PRESENCE OF RISK FACTORS IN PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS AND THE NEED FOR EARLY SOCIAL-PEDAGOGICAL INTERVENTION

Abstract

The school is an institution that represents an important link in the social care chain for children and young people, which also involves taking various measures to prevent the occurrence of undesirable behaviors. The aim of the study is to determine the prevalence of risk factors between adolescents with externalized and internalized problems and typically developing adolescents, and to determine in which segment, in the opinion of teachers, early social-pedagogical intervention is most needed. The research sample is made up of 450 students (233 male and 217 female) of the seventh and eighth grades of primary school. The results show that the highest risk factors are present in the group of students with externalized behavioral problems, slightly less in the group with internalized problems, and the least in students without behavioral and emotional problems. When it comes to early social-pedagogical interventions, in the opinion of teachers, they should be comprehensive and implemented by a competent expert.

Full text

33
Received: 2019/6/28
Accepted: 2019/9/3
PRESENCE OF RISK FACTORS IN PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS AND
THE NEED FOR EARLY SOCIAL-PEDAGOGICAL INTERVENTION
Adela Jahić1,a
Emina Suljkanović-Djedovićb
Lejla Kuralić-Čišića
Meliha Bijedića
aFaculty of Education and Rehabilitation, University of Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
bPublic institution, Primary School “Klokotnica”, Doboj Istok, Bosnia and Herzegovina
ABSTRACT
The school is an institution that represents an important link in the social care chain for children and young people,
which also involves taking various measures to prevent the occurrence of undesirable behaviors. The aim of the study
is to determine the prevalence of risk factors between adolescents with externalized and internalized problems and typi-
cally developing adolescents, and to determine in which segment, in the opinion of teachers, early social-pedagogical
intervention is most needed. The research sample is made up of 450 students (233 male and 217 female) of the seventh
and eighth grades of primary school. The results show that the highest risk factors are present in the group of students
with externalized behavioral problems, slightly less in the group with internalized problems, and the least in students
without behavioral and emotional problems. When it comes to early social-pedagogical interventions, in the opinion of
teachers, they should be comprehensive and implemented by a competent expert.
Key words: early social-pedagogical intervention, adolescents, risk factors, school environment.
1Correspondence to:
Adela Jahić, Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation, University of Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Univerzitetska 1, 75000 Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
E-mail: adela.jahic16@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
As a child grows up, it is increasingly exposed to a
variety of environmental factors, which is especially
reected during schooling when the school environ-
ment and peers assume the role of the main agent of
socialization. The school is an institution that repre-
sents an important link in the social care chain for
children and young people, which also involves taking
various measures to prevent the occurrence of undesir-
able behaviors. In a school context, it is possible to
develop, implement and monitor in the best possible
way a comprehensive support system that respects the
needs of all students in the school (Sprague & Walker,
2000).
The school has great potential in terms of fostering
children's development, creating a positive environ-
ment, spotting the rst signs of risky behavior and
responding promptly and appropriately to prevent fur-
ther development of those (Bašić, 2009).
Original scientic paper
Human Research in Rehabilitation
The International Journal for
interdisciplinary studies
2019, Vol. 9 (2) 33-39
www.human.ba
DOI: 10.21554/hrr.091905

34
Risk factors are related to unfavorable social condi-
tions and circumstances which through their actions,
by their presence and inuence in the process of so-
cialization, impede proper social development and
prevent the formation of pro-social behaviors of chil-
dren and young people, i.e. increase the likelihood of
forming and exhibiting risky behaviors (Žižak, 2010).
