The influence of childhood socioeconomic status on academic engagement among adolescents: the mediating role of internalization of learning motivation and learning burnout – Frontiers

Report on the Socioeconomic Determinants of Adolescent Academic Engagement in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Aligning Education with Sustainable Development

Academic engagement is a critical indicator of educational quality and a cornerstone for achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all. High levels of student engagement are linked to superior learning achievement, psychological well-being, and overall educational success, directly supporting the targets of SDG 4. However, significant barriers persist, particularly for senior high school students who may experience decreased engagement. This report examines the underlying factors affecting academic engagement, with a specific focus on how socioeconomic conditions, mental well-being, and motivation intersect with global development objectives.

Distal factors such as childhood Socioeconomic Status (SES) present a profound challenge to the principles of SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Extensive research confirms that early life environments shaped by economic disparity have a lasting impact on individual development. This study posits that childhood SES is a significant predictor of adolescent academic engagement, as resource scarcity and environmental stress can impede the development of skills and motivation necessary for educational success. Addressing this link is crucial for breaking intergenerational cycles of poverty and promoting equitable opportunities.

The psychological mechanisms connecting SES and academic outcomes are central to this investigation, aligning with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). This report explores two key mediators: learning motivation and learning burnout. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) suggests that supportive environments foster the internalization of motivation, while adverse conditions can lead to burnout—a state of emotional exhaustion and detachment. By examining these factors, this study highlights the importance of promoting mental health and well-being as a prerequisite for achieving quality education.

This report integrates Life History Theory (LHT) and SDT to provide a comprehensive framework. It investigates how distal environmental factors (childhood SES) influence individual psychological processes (motivation, burnout) to shape educational outcomes (academic engagement). The findings aim to inform targeted interventions that support vulnerable students, thereby advancing the interconnected goals of poverty reduction, reduced inequality, good health, and quality education.

1.1 Research Hypotheses

1. Childhood SES is positively associated with adolescents’ academic engagement.
2. The internalization of learning motivation mediates the relationship between childhood SES and adolescents’ academic engagement.
3. Learning burnout mediates the relationship between childhood SES and adolescent academic engagement.
4. The internalization of learning motivation is negatively related to adolescent learning burnout.

2.0 Methodology

2.1 Participants and Procedure

A cross-sectional study was conducted to analyze the relationships between childhood SES, learning motivation, learning burnout, and academic engagement. Participants were recruited from middle schools in Southwest China using a convenience sampling method.

• Total Participants: 611 valid responses were collected from an initial sample of 656 adolescents.
• Average Age: 16.91 years (SD = 0.37).
• Demographics:
  • Gender: 41.2% male, 62.2% female.
  • Location: 19.5% urban, 80.5% rural.
  • Family Status: 12.9% only children, 87.1% with siblings.
  • Parental Status: 62.2% identified as left-behind children.

The study received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Education Science, Leshan Normal University. Consent was obtained from the school and parents, and data was collected anonymously via self-report questionnaires.

2.2 Measures

• Childhood SES: Assessed using a 3-item environmental harshness scale, measuring perceived family and neighborhood wealth during childhood.
• Internalization of Learning Motivation: Measured with the 24-item Comprehensive Relative Autonomy Index (C-RAI), which evaluates motivation types from intrinsic to amotivation.
• Learning Burnout: Measured using the 16-item Chinese version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Student Survey, covering exhaustion, alienation, and efficacy.
• Academic Engagement: Assessed with the 17-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-Student (Chinese version), which includes dimensions of vigor, absorption, and dedication.

2.3 Data Analysis

Data was analyzed using SPSS 22.0. Preliminary descriptive statistics and Spearman correlation analysis were conducted. The hypothesized mediation model was tested using the PROCESS 3.5 module (Model 6), with gender and left-behind status as covariates. The significance of mediation effects was verified using the bootstrap method with 5,000 repeated samples.

3.0 Results

3.1 Correlation Analysis

Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis revealed that childhood SES was significantly and positively correlated with the internalization of learning motivation and academic engagement. Conversely, childhood SES was significantly negatively correlated with learning burnout. These initial findings support the hypothesized relationships between the variables.

