‘
Me & You’ Social Skill Education for
Children age 4-6 Years Old
What is the impact of the Me & You program?
I.J. Maessen 5639875 University of Amsterdam Master Family Support (Opvoedingsondersteuning) Master thesis Supervisor: Channah Zwiep (UvA) Supervisor for Me & You: Sanderijn van der Doef (Rutgers WPF) Second reader: Henny Bos (UvA) - 1 -
Abstract
This research was conducted in order of RutgersWPF, on the impact of the Me and You social life skills education program in Jakarta. It was focused on differences in sexual knowledge and social life skills between children who participated in the program and a control group, and on the implementation of the program. A new interview-tool was developed to measure the sexual knowledge and social life skills, structured observations were made to measure implementation. In total 94 children were interviewed, 48 experimental and 46 control. The results showed that the Me and You children did have more sexual knowledge, but did not have higher developed social life skills. The program was taught group wise, it was unclear if the teaching-materials (dolls and books) were in reach of the children.
Keywords: Indonesia, sexuality education, pre-school education, social life skills, sexual knowledge.
Used databases: Web of Science; PiCarta; ERIC (Educational Resource Information Center); PsychINFO; RutgersWPF.
Contents
1. Introduction: 6
1.1 Sexual development: 6 1.2 Sexuality education: 7 1.3 Me & You program: 8 1.4 Research questions: 9
2. Theoretical framework: 11 2.1 Sexual health: 11
2.2 Social and sexual development: 12 2.2.1 Ecological theory: 12 2.2.2 Social development: 12 2.2.3 Sexual scripts: 14 2.3 Sexual knowledge: 15 2.4 Social life skills: 15
2.4.1 Gender: 15 2.4.2 Emotions: 16 2.4.3 Self-esteem: 17 2.5 Sexuality education: 17 3. Researchmethod: 18 3.1 Design: 19 3.2 Ethics: 19 3.3 Participants: 20 3.4 Procedure: 21 3.5 Instruments: 23 - 3 -
3.5.1 Interviews: 23 3.5.1.1 Questionnaire: 23 3.5.2 Observation: 27 4. Results: 27 4.1 Statistical analyses: 27 4.1.1 Questionnaire: 27 4.1.1.1 Sexual knowledge: 28 4.1.1.2 Social life skills: 31 4.2 Qualitative question: 32 4.3 Classroom observation: 33 4.3.1 Classroom environment: 33 4.3.2 Pedagogical methods: 35 4.3.3 Me and You: 35 5. Discussion: 35 5.1 Sexual Knowledge: 36 5.2 Social life skills: 38
5.3 School environment and pedagogical methods: 42
6. Conclusion: 43
6.1 Recommendations program: 43
6.2 Limitations and recommendations for further research: 45
Summary: 47
References: 48
Appendix: 58
I: Interview scoring list children
II: Observation checklist in the classroom III: Informed consent form for parents IV: Information letter parents
1. Introduction
1.1 Sexual development
Human beings are sexual beings throughout their entire life. But sexuality changes during different periods of life, it manifests itself in different ways. Each life stage brings certain sexual development milestones to achieve, with the goal to gain and maintain sexual healthy behaviour (DeLamater & Friedrich, 2002; Martinson, 1991). The process of sexual
development leads to and shapes adult sexuality (de Graaf & Rademakers, 2003). From this point of view the development of sexuality starts from the day you are born, that means throughout childhood as well. When talking about sex and small children, people often think negatively. Child abuse is a very common subject in this area (Schaalma, Reinders & Kok, 2009). But sexuality isn’t only a matter of having intercourse. Sexual competence is a complex of communicative and social skills, sensitivity and mental and behaviour strategies which contribute to a person being able to form sexual contacts and relationships with mutual fulfilment (de Graaf & Rademakers, 2003; de Graaf & Rademakers, 2009). Experiences in childhood, both positive and negative, contribute to this development (Delfos, 2002). During childhood the sexual development is focused on three areas; 1. Sexual response and
corporeality, 2. Sex/gender identity, 3. Intimacy and relationship building. These processes are influenced by biological, psychological and social factors (de Graaf & Rademakers, 2003; de Graaf, Neelemans & de Haas, 2009; de Graaf & Rademakers, 2009).
To date, little scientific research has been carried out on the sexual behaviour and sexual development of children in their early childhood (Sandfort & Rademakers, 2000). Adding to that, most of the sexual education is aimed at adolescents and with the main focus on preventing pregnancy’s and protection against Sexual Transmitted Diseases (Dixon-Mueller, 1993). You could say that ‘fear arousal’ is used in these sex education programs. This way of educating is often used in health care, but it emphasizes the negative aspects of
sexuality once again (WPF, 2008, p. 195). De Graaf, Neeleman en de Haas (2009) promote the thought of sexual development, not only as a part of adolescence, but as a lifelong
development, starting at birth, till death. During childhood boys and girls develop their gender identity, sexual responsiveness and the ability to start intimate relationships. According to Dewitte (2011) sexuality is an integral part of most romantic relationships. Researchers however tend to separate the subjects; Sex researchers tend to disregard relationship processes when studying sexual functioning, while relationship researchers ignore the affect of sexual variables in adult romantic functioning. Theories according to sex and relationships has thus been developed rather isolated than intertwined from one another.