Risk is part of the psycho-dynamic transition process
of maturation that entails the search for identity, and
it often involves examining and shifting the bounda-
ries of what is allowed. Risk can be the result of dif-
ferent types of decits (social, material, family), just
as it may be the result of the dominance of cultural
values promoted by the materialistic culture of late
capitalism. The question of the extent to which young
people are at risk involves the discovery of a complex
relationship in which power structures, reexive indi-
vidualization, determinism of social structure, and the
capacity of young people to be adequately involved
are intertwined (Sharland, 2005). There are three key
risk factors that affect the social development and
social behavior of children and young people: early
and frequent antisocial behavior in school, school
failure beginning in primary school, and insufcient
commitment to school and school responsibilities
(Hawkins, 2004). The emergence of risk factors in
the school environment is signicantly inuenced by
the system of social values, within which the status
of educational activity in the system of social activity
and social concern for school and school education
is particularly important. Schools and even depart-
ments within the same school differ in terms of risk
behaviors, levels of violence and victimization (Pav-
lovic & Zunic-Pavlovic, 2012). These differences are
explained by the so-called departmental/class norms
pertaining to violence. However, it should be borne
in mind that there are signicant individual differ-
ences at departmental/class level. Thus, for example,
individual children may have attitudes that may differ
signicantly from departmental/class norms (Velki &
Vrdoljak, 2012), but it should be borne in mind that
both the individual characteristics and the family con-
text of the child may inuence his or her behavior
in a particular situation (Bašić, 2009; Popovic-Citic,
2005; Popovic-Citic, 2007; Popovic-Citic & Popovic,
2009).
Today, there are numerous programs in our area that
deal with the continuum of interventions in the school
environment, depending on the needs of the students.
Selective and indicative prevention programs can be
considered as intervention programs, since their pur-
pose is to repair and change the current situation into
the desired direction. An intervention is dened as a
set of activities to which a group (or individuals) is
exposed to change its behavior (Bašić, 2009). These
interventions are preventative, because if successful,
they prevent the occurrence of (new and more seri-
ous) behavioral problems (Zloković & Vrcelj, 2010).
Universal or early intervention programs are based
on the development and strengthening of protective
factors and are far more effective than programs that
seek to reduce existing behavioral problems.
Early social-pedagogical intervention is classied on
the continuum of prevention of behavioral disorders
as a level of selective prevention preceded by univer-
sal prevention, supplemented by an indicated level of
prevention (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs
and Drug Addiction, 2009). In doing so, early social-
pedagogical intervention involves an individualized
approach to children and young people who already
have severe behavioral problems at an early stage in
their development. It is an intervention targeted at
selected students who are involved in universal and
early-intervention school curricula and activities,
while students with intense behavioral problems re-
quire interventions and treatments that generally go
beyond the capabilities of the school itself and im-
ply an interdisciplinary and inter-departmental ap-
proach in the joint work of different services of the
local communities. Early social-pedagogical inter-
vention is a targeted professional and comprehensive,
especially pedagogical, action in the school environ-
ment towards students who, for various reasons, are
at risk of developing behavioral problems (Bouillet
et al., 2015). Students with behavioral problems are
signicantly different, indicating the need for a com-
prehensive approach to detecting the difculties and
needs of these students in a timely manner, with the
aim of providing them with appropriate support and
interventions aimed at preventing more serious social
and behavioral problems in the future.
Problems in the behavior of children and young peo-
ple are an umbrella term for a continuum of behav-
iors from simpler, lesser signicance, danger and
harm to oneself and others, to those dened and / or
sanctioned by regulations or often more severe by
consequences and needs for intervention (Koller-
Trbović, Mirosavljević, & Jeđud Borić, 2017). This
term encompasses a continuum from risky behavior,
through behavioral difculties, to behavioral disor-
ders (Koller-Trbović, Žižak, & Jeđud Borić, 2011).
In modern dimensional systems, the division into ex-
ternalized and internalized behavioral problems is ac-
cepted (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001).
A. JAHIĆ, PRESENCE OF RISK FACTORS IN ... HRR, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2019

35
Externalized syndromes refer to conicts with other
people and their expectations, which include behav-
iors that violate rules and aggressive behavior. The
second group of problems includes types of self-
directed behavior, that is, internal problems such as
anxiety, depression, somatic complaints without clear
medical reasons, and social withdrawal.
