THE INFLUENCE OF THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ON BEHAVIOUR OF
STUDENTS WITHIN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING A CASE
STUDY OF MOI UNIVERSITY
Name
2022
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
The chapter presents the introductory part of the study and is comprised of the background of the
study, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research questions, research hypothesis,
justification of the study, scope and limitation of the study and finally the conceptual framework.
1.1 Background of the Study
According to Elizabeth Barnett, and Michele Casper, (2001), the social environment of an
individual, also called social context or milieu, is the culture that s/he was educated and/or lives
in, and the people and institutions with whom the person interacts. The interaction may be in
person or through communication media, even anonymous or one-way, and may not imply
equality of social status. Therefore the social environment is a broader concept than that of social
class or social circle. Nevertheless, persons with the same social environment often develop a
sense of solidarity; they often tend to trust and help one another, and to congregate in social
groups. They will often think in similar styles and patterns even when their conclusions differ.
According to Powers, Bowen, & Rose, (2005), the social environment refers to how people and
communities behave their relationships, education and occupation, and the conditions in which
they live. In the context of this report, the well-being and poverty related components of the
social environment and how these relate to the physical and natural environments, are the points
of focus. It is important to note that elements of the social environment overlap and interact with
the natural environment. Poverty tends to increase people’s reliance on the natural environment
and may heighten the vulnerability to environmental degradation.
According to Bone, J. (2005), a person’s social environment includes their living and working
conditions, income level, educational background and the communities they are part of. All these
have a powerful effect on student behaviour.
According to Powers, Bowen, & Rose, (2005), the importance of the social environment as a
context for school success, students’ relationships and students’ experiences in their
neighborhood, school, family, and peer group have been shown to influence specific student-
adaptation outcomes associated with student behavior. Moreover, each of these social
environments may affect the individual differently over time. School success and student
behavior is vital to youths’ development into competent and productive members of society.
Consequently, it is important to identify those features of the social environment that can be
leveraged to promote student behavior.
Using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM), the present research examines how changes over
time in the perceptions of students toward their social environments influence changes in
adaptation outcomes associated with their behavior. These outcomes range from students’
personal beliefs and well-being to students’ school-related attitudes and behavior and their self-
reported academic performance. The focus within these social environments includes attention
both to people, in the form of interpersonal relationships, and to places, in the form of safety and
satisfaction. Disruptive behaviors are a kind of disturbing problem in classrooms. Students’
disruptive behaviors include inattention, inappropriate talking to teachers and peers, looking
around, moving around, noncompliance and aggression, and many more in which those
behaviors take place during teaching andlearning periods.
According to Boonreungrat (1972), Inpirom (1962), Juthangkha (1974), Lebkrut(1974),
Thanyawong (1974), Unprasert (1976), as cited in Pumwaree (1986), the disruptive or
undesirable behaviors of students in classrooms can be categorized as: inattention; talking to
friends in loud noises and interrupting classmates and teachers; making inappropriate verbal
conversation and lying; and other misbehaviors. Eaton et al (1956) as cited in Phumpatrakom
(1986), state that disruptive behaviors that teachers experience in classrooms are inattention, lack
of discipline, and non-interest in teachers’ assigned work. Disruptive behaviors start while
students are in lower grades in which those behaviors will intensely become more aggressive in
further grades. They may be uncertain in making decisions about how to conduct their own lives
or face many obstacles in their lives.
1.2 Statement of the Respondents
Social environmental problems arise both directly and indirectly from people’s social
institutions, social behavior, and cultural values. According to Adegoke, (2003), Conditions of
population growth, affluence and poverty, technological and industrial development, domestic
and international economic activities, and patterns of consumption all affect the use--and abuse--
of land, energy resources, and natural resources such as plants and animals, as well as the quality
of soil, water, and air. Top problems of environmental quality today include deforestation, global
warming, biodiversity loss, and hazardous waste. The solutions to these and environmental
problems involve social change.