1.2 Sexuality education
Sexuality education is inextricably connected to sexual development and in that matter indispensable for the development of healthy sexual behaviour. The main goal of sexual education is to support children in their sexual development and learn them to make responsible choices concerning sexual subjects. This can be reached by teaching children about the cognitive, emotional, social, interactive and physical aspects of sexuality. To start this education when children are in primary school can promote a healthy and safe sexual development and prevent sexual risk behaviour when growing up (ResCon & Rutgers WPF, 2011). Rutgers World Population Foundation (WPF)1 is an organization concerned with people’s sexual rights all around the world. Its mission is to ‘improve the quality of life and the sexual and reproductive health and rights of all’. In their vision sexuality and relationships are a part of every person’s life. Sexual health has a positive effect on the wellbeing. Therefor they think that every person has the right to make well informed choices about their personal sexual life. Reliable information to make these choices should be given to everybody. Even if you live in a country in which poverty, lack of knowledge, unequal chances and taboos are
1 In the short-term Rutgers WPF will be used in reference to Rutgers World Population Foundation
- 7 -
strongly interfered with sexual health. To achieve this goal Rutgers WPF does research, develops services and products and tries to influence policies, not only in the Netherlands but also in the rest of the world. This is why Rutgers WPF has several projects in Asian and African countries, including the Me and You program in Indonesia (Rutgerswpf.org). 1.3 Me & You program
The Me & You program, Aku dan Kamu in Indonesian, was developed in 2007 by PKBI, the Indonesian sub organization of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)2 in cooperation with Rutgers WPF. According to an employee of the IPPF, they noticed a need for sexual education a couple years ago. They heard from the field that Indonesian parents and teachers did not know how to react on the sexual oriented questions from children. Teachers also mentioned the ‘sexual play’ between children as a difficult area to react on. A second reason to develop a sexual education program for small children was found in reducing sexual abuse in Indonesia. There’s a lack on official numbers about this problem in Indonesia
(Pangkahila & Pangkahila, 1997-2001), but according to numbers available from the
Integrated Crisis Center, part of the RSCM hospital in Jakarta, it is estimated that every three days, a child in Indonesia becomes a victim of sexual abuse (Learning Manual Me & You, 2008). On 20th of February 2013 the Jakarta Post wrote a front page article about a new record in child abuse cases. It speaks about 2.637 child abuse cases in Jakarta in 2012 (Suwarni, 2013). Because of their knowledge on sexual education IPPF turned to Rutgers WPF to help them develop a sexual education program to provide in this need.
The purpose of the Me & You program is not only to focus on the negative parts of sex and only for that reason give knowledge and skills, but also to educate on fundamentals that are needed by children to be able to adapt in their environment (Learning Manual Me & You, 2008). According to Chib, Lwin, Lee, Ng and Wong (2010) positive attitudes lead to
2 In this research the short-term IPPF will be used in reference to International Planned Parenthood Foundation
including the PKBI
- 8 -
better intentions concerning sexual subjects. Next to knowledge about sexual topics, the focus of the program is to help children in their development to become somebody that: - respects themselves and others, - understands feelings both their own and others, - has the ability to make the right decision regarding their sexuality to prevent sexual violence. For this reason Me & You is not only about sexual behaviour, it covers a wide array of topics (from self-identification of own sex, to emotional awareness), that’s why it’s called a ‘Social Skill Education’ program.
The pilot of the Me & You program started in 2008. It was implemented in several preschools to reach children from four to seven years old, in three different cities in Indonesia: Jakarta, Kalimantan and Surabaya. In 2012 the first evaluation on the impact of the Me & You program started in Surabaya (Krijgsman, 2012; Meijer, 2012). The evaluation was focused on the children, parents and teachers, and the experimental schools were observed. Overall, there was concluded that the participants in the research had a positive view on the Me & You program. The children who had received the program, showed more knowledge about sexual subjects, comparing to the control group. The parents and teachers agreed on the importance of the program for the children. Some teachers and parents said they mentioned a difference in behaviour of the children since they received the program. Krijgsman (2012) and Meijer (2012) also found a difference between the two experimental schools concerning the implementation of the program, which had a effect on the outcomes of the children. 1.4 Research questions
Although the first evaluation of the Me and You program (Krijgsman, 2012; Meijer, 2012) shows that the program is useful on increasing sexual knowledge, it did not include the social life skill aspects of the program. Rutgers WPF wants to get a more accurate view on the impact of the Me & You program, this is why they requested another research on the impact of the social life skills of the participating children. Next to that they also wanted to know the
impact of the Me and You program in Jakarta.
The main question of this research was ‘What is the impact of Me & You?; is there a difference on the knowledge and skills of the children who received the Me & You program?’. The following sub-questions were made to make this question measurable: 1. Do
children who receive the Me & You program, have more knowledge about sexuality, comparing to the control group? 2. Did children who received the Me & You program developed more social life skills, comparing to the control group? 3. What are the school environments and the pedagogical methods of the teachers of the experimental school?
2. Theoretical framework
In the next section, the research will be placed in a theoretical framework. The meaning of this section is to give an insight into the definitions and theories used during this research. Starting with the definition for sexual health used in this research and broader theories on the social and sexual development of preschool children. After these more broad theories there will be a look on the concepts which are more specific for this research; sexual knowledge and social life skills. The last part of this chapter will focus on sexuality education. 2.1 Sexual health
In the past three decades there has been some diverse evolvements around the concept of ‘sexual health’. Several political, social and other historical events, like the aftereffects of the sexual revolutions, discussions about abortion and the upcoming international impact of HIV/AIDS, have shaped the understanding (Edwards & Coleman, 2004). In this research we will use the definition of sexual health given by the World Health Organisation (2006). ‘Sexual health is a state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity.’ (WHO, 2006, p.5). To achieve sexual health you need certain skills, attitudes and knowledge (van der Doef, 2011; WHO, 2006). Key skills to achieve sexual health are abilities to develop relationships based on equality, equity, respect and empathy, communicate about boundaries and wishes and to deal with own and others emotions and needs. Key attitudes involve having self-esteem and positive body awareness, accept and respect gender equality and diversity in needs,
boundaries and relationships, and have a view on sexuality as being a normal aspect of all human life. Last, in achieving sexual health you need basic knowledge about body, body changes and differences, reproduction, and of possible problems concerning sexuality and how to prevent them. In this research these aspects are defined in two different areas; sexual knowledge and social life skills. The social life skills contain the following subjects;
esteem, emotions, gender and relations. 2.2 Social and sexual development 2.2.1 Ecological theory
A often used theory in matters of sexual development is the ecological theory (de Graaf, Neeleman & de Haas, 2009; Zwiep, 2008; de Graaf & Rademakers, 2003). According to Bronfenbrenner (1979) there are several systems around the child (or people in general) that influence their life. These influences are mutual, the systems influence the child, and the child influences these systems. The systems are defined as: the micro-, meso-, exo- and macrolevel. First there’s the microsystem, which involves the direct environment of the child. Family, neighbourhood, school, all environments in which the child directly participates. One level above that, there’s the mesosystem. These are the environments the child does not directly participates in, or are directly related to him, but do influence him. The carrier of parents is an example of the mesosystem, children do not actively participate in this environment, but when parents have stress or dissatisfaction from their jobs the child gets effected. The third level is called the exosystem. Examples of this system are policies or media, people are influenced by it, but the cant directly change it. The last level is the macrosystem. This highest level consists culture, politics, religion, etc. In this theory, development is interactive, all the systems
interact with -, and influence each other. This theory gives a framework for all developmental aspects of a person’s life, including sexual development. Our research was focused on the microsystem, especially on the interaction between the child and his/her teachers and peers. 2.2.2 Social development
Learning sexual skills and attitudes is part of the social development. According to Cole, Cole and Lightfoot (2005) social development is a two-sided process in which children become integrated into the larger social community and at the same time differentiate as individuals. These two sides of this process are called: socialization and personality formation.