3.2 Mediation Analysis

The mediation analysis confirmed the proposed pathways through which childhood SES influences academic engagement.

• Childhood SES had a significant positive total effect on academic engagement. However, this direct effect became non-significant after introducing the mediating variables, indicating a full mediation.
• Childhood SES was positively associated with the internalization of learning motivation and negatively associated with learning burnout.
• The internalization of learning motivation was negatively associated with learning burnout and positively associated with academic engagement, confirming Hypothesis 4.
• The bootstrap analysis confirmed that the total indirect effect was significant. The relationship between childhood SES and academic engagement was mediated independently by learning motivation and learning burnout, as well as serially through both variables.

4.0 Discussion

4.1 Interpretation of Findings in the SDG Framework

The study’s findings demonstrate a clear pathway from socioeconomic inequality to educational outcomes, underscoring the interconnectedness of SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 4 (Quality Education). The positive correlation between childhood SES and academic engagement confirms that early-life economic disadvantage, a focus of SDG 1 and SDG 10, creates persistent barriers to achieving the quality education targets of SDG 4.

The mediating role of learning motivation and burnout highlights the critical importance of student well-being (SDG 3) in the educational process. Children from low-SES backgrounds often experience environments that do not satisfy basic psychological needs for autonomy and competence, leading to lower intrinsic motivation. This lack of internalized motivation, coupled with higher cognitive loads from environmental stress, contributes to academic burnout. Burnout, a significant mental health concern, directly undermines a student’s capacity for engagement, thereby impeding educational attainment. This confirms that promoting mental well-being is not peripheral but central to fostering an inclusive and effective learning environment as envisioned by SDG 4.

The sequential mediation pathway (Childhood SES → Learning Motivation → Learning Burnout → Academic Engagement) provides a nuanced understanding of how distal socioeconomic factors are translated into proximal educational results. It suggests that interventions should not only address material deficits but also focus on the psychological well-being of students. By fostering intrinsic motivation and mitigating burnout, educational systems can help buffer the negative effects of adverse childhood environments.

4.2 Implications for Policy and Practice

The findings offer actionable insights for developing policies aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals.

• Enhance Policy Support for Disadvantaged Families (SDG 1, SDG 10): To mitigate the long-term effects of childhood poverty, governments should strengthen social safety nets, including tuition waivers and material assistance for families with young children. This secures basic needs and reduces stressors that impair cognitive and motivational development.
• Foster Supportive Learning Environments (SDG 4): Schools can counteract the effects of low SES by creating environments that fulfill students’ basic psychological needs. Increasing support from parents and teachers, fostering a sense of competence, and cultivating interest in learning can enhance the internalization of motivation, a key driver of engagement.
• Integrate Mental Health Services in Education (SDG 3): Given the strong link between burnout and disengagement, educational institutions should integrate mental health support into their core services. Practices such as mindfulness and meditation can equip students, particularly those from high-stress backgrounds, with emotional regulation skills to combat academic burnout and improve well-being.

4.3 Limitations

This study is subject to limitations, including its cross-sectional design, which prevents causal inferences. The assessment of childhood SES was based on perceived environmental indicators, and the study did not control for current SES, which may affect the results’ generalizability.

5.0 Conclusion

This report elucidates the critical pathways through which childhood socioeconomic status impacts adolescent academic engagement, providing a framework grounded in the Sustainable Development Goals. By integrating Life History Theory and Self-Determination Theory, the findings show that early environmental conditions linked to SDG 1 and SDG 10 shape educational outcomes (SDG 4) through the mediating psychological processes of motivation and well-being (SDG 3). The evidence strongly suggests that achieving equitable and quality education for all requires a holistic approach that addresses socioeconomic disparities, fosters intrinsic motivation, and prioritizes the mental health of students. These insights are vital for designing effective interventions that create sustainable and inclusive educational systems for future generations.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article addresses and connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by exploring the intricate relationships between socioeconomic status, mental well-being, and educational outcomes. The following SDGs are relevant:

• SDG 4: Quality Education: This is the central theme of the article. The entire study revolves around “academic engagement,” which is presented as a critical predictor of “students’ learning achievement,” “satisfaction,” and “success in educational quality.” The research aims to find ways to enhance student engagement, directly contributing to the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article explicitly links academic engagement and socioeconomic status to mental health. It states that low academic engagement is associated with “higher levels of depression, anxiety and loneliness,” while higher engagement correlates with “psychological well-being” and “subjective well-being.” The concept of “learning burnout” is also analyzed as a “negative, learning-related psychological state,” which falls under the umbrella of mental health and well-being.
• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article identifies “Socioeconomic status (SES)” and specifically “childhood SES” as a primary determinant of academic and psychological outcomes. It discusses how individuals who have “experienced poverty during their formative years” are more likely to face environmental stress and exhibit substandard academic performance. This directly connects the issue of poverty to long-term life chances and educational success.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The study’s core hypothesis is that socioeconomic inequality (disparities in childhood SES) leads to inequalities in educational outcomes (differences in academic engagement). By demonstrating that students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are at a disadvantage, the article highlights a significant inequality of outcome. The discussion also suggests policy interventions to support “students from economically disadvantaged families,” aiming to reduce these inequalities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Under SDG 4 (Quality Education):
   • Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes. The article’s focus on academic engagement and performance in senior high school students directly relates to the quality and effectiveness of secondary education outcomes.
   • Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education… for the vulnerable… and children in vulnerable situations. The article identifies students with low childhood SES as a vulnerable group facing barriers to full academic engagement, thus addressing the need for equal access to quality educational experiences.
2. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being. The article’s investigation into “learning burnout,” “depression, anxiety and loneliness” among students, and its connection to “psychological well-being” directly aligns with the goal of promoting mental health.
3. Under SDG 1 (No Poverty):
   • Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions. The article underscores the long-lasting negative impact of childhood poverty on an individual’s development and educational path, reinforcing the importance of eradicating poverty to improve life outcomes.
4. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… economic or other status. The research shows how low economic status in childhood can hinder academic inclusion and success, highlighting the need for policies that promote the inclusion of students from all socioeconomic backgrounds.
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome… The study’s finding that childhood SES predicts academic engagement is a clear example of an inequality of outcome. The suggested interventions aim to create more equal opportunities for academic success.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Indicators for Quality Education (SDG 4):
  • Academic Engagement Levels: Measured using the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-Student (UWES-S), this is a direct indicator of the quality of the learning experience.
  • Academic Performance/Achievement: The article repeatedly mentions “academic performance” and “learning achievement” as outcomes of engagement. These are proxies for proficiency levels (related to Indicator 4.1.1).
  • Dropout Rates: The text notes that lower academic engagement is linked to more “dropouts,” which is a key indicator of educational system failure.
• Indicators for Good Health and Well-being (SDG 3):
  • Prevalence of Learning Burnout: Measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Student Survey, this serves as a specific indicator of negative mental health within an academic setting.
  • Measures of Psychological Well-being: The article refers to “subjective well-being” and “psychological well-being” as positive outcomes, which can be measured through standardized psychological scales.
  • Rates of Depression, Anxiety, and Loneliness: The article mentions these as negative outcomes correlated with low engagement. Their prevalence rates among students are direct indicators of mental health status.
• Indicators for Poverty and Inequality (SDG 1 & SDG 10):
  • Childhood Socioeconomic Status (SES): The questionnaire used in the study to assess “environmental harshness” (e.g., “My family usually had enough money for things when I was growing up”) acts as a proxy indicator for the prevalence of childhood economic hardship within the sample.
  • Disparities in Educational Outcomes by SES: The statistical correlation found between childhood SES and academic engagement (β = 0.15) is a quantitative indicator of inequality of outcome. Tracking this correlation over time could measure progress in reducing educational inequality.
  • Rural/Urban Disparities: The article notes that 80.5% of the sample was from rural areas. Analyzing academic engagement and burnout data based on this demographic split would provide an indicator for rural/urban inequality (related to Indicator 4.5.1).

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: frontiersin.org