STRESS, COPING, AND RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN

Arthur Ling Koon Hwai, Fei Yue Community Services October 2004

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

1

This study is funded by NCSS’s VWO Capability Fund.

Fei Yue Community Services

1

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

2

Contents CONTENTS....................................................................................................................... 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 3 1. STRESS, COPING, AND RESILIENCE IN CHILDREN: INTRODUCTION ..... 5 1.1. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 5 1.2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 5 1.3. PRELIMINARY STUDY ................................................................................................ 6 1.4. HYPOTHESES ............................................................................................................. 6 2. METHODS .................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 MASS SURVEY ........................................................................................................... 7 2.2 FOCUS GROUPS .......................................................................................................... 9 2.3.TEACHERS’ SURVEY ................................................................................................ 10 3. RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 12 3.1. SOURCE OF STRESS ................................................................................................. 12 3.2. SIGNS OF STRESS ..................................................................................................... 13 3.3. COPING STYLE ........................................................................................................ 14 3.4. SUPPORT ................................................................................................................. 16 3.5. RESILIENCE ............................................................................................................. 17 3.6. THE ROLE OF THE SCHOOL ...................................................................................... 18 4. DISCUSSIONS............................................................................................................ 22 4.1. SOURCES AND SIGNS OF STRESS.............................................................................. 22 4.2. COPING STRATEGIES AND SUPPORT ........................................................................ 22 4.3. RESILIENCE ............................................................................................................. 23 4.4. OTHER FINDINGS..................................................................................................... 24 4.5 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 25 4.6. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 26 5. REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 27

Fei Yue Community Services

2

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

3

Executive Summary This study was conducted to understand resilience in our primary school children in terms of their main sources of stress, the common signs of stress, their resilience level against stress, and their coping styles. It also explores possible prevention/intervention measures that can help strengthen our children’s resilience and help them to manage their stress more effectively. The study adopted a multi-methods approach, collecting both qualitative and quantitative data from students and teachers. A mass survey was administered among Primary 4 – 6 students from ten primary schools, followed by conducting two student focus groups and a survey among teachers. The following are the key findings:  Studies-related items emerged as main sources of stress, particularly examinations and exams-related revision, high workload, and teachers’ expectations  Feeling tired, angry, sad and scared were the common signs of stress.  The two main coping styles were doing something about the problem, which was an active coping style, and doing other things and try not to think about the problem, which belonged to the avoidance coping strategy.  The use of active coping was associated with experiencing lower stress level, whereas negative emotional coping (cry, feel upset, get angry) and avoidance coping (sleep, daydream, do something else) were both associated with experiencing higher stress level.  More primary 4 students turned to their parents as a source of support, while more primary 6 students find support from their friends.  More girls than boys reported having someone whom they could talk to.  The children’s bonding to their school was a relatively stronger resilience factor than their family relations, attachment to peers, or individual characteristics.  Except for peer attachment, all the other three resilience domains were associated with stress level.  Students with stronger school bonding, family relations, and individual characteristics are more likely to use active coping.  Though the school may have a wide array of measures in place to help its students cope with stress, most students may not be aware of such measures.

Fei Yue Community Services

3

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

4

 Both teachers and students stated changes to workload as effective ways of helping to reduce, or cope with, stress. In addition, the teachers mentioned making changes to the curriculum time, whereas the students preferred more sports and recreational activities to let them unwind, and also more understanding from parents and teachers.  Teachers also thought that parents should be more involved in their children’s lives. The findings and their implications were also discussed, including some recommendations for service providers, schools, and other concerned parties..

Fei Yue Community Services

4

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

5

1. Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children: Introduction 1.1. Background It has been commonly regarded that our school children are experiencing considerable stress due to the competitive nature of our education system and high parental expectations. The occasional media reports of children and teens suicide cases seem to support such perceptions. Apart from normative, study-related stressors, non-normative events may also aggravate the stress level of our children. It is thus highly plausible that the economic downturn in the past few years may have some psychological impact on children whose families are facing financial difficulties Furthermore, last year’s SARS outbreak which significantly disrupted and altered the normal routine of our children’s daily lives would possibly have added on to the children’s existing sources of stress. This study was conducted to understand resilience in our primary school children with regards to their main sources of stress, the common signs of stress, their resilience levels, and coping styles. It explored the possible prevention/intervention measures that can help strengthen children’s resilience and help them to manage stress more effectively. Though the scope of this study is by no means exhaustive, it is hoped that the study will serve as an updated index of the current state of affairs in our children.

