efforts to support the child’s progress. We can speak of parents with higher education who have an

easy-going attitude towards their children’s performance, and also of families having a limited economic

level, a low level of instruction (secondary school or vocational school graduates) who want their children

to overcome their own condition.

The urban residential area of a family has a significant influence on the children’s school work.

Whichever side of town where they might be living, families are anchored in the nearby reality and

comply with the specific behavioural characteristics of the local population. Knowing the peers with

whom their small schoolchildren socialize represents a dream for any family, especially for those living in

deprived residential environments. Children spend their free time on social networks that can have

negative effects on their emotional and social development. Therefore, parents should know first what

kind information their child can access and, secondly, how much time and with whom their child

communicates.

The primary school teacher is the first person with epistemic authority, who recommends,

suggests, using clear and coherent arguments, auxiliary materials, books for the first library, educational

programs, and, therefore, the relationship between family and school is essential in correctly guiding the

child on the educational path.

References

1. Barry, Jennifer, (2006), The effect of socio-economic status on academic achievement, Phd thesis,
2. Wichita State University.
3. Eamon, Mry, Keegan, (2005), Social-demographic, school, neighbourhood and parenting influences on academic achievement of Latino young adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(2), 163-175.
4. Ezechil, L, 2015, The Necessity of a Pedagogical Reform in the Pre-university Education in Romania, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2015), 559 – 564.
5. Langa, C., (2012),Influence of the socio-economic environment of origin on the school results of the pupils in primary education. Scientific bulletin - education sciences series, IX (1), 43-55.
6. Majoribanks, K. (1996), Family learning environments and students’ outcomes: a review. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 27(2), 373-394.
7. Soare, E. (2015), Using the complex learning situation model in the evaluation of competences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180 1 – 6.
8. Szőcs, Levente, (2013), The effects of the socioeconomic status on the academic achievement. Phd thesis, Cluj Napoca
9. Tăușan, L. (2012). Optimization of School Adjustment by Strengthening the School-Family Educational
10. Partnership. Journal Plus Education, 8(1), 32-39.
11. Tudor, S.L. (2015), Perception of educational factors on the introduction of electronic learning tools in the context of the new curriculum for primary education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 187 (2015) 454 – 458.
12. Zhang, Yuping, (2011), Influence of Home Environment on Children’s Schooling: From Teacher’s Perspective. Gansu Survey of Children and Families Papers. 21.