Improving Constructing Child Friendly School Culture Through Symbolic Interaction

Fritz Hotman Syahmahita Damanik; Oman Sukmana; Tri Sulistyaningsih

doi:10.59211/mjpjetl.v4i1.138

Authors

Fritz Hotman Syahmahita Damanik Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang
Oman Sukmana
Tri Sulistyaningsih

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59211/mjpjetl.v4i1.138

Keywords:

Child-Friendly School, Constructivist Grounded Theory, School Culture, Stakeholder Meaning-Making, Symbolic Interactionism

Abstract

School culture is not a static institutional given but a dynamic social achievement produced and reproduced through the everyday interpretive interactions of all stakeholders: teachers, students, parents, and administrators. This article investigates how the concept of "child-friendly culture" is socially constructed, negotiated, and internalized as a living school culture within Indonesian Child-Friendly Schools (Sekolah Ramah Anak/SRA). Drawing on a qualitative case study conducted at SMA Swasta Harapan Mandiri Medan, an officially SRA, designated school in a multicultural urban context, the article applies the theoretical framework of Constructivist Symbolic Interactionism as elaborated by Herbert Blumer (1969), Kathy Charmaz (2014), and Norman K. Denzin (2019). This integrated framework attends to three dimensions of meaning-making: the symbolic interactions through which "child-friendly" meanings are communicated and shared; the constructivist processes through which these meanings are shaped by actors' reflexive engagement with their social contexts and lived experiences; and the interpretive flexibility through which different stakeholder groups construct divergent yet interrelated understandings of what child-friendly school culture means in practice. Data collected through in-depth interviews, participant observation of school cultural routines, and documentary analysis reveal that "child-friendly culture" is most authentically enacted not through formal policy compliance but through the accumulated symbolic practices of daily school life. The article argues that school culture literacy, the capacity of educational actors to reflectively understand, critically evaluate, and actively shape the symbolic environment of their school, is a precondition for genuine SRA implementation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] V. A. Cordero-Vinueza, F. (Femke) Niekerk, and T. (Terry) van Dijk, “Making child-friendly cities: A socio-spatial literature review,” Cities, vol. 137, p. 104248, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2023.104248.

[2] M. F. Hastira and A. Maksum, “The Child-Friendly Cities Initiative Program: Indonesia-Unicef Cooperation in Promoting the Fulfillment of Children’s Participation Rights in the Development Process in Surabaya,” J. Penelit. Polit., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 87–103, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.14203/jpp.v21i1.1686.

[3] M. Jansson, E. Herbert, A. Zalar, and M. Johansson, “Child-Friendly Environments—What, How and by Whom?,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 8, p. 4852, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14084852.

[4] M. Jailani, R. C. I. Prahmana, and H. Widodo, “A narrative review of child-friendly school implementation in religious-based education: a transformative perspective from Indonesia, Asia, and the global context,” Int. J. Child Care Educ. Policy, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 23, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1186/s40723-025-00165-y.

[5] Ü. Kalkan, F. Altınay Aksal, Z. Altınay Gazi, R. Atasoy, and G. Dağlı, “The Relationship Between School Administrators’ Leadership Styles, School Culture, and Organizational Image,” Sage Open, vol. 10, no. 1, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1177/2158244020902081.

[6] C. Li, E. H.-F. Law, Y. Huang, and K. Ding, “Balancing Tradition, Reform, and Constraints: A Study of Principal Leadership Practices in Chinese Primary Schools,” Educ. Sci., vol. 15, no. 8, p. 988, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.3390/educsci15080988.

[7] S. Eka Aulia, M. Iksan, and K. Kuswardani, “Implementation Of Fulfillment Of Children’s Rights And Protection At The Child-Friendly School Of Sd Muhammadiyah 1 Ngawi,” J. Indones. Sos. Teknol., vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 1490–1502, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.59141/jist.v4i9.723.

[8] M. R. Sanders, “The Triple P System of Evidence-Based Parenting Support: Past, Present, and Future Directions,” Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 880–903, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10567-023-00441-8.

[9] L. Jakob Sadeh, A. Baikovich, and T. B. Zilber, “Analyzing Social Interaction in Organizations: A Roadmap for Reflexive Choice,” Organ. Res. Methods, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 339–374, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1177/10944281241245444.

[10] R. King, T. Downer, B. Lord, B. Flanagan, and F. Oprescu, “A Practical Example of How to Apply Constructivist Grounded Theory Methodology: Exploring Patient Experiences During Paramedic Led Healthcare,” Res. Nurs. Health, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 508–521, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.1002/nur.22468.

[11] J. Suoranta and M. Koro, “Norman Denzin,” in Encyclopedia of Postdigital Science and Education, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-35469-4_58-1.

[12] M. B. Muñoz et al., “Effectiveness of School-Based Psychoeducational Program in Reducing Bullying and Improving Self-Esteem: A Systematic Review,” Healthcare, vol. 14, no. 3, p. 330, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.3390/healthcare14030330.

[13] O. St-Amant, J. A. Rummens, H. Parada, and K. Wilson-Mitchell, “The COVID-19 Mask,” Adv. Nurs. Sci., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 100–113, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1097/ANS.0000000000000393.