Aim of the research
The aim of the research is to determine the preva-
lence of individual risk factors in relation to adoles-
cents with externalized problems, adolescents with
internalized problems and typically developed ado-
lescents, and to determine in which segment, in the
opinion of teachers, early social pedagogical inter-
vention is most needed.
METHODS
The sample of respondents in this study consists of
450 students (233 male and 217 female) of the seventh
and eighth grades of primary school. The research
was carried out in the Municipality of Doboj Istok
and Gračanica, in the primary schools of Klokotnica,
Brijesnica, Lukavica and Hasan Kikić. The test was
conducted with each respondent individually accord-
ing to the test requirements. Emerging forms of risk
behaviors were examined using the Achenbach As-
sessment System, the adolescent/youth self-report ver-
sion (ASEBA Youth Self-Report - YSR, Achenbach
& Resorla 2001). The instrument measures adaptive
functioning, that is, competencies and maladaptive
functioning, that is, behavioral, emotional, and social
problems between the ages of 11 and 18 years. The in-
strument contains eight syndrome-specic scales that
measure co-occurrence problems, such as: Anxiety-
Depression, Reticence-Depression, Somatic Prob-
lems, Social Problems, Thinking Problems, Attention
Problems, Policy Violation Behavior and Aggressive
Behavior. The syndromes are grouped as externalized
and internalized. Statistical program SPSS 20.0 for
Microsoft Windows was used for data processing.
Table 1. Distribution of respondents by gender and age
A. JAHIĆ, PRESENCE OF RISK FACTORS IN ... HRR, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2019
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Seventh
grade
Eighth grade
Gender
male
Count
93
140
233
% within gender
39.9%
60.1%
100.0%
% within grade
47.9%
54.7%
51.8%
female
Count
101
116
217
% within gender
46.5%
53.5%
100.0%
% within grade
52.1%
45.3%
48.2%
Total
Count
194
256
450
% within gender
43.1%
56.9%
100.0%
% within grade
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table 2. Discriminant values (lambda), group centroids (C), standard deviation (SD) of discriminant functions, F-test
and level of statistical signicance (p)
DF
Lambda
C1
C2
C3
SD1
SD2
SD3
F
p
1
1.0741
-,03
.07
-.09
.38
.32
.38
3.30
0,37
2
.0356
.25
-,34
.30
1.30
.72
1.34
.54
.591
Legend: C1- externalized behaviors; C2- internalized behaviors; C3- typically developed students
Discriminant analysis isolated two functions, but only one of which is a statistically signicant discriminant function.

36
Table 3. Structure of the discriminant function
Of the two discriminant functions obtained, only the
rst one proved statistically signicant. It is dened by
a medium level of signicance (.67), then low (.53), and
somewhat by high (.31). Although the differences are
signicant at the p level of .05, however, the differenc-
es between the groups are very small, that is, the very
low positive correlation with this discriminant function
have students with externalized problems, in compari-
son with students with internalized problems. Given the
position of the centroids, it is evident that the highest
risk factors are present in the group of students with
externalized behavior, slightly less in the group with
internalized behavior, and the least in students without
behavioral and emotional problems.
Table 4. Central tendency measures, measures of dispersion and asymmetries of the distribution of scores on the YSR
scales
Analysis of the data in Table 4 shows that, on the
sample Anxiety/Depression sub-scale, the stu-
dents had achieved scores in the range of 15-40,
with a mean of 23.14 (SD = 4.33). On the Reti-
cence/Depression sub-scale, respondents achieved
scores in the range of 7-19, with a mean of (SD =
2.41). Scores on the sub-scale Somatic Problems
ranged from 8-21, with a mean of (SD = 3.17). In
the Social Problems sub-scale, scores ranged from
10-25, with a mean of (SD = 2.75). The Thinking
Problems sub-scale has scores ranging from 10-28,
with a mean of (SD = 3.37). In the Sub-scale At-
tention Problems, the score is ranged from 25-65,
with a mean of (SD = 6.28). In the Policy Violation
Behavior sub-scale, the score ranged from 12-28,
with a mean of (SD = 2.91), while in the Aggres-
sive Behavior sub-scale, the score ranged from 20-
53, with a mean of (SD = 5.34). At main Scales
- Internalized and Externalized problems - scores
varied from 33-86, with a mean of (SD = 8.37) for
Internalized problems and 32-79, with a mean of
(SD = 7.62) for Externalized problems, and the To-
tal score ranged from 172-447, with a mean of (SD
= 46.55).