Socialization is the development of children in which they acquire the standards, values, and knowledge of their society. In socialization, identification is an important factor. Identification is the process in which children try to look, act, feel and be like significant people in their social environment. The personality formation takes place when children develop their own unique patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving in a wide variety of circumstances. Both adults and children play active roles in social development. Adults tell children how they should behave; display pleasure or disapproval with the way the little ones behave; and reward, ignore, or punish them accordingly. They also select lots of the contexts in which children participate; neighbourhoods, schools, kindergarten, etc. Children on the other hand do not automatically or passively absorb the lessons adults are trying to learn them. They interpret and select from the many socializing messages they receive (Cole, Cole & Lightfoot, 2005). Children also learn from the interaction with these environments. They learn from positive and negative consequences, like rewards and punishments. This is called the social
learning theory (Bandura, 1971). Another important part of this theory is learning by
modelling and imitation. Children watch and imitate behaviour of grownups.
According to the evolutionary theory of socialization (Belsky, Steinberg & Draper, 1991) early experiences – the first 5-7 years of life – are important to shape a form of understanding in the child concerning the enduringness of close interpersonal relationships which are equally rewarding. This understanding will affect the development of reproductive efforts. Children who experience relationships as enduring and mutually rewarding will behave in ways that defer sexual activity, and will be motivated to establish and maintain enduring relations. Lonczak, Abbott, Hawkins, Kosterman and Catalano (2002) also found that a social development project had long-term positive effects on the sexual behaviour of adolescents. The adolescents who attended the program initiated intercourse on a older age, there were less unwanted teenage pregnancies, the condom use was higher and there were less
sexually transmitted disease cases. 2.2.3 Sexual scripts
In 1986 Simon and Gagnon came up with a theory concerning the social process of sexuality. In this theory they discuss three distinct levels that influence a person’s behaviour: cultural scenarios (instructions in collective meanings), interpersonal scripts (the application of specific cultural scenarios by a specific individual in a specific social context), and intra-psychic scripts (the management of desires as experiences by the individual). An important aspect of their theory is the development of scripts, including sexual scripts. Scripts are essentially a metaphor for conceptualizing the production of behaviour within social life. Simon and Gagnon argue that from the ‘scripting perspective’, the sexual is rather becoming significant by collective life, or when individual experiences or development assigns make it significant, instead of the sexual as an intrinsically significant aspect of human behaviour. In this view the interpersonal scripts are seen as the ordering of representations of self and other that facilitate the occurrence of a sexual act. Intra-psychic scripts represent the ordering of images and desires that provoke and retain sexual arousal (van Zessen, 1995; Rademakers & Straver 1986; Nelson, 1996; Parker, 2010). Positive experiences and emotions during
childhood and adolescence will lead to more positive scripts than negative ones. For example, people with negative scripts towards sex, report more fear and guilt and act more negative towards pornography and homosexuals, they also have less frequent sex and have less partners, compared to people with positive scripts (Gijs, Laan & Both, 2009). The development of sexual scripts starts before a person is sexually active and they keep on developing during life due to life experiences (Simon & Gagnon, 1986; Zwiep, 2008). This research was focused on the Me and You program and therefore on young children and their sexual development and early on experiences with sexual subjects. With this theory it is likely that children who have positive experiences will develop positive sexual scripts which will
influence their sexual development later on in life. 2.3 Sexual knowledge
Children learn by cognitive processes, these are psychological processes through which children acquire, store and use knowledge about the world (Cole, Cole & Lightfoot, 2003). Several studies showed the importance of sexual knowledge in relation to sexual health. Frenken (2001) assumes that children with enough knowledge about sexuality become less often victim of sexual abuse. They are quicker in recognizing when somebody crosses their personal boundaries and asking for help. Age-inappropriate sexual knowledge, on the other hand, could also be regarded to as an important indicator in substantiating alleged sexual abuse (Friedrich, 1993). The following aspects of pre-schoolers sexual knowledge tend to be age-appropriate according to Volbert (2000); genital differences, gender identity, pregnancy (fertilization and intrauterine development), birth, procreation, sexual activities of adults and sexual abuse. The Me & You program aims to educate in almost all these aspects. Another positive relation is found between knowledge and the onset of sexual intercourse. Children with more knowledge started later on and anticipated better on sexual risks (de Graaf, Meijer, Poelman & Vanwesenbeeck, 2005).
2.4 Social life skills 2.4.1 Gender
Another focus point of the program is on gender equality; there is still a gender gap in
Indonesia, they are listed 97th on the ranking list of the World Economic Forum (Hausmann, Tyson & Zahidi; 2012). Four years before they were listed on the 94th place (Hausmann, Tyson & Zahidi; 2008). This shows a drop down from the places the last four years.
According to the data from the Human Development Reports the Gender Inequality Index in Indonesia is 0.49. This index shows the inequality between female and male achievements in three dimensions, reproductive health, empowerment and the labour market. It ranges from 0,
which indicates that women and men fare equally, to 1, which indicates that women fare as poorly as possible in all dimensions (hdrstats.undp.org). Girls and boys do not have the same chances to follow education and participate in the job they prefer. By teaching boys and girls that they are equal and have equal rights, the Me & You program tries to reinforce equality between man and woman.