In the Moi University Main Campus, many of the students are adolescents and some of them
engage in various risky behaviours such as smoking, reckless driving, premarital and
indiscriminate sexual activities and drug abuse and misuse. The high rate of deaths and other
negative impacts in these higher institutions, especially among the youths may not be
unconnected with the unhealthy behavior adopted by them. In order to reduce this negative
impact of the social environment on the behavior of students the researcher found it necessary to
conduct, a study of this nature is therefore relevant.
1.3 Main Objective of the Study
The main objective of the study is to determine the influence of social environment on the
behavior of students within institutions of higher learning.
1.3.1 Specific Objectives
i. To evaluate the behavior of students in institutions of higher learning
ii. To assess the social environment of students within institutions of higher learning
iii. To establish the relationship between social environment and the behavior of students
within higher institutions
iv. To evaluate institutional measures of dealing of dealing with students social influences
within Moi university
1.4 Research Questions
i. What are the factors influencing the behavior of students?
ii. What is the relationship between social behavior and the behavior of students within higher
institutions?
iii. What are the effects of social environment on the behaviour of students within higher
institutions?
iv. What are the challenges of social environment on the behavior of students?
1.5 Research Hypothesis
HO1 There is a significant relationship between social environment and the behavior of students.
HO2 There is no significant relationship between social environment and the behavior of
students.
HO3 social environment has no effect on students’ behavior.
1.6 Significance of the Study
The study will be able to provide information on common unhealthy behaviour among students
of tertiary institution in Main Campus and compare their lifestyles based in identified
demographic variables. The findings of the study will benefits education professionals,
Educational Technology experts, Education counselors, college administrators and teacher in
promoting positive healthy lifestyle and behavior among students of tertiary institutions.
The study will also provide awareness to the researcher and the readers the effects and the
importance of social environment on the social behavior of students in tertiary institutions. This
research study will be important to all school administrators because they will know the best
styles to employ in managing their social environment problems and how to handle their students
for better performance and their social behavior.
In the area of knowledge advancement the study will be significant because the findings will
trigger more researches in the same area of study either as criticism of the findings or expansion
on the same and lastly students will benefit from the study because they will know the best way
to manage their social behavior for better performances that will eventually lead to their success.
1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study
1.7.1 Scope of the Study
The researcher will assess the influence of social environment on students’ behavior within
higher institutions at Moi University. This is the main campus of Moi University. It is 14 km
from Cheptiret. Cheptiret is a junction that is 22 km from Eldoret town. The Moi University
main campus is located 38 km south of Eldoret town in a serene, rural setting conducive for
study. The campus has a total of 3,000 acres of land which is useful for research activities and
income generation. The campus has modern teaching facilities that support academic programs
which include the Margaret Thatcher Library. The rural setting and scenery provides an excellent
quiet atmosphere for intellectual activity and recreation in the growing Western Kenya Tourist
Circuit.
This atmosphere enhances interaction between researchers and the rural community and
promotes cost-effective implementation of outreach programs for sustainable development. The
core activities of the University are backed by highly qualified and dedicated academic and
administrative professional staff. The main campus is home to about four thousand students
enrolled in various undergraduate and postgraduate programs. The research design adopted for
the study will be a case study. The study population comprised 2500 students in Main Campus.
A sample size of 750 students out of the 2500 students selected through a simple random
sampling technique participated in the study.
1.7.2 Limitation of the Study
Since the study will be only in the higher learning institutions at Moi university main campus
data to be collected may be limited in scope therefore limiting the reality of the study, unwilling
respondents may also limit the inference by refusing to answer questions or by giving
exaggerated information on the topic under research study, suspicions by the university
management is also anticipated limitation because they may restrict the researcher’s access to
university students thus limiting the validity of the data collected but the researcher will
overcome this by assuring them that the research is for academic purpose only and the
information they will provide will be kept confidential and show them a letter from the
university.
Financial Constraints is another limitation because research is expensive and travelling to and fro
the area of collecting data will be expensive. The other limitation is that the respondents will be
too busy doing their work.
1.8 Theoretical Framework
The study will be guided by the Social Learning Theory. Social learning theory or SLT is the
theory that people learn new behavior through observational learning of the social factors in their
environment. If people observe positive, desired outcomes in the observed behavior, then they
are more likely to model, imitate, and adopt the behavior themselves. Modern theory is closely
associated with Julian Rotter and Albert Bandura. Social learning theory is derived from the
work of Albert Bandura which proposed that social learning occurred through four main stages
of imitation: close contact, limitation of superiors, understanding of concepts, role model
behavior. It consists of three parts: observing, imitating, and reinforcements.