Variables
Discrimination coefficients
Discriminant functions
Low risk
,52
.67
Medium risk
.67
.93
High risk
.29
.14
Very high risk
.03
.78
Variables
N Min Max
M
SD
Skeewness
Kurtosis
Stat
St.g
Stat
St.g
Stat
St.g
Anxiety/Depression
450
15
40
23.14
.19
4.33
1.07
.10
1.71
.20
Reticence/Depression
450
7
19
11.71
.10
2.41
1.16
.10
1.37
.20
Somatic Problems
450
8
24
10.74
.12
3.17
1.45
.10
1.80
.20
Social Problems
450
10
25
13.07
13
2.75
1.39
.10
2.70
.20
Thinking Problems
450
10
28
13.08
.14
3.37
1.59
.10
2.29
.20
Attention Problems
450
25
65
42.57
.28
6.28
.58
.10
.48
.20
Policy Violation
Behavior
450
12
28
16.21
.12
2.91
1.41
.10
2.28
.20
Aggressive Behavior
450
20
53
29.16
.24
5.34
1.18
.10
1.58
.20
Internalized problems
450
33
86
46.69
.37
8.37
1.20
.10
2.00
.20
Externalized problems
450
32
79
45.37
.32
7.62
1.54
.10
2.01
.20
450
172
447
251.74
2.01
46.55
12.5
1
18.2
2
A. JAHIĆ, PRESENCE OF RISK FACTORS IN ... HRR, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2019

37
The school environment is considered as one of the
most inuential socialization domains in a child's life
(Currie, Gabhainn, Godeau et al., 2008). The sense
of school afliation and academic achievement have
proven themselves to be signicant negative predic-
tors of aggressive and risky gender behavior (Kyri-
acou, Mylonakou-Keke, & Stephens, 2016).
Research has shown that experiences in school and ad-
justment to school can have both positive and negative
impacts on development. Studying adolescents' inter-
connections, attachment, and engagement at school,
Ert (2012) identies three levels of successful school
adaptation - individual level of school connection,
friends connected to school (connection with school-
related peers), and avoidance of negative behaviors
in school (e.g., cheating, skipping school, etc.). The
importance of being attached to school friends with
whom adolescents socialize indicates that a relation-
ship with peers who have pro-social attitudes supports
the pro-social behavior of the adolescents themselves.
Hawkins (2004) points to a strong link between the
children's poor adjustment to school and the use of
drugs. A large number of aggressive children in the
classroom increase the risk of developing behavioral
disorders of other children. Risky behaviors may in-
clude impulsive decision-making, reckless behavior,
quarreling with peers, or challenging authority, but
they also include high-risk behaviors that have far-
reaching consequences on the life course of a young
person. When it comes to school-based interventions
by teachers, there are several obstacles they face. The
main obstacle pointed out by teachers in assisting stu-
dents is a lack of knowledge of social-pedagogical
preventive interventions (Chart 1).
a) I talk privately with the student trying to cover up the cause of the behavior,
b) When I do not disclose the cause of the behavior in the interview, I inform the educator and the associate about the behavior.
Chart 2. Ways of teacher help to students with behavioral problems
a) I do not know enough about methods of social pedagogical intervention
b) I'm running out of time
c) Insufcient cooperation with parents
d) Pupils refuse to be helped
e) I do not encounter obstacles, I successfully solve problems
Chart 1. Obstacles encountered by teachers when assisting students
Chart 2 presents a way of providing teacher assistance for stu- dents who have a behavioral problem.