According to Rust et al. (2000) gender identity is driven by two key processes:
modelling, in which children observe and imitate individuals of the same sex as themselves,
and differential reinforcement, in which girls and boys are differently rewarded for engaging in gender-appropriate behaviour. Parents play an enormous part in the development of their children’s gender-role behaviour and gender-typing, they influence the sex-typed behaviours in several ways; in their direct interaction with the child, as direct instructors, and as providers of opportunities to learn sex-role attitudes and behaviours (McHale, Crouter, & Whiteman, 2003). But when the child grows older, school starts playing a role in it as well (Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006). Children do not acquire their gender-role identity by only imitating their same-sex parents. They also rely on their peers, siblings and other adults in their lives to understand their gender-role (Sadovsky & Troseth, 2000). Peer relationships play an
important role in the development of a child’s self-concept and have a strong impact on how children view the roles of males and females in our society (Witt, 2000). In this case functions of friendship have been defined as: 1. A staging area of behaviour, 2. Cultural institutions that provide didactic training, 3. Providing a context for growth of a social self, the child can learn the appropriate self-image to project in social situations (Handel, 2006).
2.4.2 Emotions
Emotions are subjective reactions to the environment that are usually experienced cognitively as either pleasant or unpleasant, generally accompanied by physiological arousal, and often expressed in some visible form of behaviour (Hetherington, Parke, Gauvain, Otis Locke,
2006). Children have emotions from the day they are born. But it is later in childhood that they recognize and interpret other peoples mental states. This happens around the age of 3 and is called the theory of mind (Cole, Cole & Lightfoot, 2003). Children’s increasing ability to read the emotions of others and to control their own emotional expression is measured in terms of socio-emotional competence, the ability to behave appropriately in social situations that evoke strong emotions. This socio-emotional competence involves a variety of skills including an awareness of one’s own emotional state and the emotional states of others, the capacity for empathy and sympathy, and the realization that outward expressions do not necessarily reflect inner emotions (Saarni, 2000). According to van der Doef (2011), dealing with other peoples and your own emotions is important to develop sexual health.
2.4.3 Self-esteem
According to Erik Erikson (1968) children have to resolve several crisis during their development. During middle childhood one of these crisis’s is the one of industry versus inferiority. When children get new assignments by adults and they judge themselves as being industrious, they are able to maintain positive self-esteem. This was described as a positive self-evaluation of one’s own worth. On the other hand, if they fail the assignment and can not show that they are capable of fulfilling it, they feel ‘inferior’. In this case their self-esteem lowers. A child friendships are important contributors to the development of self-concept (Witt, 2000). Self-esteem has been linked to sexual risky behaviour. Effects from low self-esteem were found on risky sexual behaviour (Wild, Flisher, Bhana & Lombard, 2004; Rosenthal, Moore & Flynn, 1991) and from higher self-esteem on attitudes about sexual behaviour (Chib et al, 2010).
2.5 Sexuality education
Looking at the above theories and perspectives, sexual health has a broad variety of aspects. It is important that sexuality education corresponds with this wide perspective. In this research
we use the description of IPPF (2010). IPPF (2010) sees sexuality education in itself as ‘an integral element of health education and health promotion. In addition to information on biological facts and methods of contraception, sexuality education in its broader sense also includes supportive guidance and the promotion of competence in the development of attitudes and behavioural patterns related to sexuality. Comprehensive sexuality education must equip young people with the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values they need to determine and enjoy their sexuality – physically and emotionally, individually and in relationships. It views sexuality holistically and within the context of emotional and social development. Information is not enough. Young people need to be given the opportunity to acquire essential life skills and develop positive attitudes.’ (IPPF, 2010, p. 6). Sexual
education is more than giving children knowledge about sexual related issues, it is a far more broad perspective. Children are also thought social life skills to become persons who have a positive self- and body-image, who are empathic, and who know its own and other’s
boundaries and how to be assertive (ResCon, 2010). Kirby, Laris and Rolleri (2007) found in their review research on effectiveness of sexuality education that sexuality education often delay or decrease sexual behaviours or increase condom or contraceptive use. They found that effective curricula commonly incorporated 17 characteristics that can logically be divided into three categories, namely those describing: (1) the development of the curricula, (2) the overall design and teaching strategies of the curricula themselves, and (3) the implementation of the curricula. This research will focus on the difference in knowledge and skills of children who received the Me & You program, but also on the implementation.
3. Research method
The goal of this research was to understand what the impact of the Me & You program was on the children who followed the program. In the following section, the method will be explained.
3.1 Design
This research was focused on children who participated in the Me & You program. To measure the first two sub-questions, a questionnaire was developed. This questionnaire contained mostly quantitative and one qualitative question and was divided in two scales; sexual knowledge and social life skills. These two scales were equal to the sub-questions. The results of the questionnaire were processed with SPSS, several tests were conducted. To measure the differences between the experimental and control group, several independent sample t-tests were conducted with a significance level of p=.05 two-tailed, on scale- and item-level. Frequencies were also measured on sex and age but also on the separate items. To say something about the reliability of the questionnaire Cronbach’s Alpha was used, in this case α=.60 was taken as a acceptable level of reliability. A principal component analyse (PCA) with varimax-rotation was conducted to find the underlying concepts of this tool. PCA was conducted on the whole questionnaire and on the two separate scales sexual knowledge and social life skills.
A structural classroom observation checklist was used to operationalize the third sub-question. This observation consisted of two scales; physical context indoors and academic activities.
3.2 Ethics
Because of the young age of the children and the subject of the research, extra attention was given to ethics in the preparation and during the research.
Before starting interviewing the children, a parent meeting was planned in which parents got an explanation about the research. During this meeting active informed consent forms (appendix III) were handed out, in which parents could give permission for their child to participate in the research, and a informationletter about the research (appendix IV). Teachers from the preschools where especially informed about the content of the
pictures that were showed to the children. In case the teachers didn’t agree with the content, items could be left out. In none of the cases this happened, all the teachers agreed.