1.2. Literature Review Sources of resilience in children can be typically located within four main domains, individual (temperament, self-efficacy, social activity level, etc.), family (family closeness, warmth, rules setting etc.), school (bonding, academic performance, etc.), and peer group (social competence with peers, etc.) (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). Though different terms have been coined for the different categories of coping strategies in children, they can be broadly grouped as active problem-focused (e.g., do something about the problem), active emotion-focused (e.g., seek out emotional support), avoidance or disengagement (sleep, watch TV, daydream, etc.) and venting of emotions (anger, sadness, etc.) (Compass, Conner-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001; & Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub,1989). In children aged 10 – 12, the signs of stress are aggression, school avoidance, sleep disturbance, withdrawal from peers, loss of interest, loss of appetite, and so on (Baker & O’Neill, 1993). The above-mentioned three research areas: sources of resilience, coping strategies and signs of stress, form the basic framework of the present study. This study will take into

Fei Yue Community Services

5

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

6

consideration the findings of previous studies, their cultural validity in the local context, and the findings of the preliminary study that was conducted. 1.3. Preliminary Study In May 2003, a pilot survey was done with 48 primary 3 to 6 students from Fei Yue’s Student Care Centre. In summary, the findings show the following:  The two top causes of stress were studies and SARS.  Frequent signs of stress were feeling scared, sleep disturbances, tiredness, and not feeling like going to school.  Most students coped with stress actively.  Parents and friends were the people whom the students turned to when they face problems.  The strongest resilience factor among the students was school bonding. 1.4. Hypotheses In this study, the following outcomes were expected: 1. Studies (exams, homework, test, etc) is the most frequently cited source of stress, as in the pilot survey. 2. The most frequent signs of stress are feeling scared, school avoidance, tiredness, and sleep disturbances. 3. There may be gender differences in coping strategies, for instance, boys may use more avoidance or disengagement (watch TV, play computer or video games, etc) whereas girls may be more prone to seeking out emotional support. 4. Both genders may use venting of emotions frequently as a coping mechanism, but in different forms, for example, girls may exhibit sadness more, while boys may tend to display anger. 5. Parents and friends are the people whom the students turn to when they face problems. However, this may differ according to the different education levels. In view that Primary 6 students are going through a transition phase whereby their attachment to their parents are gradually being replaced by their peer groups, they may tend to turn to their peers more than their parents, as compared to primary 4 and 5 students who would probably turn to their parents more than their peers. 6. School bonding will be the strongest among the four resilience factors.

Fei Yue Community Services

6

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

7

The study also explored 1. Whether coping styles differ according to different demographic variables, such as education stream, parents’ marital status, etc. 2. Whether there is any direct association between resilience and stress level. 3. Whether there is any association between coping patterns and resilience.

2. Methods 2.1 Mass Survey Participants Primary 4 to 6 students from ten primary schools were surveyed. These schools were all located within the service boundary of the Central Singapore Community Development Council. After excluding questionnaires that were incomplete, responses from 4661 students were used in the study. There were 2239 males (48%) and 2422 females (52%). Other information about the sample’s profiles is presented in table 2.1.1 Table 2.1.1 Profiles of Respondents Variable Level

Pri 4 Pri 5 Pri 6

Percentage % 34.5 17.1 46.3

Stream (Pri 5 and 6 only)

EM1 EM2 EM3

25.0 67.3 7.7

Ethnicity

Chinese Malay Indian Others

82.4 8.0 6.6 2.8

Parents’ marital status

Married Separated Divorced Widowed

90.6 1.8 5.4 1.6

Parents’ employment status

Both parents working Father working only Mother working only Both parents not working

55.7 36.6 5.7 1.6

Fei Yue Community Services

Category

7

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

8

The table shows that in terms of education level, majority of the respondents were primary 6 students. As for academic streams, majority were EM2 students. Also, slightly more than half of the respondents were from dual income families. Procedure This study used a self administered questionnaire survey. The survey was administered through the schools to the students either during their assembly times or during their contact times. Instrument The survey questionnaire included the following four scales: 1. Sources of stress – Out of the five given choices, students selected one that is most stressful to them. The 5 choices, “studies”, “SARS”, “future”, “parents’ work”, and “others”, were selected from the findings of the pilot study. 2. Frequency of occurrence of the signs of stress – a list of signs associated with stress in middle to late childhood, such as school avoidance, anger, were presented and students rated the frequency of occurrence of each item on a 3-point scale, with 1 being Never and 3 being Often.