0
10
20
30
40
a) b) c) d) e)
0
20
40
60
80
a) b)
A. JAHIĆ, PRESENCE OF RISK FACTORS IN ... HRR, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2019

38
According to the analysis of the results of the research, it
is found that teachers mainly use an individual approach to
work in assisting students at risk for behavioral problems.
The results of a qualitative study conducted by Koller-Tr-
bovic and Zizak (2012) examining multiple perspectives
on behavioral problems show that all interlocutors (teach-
ers, school staff, local community representatives) under-
stand children's and young people's behavioral problems
as a complex social problem, they see its detrimental effect
on society and its intensication in recent times. Through
the different perspectives of the interlocutors, a common
idea of the social conditionality of the phenomenon could
also be observed. Teachers state that their main obstacle in
providing adequate assistance to the adolescent with be-
havioral problems is their lack of knowledge of social-ped-
agogical methods. In schools, it is necessary for experts in
the eld of social-pedagogical interventions to be compe-
tent in this eld. Research (Odak, Ristic Dedic, Bezinovic
et al., 2010) conrms that successful schools have de-
veloped a special way of dealing with situations where
a student has learning and / or behavioral problems, that
they have an elaborate focused system of action to solve
problems at the individual and group levels, that teachers
give students with behavioral problems individual atten-
tion and that there is a consensus on values and good com-
munication and collaboration among all individuals in the
educational process. Contemporary concepts about young
people who are woven into fears about the seriousness of
disorders in the behavior of young people who over-incline
to risky, even criminal, relate to their reality and problems
of misunderstanding. At the same time, the risky behav-
ior of young people is a cultural phenomenon that must be
analyzed within the framework of cultural criminology, as
an attempt to separate the real dimension of young people's
relationships and the risks from their academic, and espe-
cially media dramatization. Despite the limitations of the
human mind, adolescents have tremendous strength and
potential for learning and development. Programs aimed
at youth need to understand these potentials, the ways in
which they are developed while respecting the profound
complexity of teenagers' lives and the external post-mod-
ern world of disorder and insecurity (Larson, 2011). Regu-
lating adolescent emotional being, boosting motivational
capacity, and supporting self-regulation aims to turn an-
ger and loneliness into collaboration and empathy, and the
feeling of boredom and emptiness into work and life en-
thusiasm.
CONCLUSION
The whole spectrum of the process of socialization that
takes place in a socially organized context is correlated
with the individual characteristics of the developing person,
and understanding the development process must take into
account the change that changes both the individual and
the social environment over time. The specic socio-eco-
nomic, physical and emotional weaknesses of adolescents,
while recognizing their own strengths and opportunities,
may be the reason for the increased risk-taking tendency
that emerges as a "transition challenge". The purpose of the
research was to contribute to expanding the possibility of
timely prevention and early intervention of problems in the
behavior of students in the school environment in relation
to the presence of risk factors. The results showed that the
students expressed the need to implement programs aimed
at prevention of risk factors present in the group of stu-
dents with externalized behavior, slightly less in the group
with internalized behavior, and at least in students without
behavioral and emotional problems, and such programs are
not usually sufciently available in primary schools.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L.A. (2001). The manual for
the ASEBA school-age forms proles. Burlington VT,
University of Vermont: Research Center for Children,
Youth, and Families.
Bašić, J. (2009). Teorije prevencije. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
Bouillet, D. (2015). Konceptualni okvir razvoja modela rane
odgojno-obrazovne intervencije. U:Bouillet D (ur.):
Razvoj modela rane odgojno-obrazovne intervencije u
osnovnoj školi: od ideje do evaluacije. Zagreb: Forum
za slobodu odgoja. 25–47.
Currie, C., Nic Gabhainn, S., Godeau, E., Roberts, C., Smith,
R., Currie, D., & Barnekow, V. (2008). Inequalities
in young people’s health: Health behavior in school-
aged children (HBSC). International report from the
2005/2006 survey. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Re-
gional Ofce for Europe.