During the interview the child would be taken out of the classroom because of his or her privacy concerns. Before starting the interview the child got a short introduction and explanation and was told that he or she could stop anytime and that quitting the interview wouldn’t have any consequences. After the interview all the children got a little present. Also children who didn’t participate in the research got this present at the end. During the interview the researcher focused on signs of unease of the child, both verbal and nonverbal. There was also extra attention for possible signs of abuse of the child. In case this was observed, the PKBI would have been approached. Data were made and used anonymously only by the researcher.
3.3 Participants
The collection of the data of this current research took place in Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, in the central part of the city. The data was collected in the period February till April 2013. The place was chosen by Rutgers WPF and IPPF to test the Me & You program. Because IPPF is well informed about the preschools in general and the ones who have implemented the program and had contacts with them, they selected the experimental and control preschools. In total three preschools, one experimental and two control, participated. There were also alumni (N=19) from the experimental school participating, these children finished the Me & You program latest in July 2012. All the children were matched on religion, curriculum and social economic status. In total 94 children were interviewed. There should be noted that the children participating in this research do represent the Jakartan population of children who go to preschool, but this does not include all the Indonesian children. Preschool is not part of the formal education system and there are several different kinds of early childhood services, including childcare centres and Mother’s Programs (UNESCO, 2005).
The mean age of all the children was 5 years and 6 months (SD=1 year and 2 months). Mean age of the boys was 5 years and 4 months (SD=1 year); girls 5 years 8 months (SD=11,5 months). The experimental group consisted of students and alumni from one school, who received the Me & You program (N=48; boys N=27; girls N=21). Their mean age was 6 years and 1 month (SD=9 months). The children of the control group (N=46; boys N=27; girls N=19) were from two KT’s who had the same curriculum as the experimental group, except the Me & You program. Their mean age was 4 years and 10 months (SD=9 months).
Table 1. distribution of the children by sex and age (N=94)
Age Total Sex 3 4 5 6 7 Boy 3 9 24 14 4 54 Girl 1 8 8 20 3 40 Total 4 17 32 24 7 94 3.4 Procedure
The researcher visited the experimental school with a spokesperson from the PKBI and a translator. At this meeting two teachers from the experimental school, the headmistress of the experimental school and two teachers from the control schools were present. During this first visit the research was explained to the teachers and a time schedule was presented. A few problems occurred during this first meeting; the full Me & You program wasn’t given to the students from the experimental school yet and there weren’t as many students as expected, only 33. These problems changed the time schedule, the experimental school would give the last lessons of the Me & You program during the time of the interviews of the control school children. Cause of the small amount of Me & You children, there was decided to include at least 17 alumni from the experimental school.
During this first meeting the date and time from the parent meetings were also planned. The parent meetings were set up to explain the research to the parents and to get informed
consent from them for their children. Three parent meetings were given, each on every school. The meetings took place in the central area in the schools and were announced by a letter a few days in advance. The parents got an information brochure and informed consent form, these were also given to the parents who weren’t able to visit the meeting. Only one parent didn’t give informed consent, she thought her child was too young.
At the first day on the experimental school, the classroom observations were made. This day was especially selected because the Me & You program was on the teaching
schedule. This day was also used for the children to get to know the researcher and get used to the presence of the researcher during school time.
To test the knowledge and skills of the students about sexuality, they were individually interviewed by the researcher. Because the researcher didn’t have enough knowledge about the Indonesian language, a translator was hired. In total two translators helped interviewing the children, because the first translator dropped out after 1.5 month because of maternity. Both the translators were girls who just finished their master degrees in psychology on Universitas Indonesia. Both the girls were carefully instructed by the researcher and had to follow the same script. To minimalize the influence of the two different translators, the second translator accompanied the last day of the first translator to see how the interview routine took place.
The children were taken outside of the classroom for the interview. After an introduction and a small talk to make the child feel at comfort, the children were given a mirror in which they could see themselves, a few questions were asked. After this, the researcher showed several situational pictures. The researcher also used two dolls from the Me & You program and one Barbie doll, to ask questions about gender roles and sexual knowledge. The interview took around 20 or 25 minutes, depending on the child. It was recorded by a voice recorder. During and after the interview the answers were coded by the
researcher using a checklist (see Appendix I). After the interview the child got a little bag with sweets as a thank you for participating. The teachers also got a little present to thank them for their help.
3.5 Instruments
This research used two instruments to operationalize the three sub-questions of this research. One of these instruments was developed especially for this research. In the next section these two instruments and their use will be explained.
3.5.1 Interviews
For this research a new tool was developed to measure the impact of the Me & You program. This tool consisted of a questionnaire, mainly supported by pictures. In the next section the development, content and reliability of the tool will be described.
3.5.1.1 Questionnaire
The tool developed consisted of a questionnaire, mainly supported by pictures. This way of interviewing children was used by other researches as well (Krijgsman, 2012; Meijer, 2012; Brilleslijper-Kater & Baartman 2000; Volbert, 2000). Earlier research on sexual behaviour of children mostly used either observation or retrospective measures (de Graaf & Rademakers, 2007). According to de Graaf and Rademakers (2011) these types of studies only reports sexual behaviour seen from an adult perspective. To gain insight into the child’s perspective a research should use child-interviews that match their developmental limitations and
competencies. Couse the reason of this research was to get insight in the knowledge and social life skills of the children, an interview was chosen as instrument. The choice to work with supporting pictures and also dolls, a mirror and a Barbie, was made because children tend to respond better on concrete stimuli (Gordon & Schroeder, 1995). Children also tend to have a longer focus on a subject when brought playfully (Hirsh-Pasek, Michnick Golinkoff, Berk & Singer, 2009). The pictures used in this tool were originally developed for a study by Volbert
and Homburg (1996) to measure sexual knowledge of two- to six year old children. Krijgsman (2012) and Meijer (2012) adjusted a selection of this pictures to the Indonesian culture for their research on the impact of the Me & You program in 2012. They selected the used pictures on subjects the Me & You program supported, examples are a naked boy and girl for naming the genitals and a pregnant woman for questions about
conception. Changes were made in the characteristics of the people on the pictures, the colour of the skin and hair for example and a woman wearing a headscarf. There were also changes in the environment; the people in the pictures ate noodles instead of western food and they didn’t go into a bath but cleaned themselves standing with a bucket of water and soap. The drawing of the naked grownups was drawn en profile because of the anti-porn law (Amnesty International, 2010). The questions used in this tool were conducted from the Me & You learning goals (Learning manual Me & You, 2008) and asked while showing the pictures. For this research not only the sexual knowledge of the children was measured, also social life skills needed to be operationalized. Because there was no tool found to measure these skills of small children in Indonesia, a new scale was developed and adapted to the questionnaire used by Krijgsman (2012) and Meijer (2012). The social life skill scale includes several social life skill domains conducted out of the Me & You program (Learning manual Me & You, 2008) supported by literature research. These domains are; relations and
friendships, gender roles, self-esteem and emotions. The questions were operationalized by taking the teaching-goals from the program and changing them into questions. For example, one of the teaching-goals in the program was ‘Describe what to say or do when a friends
behaviour is unpleasant’, the question drawn from this goal was ‘What do you say or do when your friend is unkind to you?’. One qualitative question was added to this scale ‘Why are your friends your friends?’ to see if there was a difference in answers between the experimental
and control group showing a different view on friendship. To reduce the impact of cross
cultural differences the questions were developed in co-operation with the PKBI in Indonesia. In the end the questionnaire consisted of two main subscales; sexual knowledge and social life skills. The questions (appendix I) concerning sexual knowledge were 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40. The questions concerning social life skills were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60. Ten pictures were used to support these questions (table 2). On the first five questions a mirror was held in front of the faces of the children, this happened again at the questions 49, 50 and 51. Question 39, 40 and 41 were accompanied by a boy and a girl doll from the Me & You program. The last two questions (59 and 60) involved a Barbie.
