Investigating School Belonging Using Socio-Ecological Systems Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wide body of literature has found that a strong sense of belonging and connection to school is imperative for students’ academic success, in addition to their social and emotional well-being. School belonging is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, and researchers have identified a multitude of factors that influence the development of belonging at school. Given its complexities, a holistic representation of school belonging is often left out of the research, leading to a lack of clarity on this essential educational construct. To develop a comprehensive model of school belonging, this literature review examines the construct using Bronfenbrenner's (1993) ecological systems theory of human development. Drawing on evidence originating from a broad range of peer-reviewed studies, this article investigates how school belonging evolves in response to influences across Bronfenbrenner's (1993) levels of development (i.e., the individual level, the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the chronosystem). Findings from this investigation are also used to discuss strategies for promoting belonging in schools. This review makes an original contribution to the field of educational research by developing a comprehensive model of school belonging through the lens of a socio-ecological framework. Keywords: school belonging, ecological systems theory, peer relationships, teacher-student relationships, academic achievement, psychosocial well-being
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".