3. Resilience – Four resiliency domains: individual characteristics, family relations, school bonding, and peer group, were measured by a total of 12 items. Individual characteristics refers to one’s ability to plan ahead and solve problem; Family relations probed one’s quality of relationship with family members; School Bonding refers to one’s sense of belonging to the school; and Peer Group measures the availability of positive friendships. This scale was adapted from 3 separate scales, namely, Bartone, Ursano, Wright, and Ingraham’s (cited in Fischer & Corcoran, 1994) Hardiness Scale, Armsden and Greenberg’s (cited in Fischer & Corcoran, 1994) Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment, and Springer and Phillips’ (1997) Individual Protective Factors Index. In the present study, the students rated how much they agreed with the items on a 4-point scale, with 1 being Never and 4 being All the Time. Higher scores indicate stronger resilience. 4. Coping style – Students were asked what they do when they faced problems or when they feel tense. They selected from the given choices by indicating Yes or No to the corresponding item. The choices formed three main coping styles – active coping (“do something about the problem”, “tell someone how you feel”), negative emotion coping (“cry”, “get upset”, “get angry”), and avoidance coping (“daydream”, “sleep”, “do other things and try not to think about the problem”).

Fei Yue Community Services

8

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

9

5. The questionnaire also included one item that asked the students who they turn to in times of problems, followed by a series of questions asking for their basic demographic information. 2.2 Focus Groups Participants Two focus groups, group 1 and 2, were conducted among students from one of the schools which participated in the mass survey. The students were selected by the teacher who liaised with the co-investigator. Group 1 consisted of twelve primary 5 students, 7 males and 5 females, whereas group 2 was made up of ten primary 6 students, 4 males and 6 females. Other information regarding the groups’ profiles are presented in table 2.2.1. Table 2.2.1 Focus Group Profiles Variable Stream (Pri 5 and 6 only)

Ethnicity

Category EM1 EM2 EM3 Total Chinese Malay Indian Others Total

Group 1

Group 2

1 11 -12 5 4 1 2 12

2 7 1 10 4 6 0 0 10

Procedure The focus groups were conducted by the co-investigator. in the school’s music room from 2 – 4pm in the afternoon. The first group of primary 4 and 5 students was conducted from 2 – 3 pm, while the second group was conducted from 3 – 4 pm. Both sessions were audio and video recorded by a research assistant who was present. The investigator briefed the students on the purpose of the focus group and set some ground rules for the group, such as the students should take turns to express their opinions. The students responded freely to the investigators questions. Instruments

Fei Yue Community Services

9

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

10

As the focus groups were intended to be open discussions, no structured questionnaire were used. However, the investigator used the flowing pointers as guidelines for facilitating the discussion: - Ice breaker - Introduction, purpose of discussion group. - Understanding of stress - Which aspects of studies causes stress (exams, results, expectations, etc) - What do they do when they are stress? Do they do different things to cope with different stress? - Do they talk to anyone when stress? If yes, who? Do they ask other people for help? Are they helpful? - What has been helpful? Or what can the school / teachers do to help them? What can parents or counselors do to help them? 2.3.Teachers’ Survey Participants A total of 46 teachers were surveyed. They were teachers from the same school that provided the students for the focus group discussions. The length of service in the teaching profession of these teachers ranged from 2 months to 40 years (mean = 14.33 years). Procedure A self-administered questionnaire survey was used. The questionnaire was administered to the teachers through the school. Instruments The questionnaire consisted of the following questions: Question 1 asked the teachers to identify what they considered as the main source of stress in students. The teachers were given 12 choices to select from. Those choices were “Examinations”, “Too much homework”, “CCA”, “Parents’ expectations”, “Teachers’ expectations”, “Other commitments in school”, “Other commitments outside school”, “Peer pressure”, “Relationship with parents”, “Family relationship in general”, “Family financial situation”, and “others”. Question 2 asked the teachers to list what the school has done, or was doing to help students cope with stress. For each response given, the teachers were asked to rate the effectiveness of the measure on a corresponding 5-point scale, where 1 = Not effective at all and 5 = Very effective. An example is given below.

Fei Yue Community Services

10

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

Not effective

Average

Effective

Very effective

1. Counselling

Not effective at all

Measure

11

1

2

3

4

5

Question 3 was an open-ended question that asked the teachers what else they thought the school can do to help students cope with stress. Finally, question 4 asked the teachers what they thought parents can do in helping students cope with stress.