Table 2. Containing of the pictures used in the tool and associated questions
Picture No Containing Questions associated
1 Family having dinner, father cooking 6, 7
2 People participating in bathroom activities (brushing teeth, washing, going to the toilet, washing cloth)
8, 9
3 Boy and girl 10-19
4 Naked boy and girl 20-26
5 Man and woman 27-29
6 Naked man and woman 30-34
7 Pregnant woman 35, 36
8 Pregnant woman giving birth 37-38
9 Three faces of children showing a sad, happy and worried emotion
52-54
10 Three objects representing three jobs, teacher, pilot and doctor
55-58
The scoring-criteria used on the answers given by the children, was derived from the answers of the pilot children (N=5) and of the results from the qualitative researches from Brilleslijper-Kater and Baartman (2000) and Volbert (2000). Because both this researches took place in
western countries and possible cultural differences could occur (Kumpfer, Alvarado, Smith & Bellamy, 2002), the final scoring was set after all the interviews were collected. During the interviews the researcher wrote all the answers down and a voice-recorder recorded the whole conversation. With use of the written answers and the tapes some adjustments were made to the first scoring-criteria. For example, at the question ‘How does this girl feel?(happy)’ the scoring changed from 2 points for the answer ‘smiling face’ to 1 point, cause smiling didn’t necessarily meant happy for the children.
This tool was used for the first time this research, 94 children were interviewed. The reliability was measured by Cronbach’s Alpha. The Cronbach’s Alpha of this tool (59 quantitative items) was 0.727, the first question wasn’t taken into account cause there was zero variance. Two items were deleted to get an higher reliability level, item 2 and 56, which gave a new Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.768. This indicates a medium reliability level. There was also an Cronbach’s Alpha conducted from the different scales. The knowledge scale (26 items) showed an Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.765, the social life skills scale (30 items) an Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.674, after the items 2 and 56 were deleted. Both of the scales show an acceptable level of reliability for a first used tool.
To see how many factors the total tool and the separate subscales contained, a principal component analyse (PCA) with a varimax-rotation was conducted. From the total tool 21 factors were contracted with a eigen value bigger than 1, which explained 77% of the proportion variance. The factors did not represent any of the scales or other underlying structures. Taking the separate scales into account, 9 factors with eigen value bigger than 1, were contracted out of the knowledge scale and 12 out of the social life skills scale. These factors both explained 69% of the proportion variance. In neither of the factors underlying structures could be found.
3.5.2 Classroom observation
At first the classrooms was observed in a structural way. Two scales of the ‘Observation Checklist Teachers’ were used (Singer, 2011). More specifically, this tool was used to see whether the pedagogical method of the teachers corresponds with the Me & You teaching guidelines. The scales that were used are the ‘physical context indoors’ to measure the school environments, and ‘academic activities’ to measure the pedagogical methods (appendix II). Examples of the ‘physical context indoors’ are the questions ‘do children have furniture to sit
on?’ and ‘on the wall are story pictures to talk about’. Examples of the ‘academic activities’
are the questions ‘individual children get a turn for instance a child comes in-front’ and ‘teacher gives children feedback individually, focusing on understanding’.
4. Results
In the next section the results from the questionnaire and the observation will be described. This will be divided in three parts, one on the statistical analysis of the questionnaire
(separated in total and scale results and results per item), one on the qualitative question of the questionnaire and one containing the observation results. The observation results will be described per scale and a separated part on how the Me and You program was taught. This first two parts will be used to answer the first two sub-questions of this research, the third part will be used to answer the third sub-question.
4.1 Statistical analysis 4.1.1 Questionnaire
An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare the level of the students on the interview between the experimental and the control group. Three main t-test were conducted; one on the total score, one on the sexual knowledge scale and one on the social life skills scale. Children in the experimental group (M=63.20, SD=10.50) had an higher score on the total interview than the children in the control group (M=59.03, SD=10.89). The mean difference
between the groups was 4.17 and the 95% confidence interval was between .21 and 8.55. An independent t-test showed that the difference between the two groups wasn’t significant (t=-1.89, df=92, p=0.062, two-tailed). Although this p-value is not significant, it does show that there is a trend towards a significant difference. The effectsize was in between small and medium (r=-0.191). Table 2 shows the significant differences between the experimental and the controlgroup on item level. In the next section will be a closer look on the different scales and the separate itemscores.