Eret, L. (2012). Odgoj i manipulacija: Razmatranje kroz razvo-
jnu teoriju ekoloških sustava. Metodički ogledi 19(1)
143–161.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
(2009). Preventing Later Substance Use Disorders in
At-risk Children and Adolescents: A Review of the The-
ory and Evidence Base of Indicated Prevention. The-
matic papers. Luxembourg: Ofce for Ofcial Publica-
tions of the European Communities.
Hawkins, J.D. (2004). Foreword; in: Allen-Mears, P., Fraser,
M.W. (eds.) Intervention with Children and Adoles-
cents: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Boston, New
York.
Kyriacou, Ch., Mylonakou-Keke, I., & Stephens, P. (2016). So-
cial pedagogy and bulling in schools: the views of uni-
versity student sin England, Gereece and Norway. Brit-
ish Educational Research Journal, 42(4): 6311–645.
Koller-Trbović, N., Mirosavljević, A., & Jeđud Borić, I. (2017).
Procjena potreba djece i mladih sa problemima u
ponašanju-konceptualne i metodičke odrednice. Za-
greb: Ured UNICEF-a za Hrvatsku.
Koller-Trbović, N., Žižak, A., & Jeđud Borić, I. (2011). Standar-
di za terminologiju, deniciju, kriterije i način praćenja
pojave poremećaja u ponašanju djece i mladih. Zagreb:
Ministarstvo obitelji, branitelja i međugeneracijske
solidarnosti i Povjerenstvo za prevenciju poremećaja
u ponašanju djece i mladih Vlade Republike Hrvatske.
A. JAHIĆ, PRESENCE OF RISK FACTORS IN ... HRR, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2019

39
Koller-Trbović, N., & Žižak, A. (2012). Problemi u ponašanju
djece i mladih i odgovori društva: višestruke perspec-
tive. Kriminologija i socijalna integracija. 20 (1)
1–132.
Larson, R.W. (2011). Positive development in a disorderly world.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 317–334.
Odak, I., Ristić Dedić, Z., Bezinović, P., & Rister, D. (2010).
Kako škole vide sebe- Analiza samoevaluacijskog upit-
nika u projektu samovrednovanja škola. U: Bezinović,
P. (ur). Samovrednovanje škola: Prva iskustva u os-
novnim školama. Zagreb: Agencija za odgoj i obrazo-
vanje i institute za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu,
63–96.
Pavlović, M., & Žunić-Pavlović, V. (2012). Koncept rezilijent-
nosti u savremenoj literaturi. Nastava i vaspitanje, 2,
232–246.
Popović-Ćitić, B. (2005). Prevencija fokusirana na rizične i
protektivne faktore kao savremeni pristup prevenciji
prestupništva mladih. Socijalna misao, 12 (1), 27-55.
Popović-Ćitić, B. (2007). Porodični rizični faktori nasilnog
ponašanja dece i omladine. Socijalna misao, 14(2),
27–50.
Popović-Ćitić, B. i Popović, V. (2009). Koncept rizičnih i pro-
tektivnih faktora – Klasikacija i okviri za potrebe
prevencije poremećaja ponašanja dece i omladine. So-
cijalna misao, 16(3), 43–65.
Velki, T., & Vrdoljak, G. (2012). Uloga nekih vršnjačkih i
školskih varijabli u predviđanju vršnjačkoga nasilnog
ponašanja. Društvena istraživanja, 22 (1), 101–120.
Sharland, E. (2005). Young People, Risk Taking and Risk Mak-
ing: Some Thoughts for Social Work. British Journal
of Social Work, 36 (2). 247–265.
Sprague, J., & Walker, H. (2000). Early Identication and In-
tervention for Youth with Antisocial and Violent Be-
havior. Council for exceptional children, 44, 355–371.
Zloković, J., & Vrcelj, S. (2010). Rizična ponašanja djece i mla-
dih. Odgojne znanosti, 12 (1), 197–213.
Žižak, A. (2010). Teorijske osnove intervencija. Zagreb: Edu-
kacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagre-
bu.
A. JAHIĆ, PRESENCE OF RISK FACTORS IN ... HRR, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2019