Fei Yue Community Services

11

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

12

3. Results 3.1. Source of Stress Figure 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 respectively present what the students and teachers identified as the main source of stress in students. Figure 3.1.1 Main Source of Stress (as Reported by Students in Mass Survey). 100.0%

88.1% 81.9%

90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0%

51.4%

50.0% 34.9%

40.0% 30.0%

14.4%

20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Studies

Future

Parents' work

SARS

Others

Figure 3.1.1 shows that the students identified “studies” as the main source of stress, followed by “future” and “parents’ work”. “Future” referred mainly to the students’ level of concern over which secondary school to go to, and job prospects after completing their education. “Parents’ work” refers to issues such as parents’ unemployment, pay cut, or the possibility of unemployment (due to retrenchment) or pay cut. Since “studies” emerged as the most prominent source of stress, the question of which aspects of studies constitutes the most stress was posed to the focus groups students. Their responses were categorized as follow: Table 3.1.1 Focus Groups’ Identification of the Main Sources of Stress Group 1(in descending order) Group 2 (in descending order) 1 Too much homework Examinations (including PSLE) 2 Examinations (including related revision) Too much schoolwork 3 Homework is too difficult Teachers’ nagging 4 Teachers’ expectations Compulsory Participation in competitions on school and national levels 5 CCA Teachers’ expectations 6 Choice of secondary school

Fei Yue Community Services

12

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

13

Figure 3.1.2 Childrens' Main Source of Stress (as reported by teachers) Family financial situation

4

Family relationship in general

8

Relationship with parents

3

Peer pressure

3

Other commitments outside school

6

Other commitments in school

2 3

Teachers' expectations Parents' expectations

14 2

CCA Too much homework

6 20

Examinations

0

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 3.1.2 shows that most of the teachers identified examinations and parents’ expectations as sources of stress for the students. This, to some extent, is consistent with the focus groups’ responses. However, it appears that majority of the teachers did not consider teachers’ expectations as a salient source of stress, contrary to what the students reported in the focus groups. 3.2. Signs of Stress Table 3.2.1 summarises the reported signs of stress in the mass survey and their respective frequency of occurrences. Table 3.2.1 Signs of Stress and their Respective Frequency of Occurrences Often (%) Sometimes (%) Tired 33.0 55.5 Angry 23.9 62.2 Sad 13.6 62.5 Scared 11.0 67.0 Difficulties falling asleep 14.4 45.3 Don’t feel like going to school 14.0 42.7

Fei Yue Community Services

Never (%) 11.5 13.9 23.9 21.0 40.3 43.3

13

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

Want to beat up someone Don’t feel like talking to anyone Feel like committing suicide

14 15.8 9.7 6.7

35.1 48.6 18.4

49.0 41.8 74.4

The table shows that the most frequent signs of stress, reported by the students, were feelings of tiredness, anger, and sadness. It is also noteworthy that at least half of the students sometimes felt like beating up another person, and that at least one-quarter of them sometimes harbour suicidal thoughts. Co-incidentally, during the focus group discussions, the students in group 2 also remarked that they would feel frustrated, tired, or angry when under stress. Hence it seems that the common signs of stress are feelingsoriented, and that stress evokes negative emotions, particularly tiredness and anger. 3.3. Coping Style Table 3.3.1 presents the distribution of identified coping styles among the mass survey respondents. Table 3.3.1 Coping Style as Reported by Mass Survey Respondents Coping Style Items

Percentage “Yes” (%) 83.6 54.5

Active coping

Do something about the problem Tell someone how you feel

Negative emotional coping

Cry Get upset Get angry

30.4 63.5 57.0

Avoidance coping

Daydream Sleep Do other things and try not to think about the problem

25.7 36.1 70.5

Note. Respondents were allowed to select more than one..

Apparently, “doing something about the problem” and “doing other things and try not to think about the problem” emerged as the most frequent means of coping with stress. This was followed by “getting upset” and “getting angry”. It should be noted that “doing other things and try not to think about the problem” refers to doing things such as watching TV, playing computer games, playing video games. One may argue that the respondents might have equated watching TV, playing computer games with actively doing something about the problem. If this was the case, there may be a substantial overlap of respondents in the two major coping styles. However, a correlation analysis showed that the two items were not significantly correlated, hence it was unlikely that respondents who reported doing something about the problem were the same respondents who indicated doing other things and try not to think about the problem.

Fei Yue Community Services

14

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

15

Further analyses also revealed that more girls than boys cried or get upset. Likewise, there were also more girls than boys who tell someone about their stress. On the other hand, across the three education levels, there were not much differences in coping styles. Table 3.3.2 shows the correlations between the various coping styles and stress level. Stress level is obtained by computing the mean frequency of occurrence of signs of stress. Higher mean frequency indicates higher stress level. Table 3.3.1 Correlation between Coping Styles and Stress level Active coping Negative Emotion coping Stress level