[14] R. J. McKee, “The Symbolic Meanings of Physical Boundaries,” Sp. Cult., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 4–15, Feb. 2013, doi: 10.1177/1206331212451678.

[15] J. Schröders, M. Nichter, M. San Sebastian, M. Nilsson, and F. S. T. Dewi, “‘The Devil’s Company’: A Grounded Theory Study on Aging, Loneliness and Social Change Among ‘Older Adult Children’ in Rural Indonesia,” Front. Sociol., vol. 6, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2021.659285.

[16] E. Keane, “Constructivist Grounded Theory in Qualitative Research for Social Justice: Purpose, Process, Promise,” New Trends Qual. Res., vol. 21, no. 2, 2025, doi: 10.36367/ntqr.21.2.2025.e1289.

[17] E. Su-Keene, J. Coker, and I. Bogotch, “Critical Perspectives on Abductive Reasoning: Inserting Humanity and Risk Back Into Educational Leadership for Social Justice,” 2025, pp. 1–26. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-56275-4_184-1.

[18] H. Yildizhan, S. Hosouli, S. E. Yılmaz, J. Gomes, C. Pandey, and T. Alkharusi, “Alternative work arrangements: Individual, organizational and environmental outcomes,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 11, p. e21899, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21899.

[19] G. Molinengo and D. Stasiak, “Scripting, Situating, and Supervising: The Role of Artefacts in Collaborative Practices,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 16, p. 6407, Aug. 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12166407.

[20] E. B. Whyle and J. Olivier, “Towards an Explanation of the Social Value of Health Systems: An Interpretive Synthesis,” Int. J. Heal. Policy Manag., Aug. 2020, doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.159.

[21] E. Xiao, M. Sun, K. Lv, X. Zhu, and W. Jia, “Development and validation of Child-Friendly School Environment Questionnaire from Chinese culture,” Front. Psychol., vol. 14, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1288085.

[22] Riana Kristina Suminar, Sabar Narimo, Minsih, Yeny Prastiwi, and Laili Etika Rahmawati, “Reconstruction of Child-Friendly School Through Pancasila Student Profiles Dimensions of Mutual Cooperation,” J. Ilm. Sekol. Dasar, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 104–113, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.23887/jisd.v7i1.55686.

[23] S. H. Rahmia, M. Mutiani, J. Jumriani, R. Rusmaniah, and R. Sari, “Promoting Student Well-Being Through the SRA (Sekolah Ramah Anak) Program: Case Study In High School Level,” Innov. Soc. Stud. J., vol. 7, no. 2, p. 372, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.20527/issj.v7i2.18245.

[24] I. Silaban and R. Sibarani, “The tradition of Mambosuri Toba Batak traditional ceremony for a pregnant woman with seven months gestational age for women’s physical and mental health,” Gac. Sanit., vol. 35, pp. S558–S560, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2021.07.033.

[25] Miftahudin, L. Suharti, A. Sugiarto, and G. Sasongko, “Why Does Anti-Bullying Child-Friendly School Program Matter? A Study of Junior High Schools in Indonesia,” J. Educ. Soc. Res., vol. 13, no. 6, p. 131, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.36941/jesr-2023-0153.

[26] S. Suharjuddin and M. Markum, “Child-Friendly School Policy with Children’s Rights Approach in Bekasi City,” J. Stud. Guru dan Pembelajaran, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 387–397, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.30605/jsgp.4.2.2021.1270.

[27] M. N. I. Saleh, F. Hanum, and Rukiyati, “Stakeholders’ perspectives on whole-school approaches to prevent and address bullying and cyberbullying in Indonesian high schools,” Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, vol. 12, p. 102336, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102336.

[28] M. J. Mayer, A. B. Nickerson, and S. R. Jimerson, “Preventing School Violence and Promoting School Safety: Contemporary Scholarship Advancing Science, Practice, and Policy,” School Psych. Rev., vol. 50, no. 2–3, pp. 131–142, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1080/2372966X.2021.1949933.

[29] N. Fensterstock et al., “Social Workers’ Reports on Needs and Recommendations to Enhance School Safety,” Behav. Sci. (Basel)., vol. 15, no. 5, p. 627, May 2025, doi: 10.3390/bs15050627.

[30] K. S. Taber, “Educational Constructivism,” Encyclopedia, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1534–1552, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.3390/encyclopedia4040100.

[31] J. E. Dahl and A. Mørch, “A theoretical and empirical analysis of tensions between learning objects and constructivism,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 30, no. 15, pp. 22101–22150, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-025-13636-z.

[32] N. Aoonlamai and P. Kwangmuang, “Integrating digital tools and constructivist learning: a ubiquitous learning framework for enhancing creativity in music education,” BMC Psychol., vol. 13, no. 1, p. 1064, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1186/s40359-025-03300-z.

[33] M. Burns, J. Bally, M. Burles, L. Holtslander, and S. Peacock, “Constructivist Grounded Theory or Interpretive Phenomenology? Methodological Choices Within Specific Study Contexts,” Int. J. Qual. Methods, vol. 21, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1177/16094069221077758.

[34] D. Daryono, S. Hardhienata, and R. Retno Wati, “Effectiveness of Implementation of the Child-Friendly School Program,” Int. J. Soc. Heal., vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 272–283, May 2023, doi: 10.58860/ijsh.v2i5.50.