Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Academic Well-Being and Structural Characteristics of Peer Networks in School
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Academic Well-Being and Structural Characteristics of Peer Networks in School
Do you wish to request the book?
Academic Well-Being and Structural Characteristics of Peer Networks in School
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Academic Well-Being and Structural Characteristics of Peer Networks in School
2020
Overview
Peer networks at school and students’ position in these networks can influence their academic well-being. We study here individual students’ network position (isolation, popularity, social activity) and peer network structures at the school level (centralization, density, clustering, school connectedness) and their relations to students’ academic well-being (school burnout, SB; schoolwork engagement, SE). Classroom surveys for 14–16-year-olds (N = 11,015) were conducted in six European cities (SILNE survey). Students were asked to nominate up to five schoolmates with whom they preferred to do schoolwork. SB and SE correlated negatively (−0.32; p < 0.0001). Students had on average 3.4 incoming (popularity; range 0–5) and 3.4 outgoing (social activity; 0–5) social ties. Percentage of isolated students was 1.4. Students’ network position was associated weakly with academic well-being—popular students had less SB and higher SE, and socially active students had higher SE. School-level peer networks showed high clustering and school connectedness, but low density and low centralization. Clustering was associated with higher SB. Low centralization and high school connectedness protected from SB. Dense networks supported SE as did high average school connectedness. Correlations between these network indicators and academic well-being were, however, low. Our study showed that both students’ network position and network characteristics at the school level can influence adolescents’ academic well-being.