Tabel 2. Mean, Standard Deviation, Mean difference, t-score and p-value of items which showed
significant difference between the control group (N=46) and the experimental group (N=48)
Item Mean SD Mean
difference t p Contr. group Exp. group Contr. group Exp. group Q8 1.22 1.67 0.66 0.60 0.45 -3.45 .001 Q9 1.70 1.92 0.63 0.28 0.22 -2.22 .029 Q10 1.33 1.73 0.76 0.49 0.40 -3.06 .003 Q15 1.50 1.79 0.69 0.50 0.29 -2.35 .021 Q16 1.26 1.81 0.74 0.45 0.55 -4.39 .000 Q17 0.75 0.30 0.97 0.71 0.45 2.56 .012 Q18 0.96 0.54 1.01 0.90 0.42 2.11 .038 Q21 1.22 1.81 0.94 0.53 0.59 -3.80 .000 Q22 1.57 1.17 0.54 0.43 0.40 3.95 .000 Q23 0.17 0.54 0.38 0.90 0.37 -2.56 .012 Q25 0.48 0.92 0.51 1.01 0.44 -2.65 .009 Q29 1.59 1.21 0.62 0.58 0.38 3.06 .003 Q33 0.50 0.92 0.51 1.01 0.42 -2.52 .014 Q37 1.07 1.79 1.00 0.62 0.73 -4.33 .000 Q38 0.07 0.29 0.25 0.68 0.23 -2.12 .037 Q40 1.26 1.79 0.95 0.62 0.53 -3.22 .002 Q41 0.77 0.46 0.79 0.50 0.31 2.28 .025 Q46 1.20 0.73 0.72 0.45 0.47 3.80 .000 Q48 1.20 0.63 0.79 0.61 0.57 3.92 .000 Q52 0.17 0.52 0.57 0.88 0.35 -2.27 .026 4.1.1.1 Sexual knowledge
Children in the experimental group (M=31.67, SD=6.23) showed more sexual knowledge than the children in the control group (M=26.87, SD=5.89). The mean difference between the two groups was 4.79 with a 95% confidence interval between 2.31 and 7.28. An independent t-test
showed that the difference between the groups was significant (t=-3.83, df=92, p=0.000, two-tailed).
Looking at the separate subjects of the knowledge scale it seems that the children from the experimental school scored higher (M=2.79, SD=3.32) on the questions concerning names of the genitals, than children of the control schools (M=1.33, SD=1.40). This difference was found significant (t=2.77, df=92, p=0.007, two-tailed). From the control school none of the children said the correct name (vagina and penis) for the genitals. Taking the two genitals apart, male and female, another difference occurred. In total 78.7% of all the children (80.4% of the control group, 72.9% of the experimental group) could not name the female genitals, while only 56.4% (43.5% of the control group, 54.2% of the experimental group) could not name the male genitals. There were also questions asked about the functions of the genitals, for example ‘What can a boy do with this (penis)?’. Although the experimental group
(M=1.33, SD=0.40) scored slightly higher on these questions than the control group (M=1.23, SD=0.46), the difference wasn’t significant (t=1.16, df=88.99, p=0.251, two-tailed). From all the children only three children, one from the control group and two from the experimental group, knew when they saw the vagina that it was also used for having babies. None of the children named conception as a function of the penis. At the question ‘Where does the baby
come from?’, six children responded correctly naming the vagina, all these children were from
the experimental group. From the control group 3 children new that the baby came out of the vagina, but used their own term for it (like a childish name for example). In total 11.7% of all the children knew that the baby came out of the vagina. The difference between the
experimental group (M=0.29, SD=0.68) and the control group (M=0.07, SD=.25) on this question, was significant (t=2.12, df=92, p=0.037, two-tailed). On the question ‘How did the
baby get into the belly?’ no correct answer was given by any of the children. Only three
children (6.3%) of the experimental group could tell that it was through the vagina or by the
father.
Just one significant difference between the two groups, was found on the gender-id and the gender difference questions. The children from the experimental group (M=1.73, SD=0.49) mentioned more often (t=-3.06, df=92, p=0.003, two-tailed) that they saw a boy and a girl on the picture, than the control group (M=1.33, SD=0.76). From the control group 32.6% of the children mentioned that they saw a personification of the sexes rather than the actual names, for example a brother and sister, from the experimental group 22.9% used this term. Fifty percent of the control group actually used the term boy and girl against 75% of the experimental group. When asked about the differences and communalities between the boy and the girl 57.4% of all the children did not know an answer, the others named either a materialistic difference, like cloth or shoes, or a physical difference, like hairstyle. None of the children named genitals as a difference. Looking at the similarities between boys and girls 67.4% of the control group and 79.2 % of the experimental group, did not know an answer. The other children named a variety of similarities, both materialistic and physical ones. On the questions about gender id ´Are you a boy or a girl?’ and ‘How do you know if you are a boy
or a girl?’, was no significant difference found between the Me & You children and the
control school children. On total only three children did not know there sex, all from the control group. In total 56.4% of the children gave the person who told them as an answer to the second question. They said for example ‘From my mum’ or ‘From the teacher’. Only two children mentioned their genitals as an answer, both these children were from the control school. Thirty-five percent of the children did not have an answer to the question.
On the part of the interviews concerning what is allowed to be touched by strangers, one significant difference (t=3.22, df=92, p=0.002, two-tailed) was found. At the question ‘Is
it allowed when a stranger wants to touch this (penis/vagina)?’ the children who participated
in the Me & You program (M=1.79, SD=0.62) answered 89.6% that it was not allowed. Of
the control school children (M=1.26, SD=0.95) this percentage was 60.9%. 4.1.1.2 Social life skills
Looking at the social life skills of the children it occurred that the control group (M=32.16, SD=7.56) scored slightly higher than the experimental group (M=31.53, SD=6.72). The mean difference between the groups was .62, the 95% confidence interval was between 1.48 en 2.31. This difference did not show significant (t=0.42, df=92, p=0.674, two-tailed) after an
independent t-test was conducted.
Although the difference on the total score of the subscale was not found significant, there were some significant differences found on the sample t-test conducted on the separate scale items between the control and experimental group.