-.15**

.36**

Avoidance coping .18**

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

The correlation between the three coping styles and stress level were modest but significant. It is noteworthy that active coping is negatively correlated with stress level, indicating that students who use active coping are more likely to have lower stress level, whereas negative emotion coping and avoidance coping are positively correlated with stress level, indicating that those who use negative emotion coping and /or avoidance coping are more likely to experience higher stress level. Nevertheless, given that the magnitudes of the correlations were not very strong, there may be other factors accounting for the variation in stress level. In the focus group discussion, the students typically mentioned that they do something else when they were stressed. Things that were mentioned included active outdoor activities (cycling, swimming, roller-blading, playing soccer, visiting the library), passive outdoor activities (hanging out with friends, staying outside), active indoor activities (surfing the internet, playing computer games or video games, playing boardgame), and passive indoor activities (sleeping, watching TV). The students said that doing these things were helpful in relieving stress. Some also mentioned words like “don’t care”, “pretend nothing happened”. There was not much difference in the responses of the two groups with regards to this issue. Thus findings from both the mass survey and the focus groups suggest that primary school children commonly adopt an avoidance approach in response to stress.

Fei Yue Community Services

15

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

16

3.4. Support The students were asked whether they turn to anyone in times of needs. The results are summarized in figure 3.4.1. Figure 3.4.1 Respondents’ Indication of who They Turn To in Times of Problems. 100.0%

80.0%

60.0% 43.8%

39.0%

40.0%

22.0% 20.0%

12.4% 4.8%

0.0% Parents

Teachers

Friends

Brothers or sisters

Others

From the figure, it is apparent that the respondents turn to their parents or friends when they needed to talk to someone. When cross-tabulated against education level, it was found that the proportion of respondents turning to parent decreased from primary 4 to primary 6, while the opposite trend was true for the proportion of respondents turning to their friends. This finding is consistent with that of the focus group, where some students in group 1 mentioned that they talked to their parents or form teachers, whereas the older children who were in group 2 almost unanimously pointed that they do not talk to adults but they talk to their friends because they felt that their friends could understand them better. As the preceding section noted that more girls than boys talk to someone as a form of coping, it is reasonable to assume that in figure 3.4.1., there were more girls than boys who reported having someone to talk to.

Fei Yue Community Services

16

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

17

3.5. Resilience The mass survey respondents’ resilience levels were measured using a 4-point scale according to four separate domains, namely, family relations, bonding to school, peer group attachment, and individual characteristics. Figure 3.5.1 presents the results. Figure 3.5.1 Strengths of each Resilience Domains. 4.00 3.51 3.00 2.78

2.07

2.00

2.02

1.00 Family relations Bonding to school

Peer group

Individual characteristics

As seen from the figure above, school bonding emerged as the strongest resilience factor among the four domains, followed by individual characteristics. Further analyses show that school bonding and family relations were comparatively weaker among Primary 6 students. Next, in order to explore how resilience is associated with stress level and with active coping, correlation analyses were conducted between the four resilience factors and stress level. The result is summarized in the following table. Table 3.5.1 Correlation between Four Resilience Domains and Stress Level as well as Active Coping. School bonding Family Individual Peer group relations characteristics Stress level

-.43**

-.23**

-.12**

-.02

Active coping

.18**

.39**

.28**

.33**

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

Except for peer group attachment, school bonding, family relations, and individual characteristics are negatively correlated with stress level, indicating that students with

Fei Yue Community Services

17

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

18

stronger school bonding, family relations, and individual characteristics are more likely to have lower stress level. All the four resilience factors are positively correlated with active coping. In other words, students with stronger school bonding, family relations, and individual characteristics are more likely to use active coping. An alternative perspective is that maybe active coping is more effective in reducing stress with the support of good family relations, strong school bonding, and positive individual characteristics. 3.6. The Role of the School The findings of this section are mainly generated from the teachers’ survey and the focus group discussions. Figure 3.6.1 shows what the school has been doing to help students address the issue of stress as reported by the teachers. The figure also includes the teachers’ ratings of the effectiveness of each measure listed. Figure 3.6.1 What school is doing to help students reduce/cope with stress and their reported effectiveness Special programme for target students

4

Financial assistance

3.5

Remedial

3.67

Networking with parents

3.25

Lifeskills and other enrichment activities

4

Teacher-student buddy system

3.67

Conduct talks

3.13

Online helpline

3.11 3.25

PCCG

3.53

Counselling

1

2

3

4

5

Reported effectiveness on a 5-point scale (1 = "Not effective at all"; 5 = "Very effective")

It appears that the school has in place a range of services and programmes to help their students cope with stress. These ranged from mass programmes for all students to special programmes for some particular student population, to one-to-one counseling. The mode of delivery of these programmes and services ranged from formal talks to informal teacher-student buddy system and online help. Furthermore, the contents of the