Julian Rotter moved away from theories based on psychosis and behaviorism, and developed a
learning theory. In Social Learning and Clinical Psychology (1945), Rotter suggests that the
effect of behavior has an impact on the motivation of people to engage in that specific behavior.
People wish to avoid negative consequences, while desiring positive results or effects. If one
expects a positive outcome from a behaviour, or thinks there is a high probability of a positive
outcome, then they will be more likely to engage in that behaviour. The behaviour is reinforced,
with positive outcomes, leading a person to repeat the behaviour. This social learning theory
suggests that behaviour is influenced by these environmental factors or stimulus, and not
psychological factors alone.
Albert Bandura (1977), expanded on Rotter's idea, as well as earlier work by Miller & Dollard
(1941), and is related to social learning theories of Vygotsky and Lave. This theory incorporates
aspects of behavioural and cognitive learning. Behavioural learning assumes that people's
environment (surroundings) cause people to behave in certain ways. Cognitive learning presumes
that psychological factors are important for influencing how one behaves. Social learning
suggests a combination of environmental (social) and psychological factors influence behaviour.
Social learning theory outlines three requirements for people to learn and model behaviour
include attention: retention (remembering what one observed), reproduction (ability to reproduce
the behaviour), and motivation (good reason) to want to adopt the behaviour. In criminology,
Ronald Akers and Robert Burgess (1966) developed social learning theory to explain deviancy
by combining variables which encouraged delinquency (e.g. the social pressure from delinquent
peers) with variables that discouraged delinquency (e.g. the parental response to discovering
delinquency in their children).
The first two stages were used by Edwin Sutherland in his Differential Association Theory.
Sutherland’s model for learning in a social environment depends on the cultural conflict between
different factions in a society over who has the power to determine what is deviant. But his ideas
were difficult to put into operation and measure quantitatively. Burgess, a behavioral sociologist,
and Akers revised Sutherland’s theory and included the idea of reinforcement, which increases or
decreases the strength of a behavior, and applied the principles of Operant Psychology, which
holds that behavior is a function of its consequences and can be really bad in some cases. (Pfohl,
1994).
Functionalism had been the dominant paradigm but, in the 1960s, there was a shift towards
Social Control Theories, Conflict Criminology, and Labeling Theories that tried to explain the
emerging and more radical social environment. Moreover, people believed that they could
observe behavior and see the process of social learning, e.g., parents watched their own children
and saw the influence of other children on their own; they could also see what kind of effect they
had on their own children, i.e. the processes of differential association and reinforcement. The
conservative political parties were advocating an increase in punishment to deter crime. Unlike
Labeling Theory, Social Learning Theory actually supports the use of punishment which
translates into longer sentences for those convicted, and helps to explain the increase in the
prison population that began in the early 1970s (Livingston, 1996).
Unlike situational crime prevention, the theory ignores the opportunistic nature of crime (Jeffery,
1990: 261-2). To learn one must first observe criminal behavior, but where was this behavior
learned? The theory does explain how criminal behavior is ‘transmitted’ from one person to
another, which can explain increases in types of crimes, but it does not consider how criminal
acting can be prevented (Jeffery, 1990: 252) although it may be fairly assumed that the processes
of learning behaviors can be changed.
There is also a definite problem. What may be reinforcement for one person may not be for
another. Also, reinforcements can be both social involving attention and behavior between more
than one person, and non-social reinforcement would not involve this interaction (Burgess &
Akers: 1966) Social Learning Theory has been used in mentoring programs that should, in
theory, prevent some future criminal behavior. The idea behind mentoring programs is that an
adult is paired with a child, who supposedly learns from the behavior of the adult and is
positively reinforced for good behavior (Jones-Brown, 1997). In the classroom, a teacher may
use the theory by changing the seating arrangements to pair a behaving child and a misbehaving
child, but the outcome may be that the behaving child begins not satisfying.