Fei Yue Community Services

18

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

19

programmes may not necessarily be related to stress, they may be enrichment classes that teaches life skills. When the students in the focus groups were asked what the school has been doing to help them cope with stress, those in group 1 named enrichment programmes such as dancing, drama, singing, and craft work, while those in group 2 mentioned stress-related small group workshops, such as how to release stress and how to prevent stress. Thus compared to the teachers, it seems that the students’ had quite limited knowledge of the available resources in the school that can help them. This is especially salient considering that both the teachers and student were from the same school. The teachers were also asked what else the school can do to help reduce the students’ stress level. Their responses are summarized in figure 3.6.2. Figure 3.6.2 What else can school do to help students reduce/cope with stress

3

Stress-related talks/workshops

2

More revision/tuition time

Better teacher-student relationship

3

2

Reduce other activities

Leisure/enrichment activities

3

4

Involve parents Changes to homework/assigments/curriculum time

6 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

This was an open-ended question, therefore not all teachers responded to it. From the available responses, the main suggestion from the teachers were that the school make

Fei Yue Community Services

19

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

20

changes to the amount of homework and assignments given to the students, and to the curriculum time as well. Some also suggested that parents should also be involved in helping the students. When asked what they think parents can do, these were their responses:

Figure 3.6.3 What Parents can do to Help Children Reduce/Cope with Stress, as reported byTeachers

2

help them relieve stress reduce activities/assignments outside school

4

help in school work

4 3

work closely with teachers

3

realistic mindset and expectations

21

be more positively involved in children's life*

0

5

10

15

20

25

Most teachers felt that parents could be more involved in their children’s lives. These included communicating more with their children, show more care and concern, spend more quality time with their children and provide their children with more emotional support. On the other hand, students in the focus groups were asked what they want the school or their parents to do to help them reduce stress, these were their responses: Group 1: - Sports (“longer PE lessons”, “basketball”, “badminton”, “soccer”) - Parent to bring them out (“shopping”) - Communication and understanding (“parents and teachers to understand that they are stressed”, “parents to tell more about stress and let you cry”) Group 2 - Changes to school workload and treatment from teachers (“less homework”, “[teachers] don’t nag”) - Recreation activities (“soccer”, “ball games”, “play chess”, “drama performances/comedy shows”) - Parents to give more freedom (“give more time to do what they want to do”, “want freedom”) - Parent to bring them out (“local or overseas”)

Fei Yue Community Services

20

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

-

21

Parent-teacher communication (“parents to help talk to teacher”)

Their responses indicated that they preferred sports and recreational activities to help them unwind. They also needed understanding from their parents and teachers. Group 2, which was made up of primary 6 students desired more freedom, which can be seen as another indication of their transition into teenagers.

Fei Yue Community Services

21

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

22

4. Discussions In this section, the findings are discussed in details, with more attention given to possible rationales behind the findings and their implications for schools and other service providers. 4.1. Sources and Signs of Stress As hypothesized, “studies” emerged as the main reported source of stress in the mass survey. Further probing during the focus group discussions revealed that homework (too much and too difficult) and examinations are the two main study-related stressors. This is consistent with the responses in the teachers’ survey. However, it is interesting that the students in both the focus groups named teachers’ expectations as a stressor but the teachers did not seem to think so. Instead, the teachers identified parents’ expectations as a source of stress, alongside examinations and homework. This may reflect a lack of understanding of one another’s expectations among the students, teachers, and parents. Furthermore, the teachers also listed family relationship as a source of stress for the children. It may be that through their interactions with the children and parents, the teachers had observed some family relationship issues that would affect the students’ studies. if they were not addressed. The hypothesis that the most common signs of stress were feeling scared, school avoidance, tiredness, and sleep disturbances was only partially supported. The findings from the mass survey and the focus group discussions revealed that the common signs of stress are mostly feelings-oriented, such as anger, fear, sadness, frustration, and “tiredness” was found to be the most frequently experienced state. These signs were then followed by the hypothesized sleep disturbances and school avoidance. Parents and teachers may want to take note of these signs of stress. However, it should also be noted a single sign per se does not necessarily indicate the presence of stress. For instance, if a child feels tired, it may be due to physical exercise. Therefore, perhaps ascertaining the presence of stress requires observing multiple indicators. The feelings-oriented signs may have been reported so prominently because it was easier for the respondents to report feelings than to report outward behaviours. This has also been commonly observed in other forms of self-reports by primary school children. Another perspective is that the children might lack a language to express stress. Therefore stress-related programmes for primary school students, be it talks or workshops, may want to include equipping participants with a range of creative and healthy ways of expressing stress. Nevertheless, the finding points to the importance of teaching of emotion management among our primary school students. 4.2. Coping Strategies and Support Majority of the mass survey respondents were divided between doing something about the problem and doing something else to avoid thinking about the problem. Statistically,

Fei Yue Community Services

22

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

23

these two were not correlated. In other words, the respondents who adopted those two coping styles were two distinct groups of respondents, with little possible overlap. The hypothesis which stated that there might be gender differences in coping styles was supported to the extent that more girls responded to stress by crying or becoming upset. This finding is not surprising as girls are commonly known to be to be more emotionally expressive. However, contrary to the hypothesis, there were not much gender differences in the use of avoidant coping and the display of anger. The use of avoidant coping were almost equally prevalent among both genders, and only slightly more boys than girls become angry when stressed. This finding was echoed by the responses of the focus groups students who typically do something else, such as sports activities, board games, computer games, sleep, watch TV, or merely hanging out. These findings imply that our children typically adopt an avoidant approach towards stress, that is, they do something else to try and get away from thinking about the problem. Healthy activities such as soccer or basketball are commonly regarded as helpful and effective ways to relax, and these should be encouraged among our children. However, treating these activities as means to avoid the stress/problem may not be helpful, as shown by the finding that the use of avoidance is associated with higher stress level. Therefore, these activities should be viewed in the right perspective. The hypothesis that more girls than boys would seek emotional support by talking talk to someone about their stress, was supported. This is expected as girls are widely accepted as more relational than boys. The hypothesis that parents and friends were the two main groups of people whom students would turn to in times of stress was also supported. Moreover, the finding is also in accordance with the hypothesis that the younger children tended to talk to their parents, whereas the older children were more inclined to turn to their friends. As noted by the Primary 6 children in the focus group, they felt, their friends could understand them better than the adults. It is also worth noting that only 4.8% of the mass survey respondents indicated that they turn to their teachers for support. This may be due to the high teacher-student ratio, hence teachers may be less accessible as compared to parents or friends,. Though relatively fewer students actively sought their teachers for help, it does not necessarily imply that teachers will be turned away if they take the initiative to reach out to their students. 4.3. Resilience As hypothesized, school bonding emerged strongest among the four factors. This result was not altered even with the addition of more EM3 students in the mass survey sample, compared to the preliminary study sample. Hence it can be said that one’s sense of belonging to the school is not entirely determined by one’s academic performance, but by other factors, such as the presence of close friends, active involvement in sports, games, and other CCAs.

Fei Yue Community Services

23

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

24

The results also highlight the association between resilience and stress level. School bonding, family relations, and individual characteristics were all negatively correlated with stress level, thus indicating the importance of strengthening these three domains in order to help reduce stress, or buffer against rising stress level. Also, all four resilience factors were positively correlated with active coping. In other words, students who enjoy strong positive relationships with their families and peers, who develop belongingness to their schools, and who are predisposed to actively make plans and solve problems, are more likely to cope with stress actively. However, as a correlation analysis does not imply a causal relationship, it may also be that students who cope with stress actively, such as doing something about the problem or talking to someone about it, go on to develop strong ties with their families and peers, and with their schools, and also the skills to plan and solve problems. Notwithstanding, given the multiple associations among active coping, the resilience factors, and stress level, it is clear that enhancing our children’s active coping skills, and strengthening their attachment to their immediate social systems, namely family and school, are helpful in reducing stress level or coping with stress. 4.4. Other Findings The teachers surveyed and focus groups students consistently pointed out that perhaps the most effective way to address the issue of stress was making structural changes, such as reducing workload, as well as amending the curriculum time. This can be perceived as in line with the government’s recent adoption of the “teach less, learn more” philosophy towards education. Hence from the perspective of helping our students to reduce or cope with stress, the “teach less, learn more” approach can be expected to be well-received by both the teachers and students. It also appears that the students were not quite aware of the wide range of measures available in school to help them cope with stress. This may be an outcome of the practice of referring students to the services only when a need is identified. For instance, perhaps only students who have been referred to school counsellor are aware of the counseling service in school. These students remained the minority in school. Thus, it may be helpful for the school to proactively inform its students of the services or programmes the school has for them. This may encourage students to take the initiative to seek early assistance, instead of waiting for their problems to surface, or their needs to be noticed by their teachers, and then be referred to the respective resources by the teachers. This may serve to alter the conventional model of intervention to one that is more preventive in nature. It is interesting to note that the students’ preferred ways of stress reduction were nonstress-related, namely, participation in sports and recreational activities, including wanting their parents to bring them out, and more understanding from parents and teachers. This was quite contrary to the usual approach of holding stress-related talks and

Fei Yue Community Services

24

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

25

workshops, including the teaching of effective life skills. Though schools or relevant community partners view it as important for students to be equipped with life skills to help them cope with life’s demands and challenges, it seemed that students merely wanted to do something else to unwind. Teachers also perceived that parents could play a bigger role in their children’s lives, in terms of spending more quality time, showing more concern, providing more emotional support, and quality communication. This reflects that the teachers understood the intimate association between family life satisfaction and the quality of school life. However, the findings also suggest that much more can be done to promote communication among students, teachers, and parents, particularly in understanding their expectations of one another, and how they can work together to provide our children with quality family life and positive school experiences. 4.5 Recommendations In view of the findings, the following are recommended for schools, service providers, and other concerned parties. 4.5.1. Developmental or preventive programmes should include family bonding as a main component. 4.5.2. Programmes should also help improve children’s bonding with their schools, and improve parents understanding of the study environment in the schools. One possible way is for service providers and schools to form partnerships to conduct children programmes and parenting programmes in schools as integrative components of the schools’ curriculum. 4.5.3. Redesign emotion management programmes for children such that instead of teaching emotion management in isolation, it is taught within greater contexts, for example, its association with studies, friendships. 4.5.4. Conduct programmes that teach children to build and manage healthy friendships, and how to provide mutual support for one another within the peer group. 4.5.5. Teach and encourage children to use active coping when handling stress. 4.5.6. Make appropriate adjustments to the schools’ curriculum time and the students’ workload so as to create a less stressful and more conducive learning environment in school. This is an issue that the Ministry of Education and various schools are already actively looking into. 4.5.7. Establish effective school-family communication. This is to facilitate dialogues and promote mutual understanding between teachers, parents, and students. It can also be a safe platform for students to express their wishes to their schools and their families. 4.5.8. Educate adults on the possible signs of stress in children, teaching them how to identify if their children are experiencing too much stress. At the same time, teach children to be more aware of their own responses towards stress so that they can also identify the signs of stress in themselves.

Fei Yue Community Services

25

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

26

4.5.9. Reposition PE lessons as not merely beneficial to students’ physical health, but in combination with other recreational activities, serves the holistic purpose of keeping them psychologically healthy as well. 4.5.10. Schools may want to review their referral procedures in order to render their assistances more user-friendly to the students. In other words, raising the students’ awareness of the wide range of available assistances and how to utilize them, as well as encouraging students to proactively seek assistance in times of need. 4.6. Conclusion It should be noted that the participants in this study were samples of convenience. This is especially true of the teachers’ survey and the student focus groups, as both components were conducted with the only school which responded to the requests for teachers to be surveyed and for students to form the focus groups. The representativeness of the sample in these two components could be improved by involving more than one school. Likewise, the mass survey sample could have been made more representative by including primary 1 to 3 students. Future studies may want to note these issues. Due to limitations in resources, the study was unable to find out the views of parents. This is important in providing a more holistic and balance picture of the subject under discussion. Future study may want to look into this. This study started out by exploring our primary school children’s source of stress, their resilience level against stress, and their coping styles. It also explored possible prevention/intervention measures that can help strengthen the children’s resilience and help them to manage their stress more effectively. It was subsequently found that studyrelated issues, such as examinations, high workload, and expectations formed the biggest sources of stress in our children. The common signs of stress were feelings of tiredness, anger, sadness, and fear. The two prominent, distinct coping styles were active coping and avoidance coping. It was also found that bonding to school was the strongest, compared to the other resilience domains. Furthermore, active coping, strong bonding to school, good family relations, and individual proactivity were also found to be contributive to experiencing lower stress level. In terms of possible prevention/intervention measures, there was certain level of convergence in the responses of the students and the teachers, yet there was also some extent of disagreement. Both groups mentioned making changes to the workload and curriculum time as important. The teachers also felt that parents should be more involved in their children’s lives, which also partly agreed with the students’ remark that they needed more understanding from their parents and teachers. In addition, the students also desired more time for sports and recreational activities. The findings also indicate that much more can be done to improve communications, understanding, and partnership among teachers, parents, and students.

Fei Yue Community Services

26

Stress, Coping, and Resilience in Children

27

5. References Baker, M., & O’Neill, A. (1993). Stress and Coping with Disaster: A Handbook Compiled Following the Midwest Flood of 1993 for Extensions Professionals. Adapted by University of Florida: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. Journal of Personaliyt and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267 – 283. Compass, B. E., Conner-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 87 – 127. Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53(2), 205 – 220.

Fei Yue Community Services

27