Looking at the questions about typical boys and girls habits, the experimental group (M=3.60, SD=0.82) scored significant higher (t=-3.78, df=92, p=0.000, two-tailed) than the control group (M=2.76, SD=1.30). In most of the cases the children gave answers concerning sex specific playing or toys. For example, boys played with robots or cars, girls with Barbie and cooking. At the questions if it was allowed for boys or girls to play like the opposite sex, the children from the control group (M=1.71, SD=1.62) scored significantly higher (t=2.75, df=89.20, p=0.007, two-tailed) than the children from the experimental (M=0.85, SD=1.41) group. Thirty-seven percent of the control children thought it was ok for boys to play with girls playing, in contrary to the experimental children from which 14.6 % thought it was ok. In both the experimental (27.1%) and the control (47.8%) school a higher percentage thought it was ok for girls to play with boys toys, than the other way around.
Another question which had an significant difference between the two groups was
‘What do you do when somebody gives you a hug when you don’t want it?’. Looking at the
frequencies it shows that none of the experimental school children gave an correct answer to this question in contrary to 21.7% of the control school children. The control school (M=0.77,
SD=0.80) scored significantly higher (t=-2.28, df=92, p=0.025, two-tailed) on this question than the experimental school (M=0.46, SD=0.50). There was also a significant difference in favour of the control school at the questions ‘What do you say/do when a friend is kind to
you?’ and ‘What do you do to keep your friends your friends?’. In this first question none of
the Me & You children gave an correct answer, from the control school 34.8% did gave a correct answer. The experimental school (M=0.73, SD=0.45) scored significantly lower (t=-3.80, df=92, p=0.000, two-tailed) on the first question than the control school (M=1.20, SD=0.72). Looking at the second question we saw that 43.8% of the Me & You children didn’t give an answer or the answer was irrelevant, against 19.6% of the control children. Also in this question the experimental school (M=0.63, SD=0.61) scored significantly lower (t=-3.922, df=84.26, p=0.000, two-tailed) than the control school (M=1.20, SD=0.79). Looking at the questions about emotions only one of them showed an significant difference. In this question an picture of a sad boy was showed to the children with the question ‘How does this boy feel?´. The experimental school children (M=0.52, SD=0.88) scored significant higher (t=2.27, df=92, p=0.026, two-tailed) on this question than the control school children (M=0.17, SD=0.57) did. Twenty-five percent of the experimental children mentioned the boy felt said, against 8.7% of the control children.
4.2 Qualitative question
In this questionnaire one qualitative question was formulated: ‘Why are your friends your friends?’. This question was set up to give more insight in the reasons behind the friendships of the children. One of the goals of the Me & You program was to teach the children the importance of friendships
(Learning Manual Me & You, 2008).
Looking at the answers of both the control and the experimental children you can see that there is a difference in the amount of reasons the children give. Nineteen out of 46 of the control schoolchildren gave two sometimes three answers to the question, in total they gave 58 reasons why their friends were their friends, four children didn’t answer the question. The experimental group gave
just one answer most of the time, in total 50 reasons were given. Another difference was the amount of variance in the answers, the experimental schoolchildren gave more answers of the same sort, they only had one answer in the rest category. In contrary to the control school who had 11 rest answers like ‘cause I have lots of toys’ or ‘cause I have a little sister’. ‘Because we play together’ was in both of the groups a often given reason, 32% of the control answers and 16% of the experimental answers fell under this category. At the experimental school the ‘Same school’ category was the mostly given answers, at the control school this answer only occurred a few times. Both the groups scored equally high on the categories ‘Because of personal qualities of the child’ and ‘Because I’m nice’. The
experimental schoolchildren also gave answers in which the personality of the other child played a part, for example ‘Cause my friends are nice’. This didn’t occur in the answers of the control school. There were also children who didn’t know why their friends were their friends, 28% of the experimental school and 11% of the control school didn’t knew an answer.
4.3 Classroom observation 4.3.1 Classroom environment
The experimental school existed of one room, divided in two parts by a low closet/bookshelf with two doors. One wall of the room existed almost totally of windows. In one part of the classroom were the younger children (age 4), in the other one the older children (age 5-6). The bookshelf that divided the room hold the different materials of the children, like books and pencils. All the children had their own shelf. On the blackboard on the wall things were written, for example the date and the days of the week. There were also photographs of the children on the walls, things the children coloured or painted and different learning posters. The room was painted in several different colours, the furniture was also coloured. Children were seated in three groups of eight persons and one group of nine persons. All the children had their own table and chair, some of them were facing the teacher, others were facing their classmates with their back to the whiteboard. There was also a toilet with a lavatory and a small room used for storage and as an office.
During the break children could play in the classroom or outside. In the classroom were some cuddly animals, educational toys (like an ‘word-snake’ to practice English) and books, the children
could also paint or colour if they wanted to. Around the school was not really a separated playground, it was also a driveway to some houses. Several times a motorbike crosses the ‘playground’. There was little playground for the children, with a slide and a seesaw for the children to play. The slide was rusty and both of the playing attributes were not attached to the ground. It was also possible for the children to play soccer, this opportunity was mostly used by boys. During the break some street vendors entered the playground to sell snacks and little toys to the children.
On the day of observation all children were present at the school, 33 in total. The group exist of 11 girls and 22 boys. There were two female teachers available in the classroom, one for the younger children and one for the older children. The head-teacher was also present, but she did not active participate during the classroom activities. All children were wearing their sport school uniforms cause the observation took place on Wednesday which was sports day at the school. In total the children had three different school uniforms. On Friday they wore there ‘formal’ cloth, this was the only day they do not wear the same outfits. Children started the day at 7.30 in the morning, with gymnastics, this contained songs accompanied with gestures and moves. The teachers participated as well. After the gymnastics the children went in the classroom and sat at their tables. The older and the younger group got different tasks from their teachers. The task of the older children existed of writing in their workbooks, after an explanation of the teacher. The task of the younger children was counting in group formation, the teacher learned them a song about it. The children could turn to the teacher if they had any question or when they finished their task. The tasks differed in time amount, this day the children did four tasks in total, three before and one after the break. The children could talk to each other, some children walked through the room or went outside as well. Especially in the time during two different tasks several children walked around the classroom. The day of observation was also the day that the Me and You lesson about gender differences was on the program. All the children would participate in a group lesson. The children were seated on the floor and on chairs all facing the teacher. The teacher was showing different books about jobs that were both for boys and girls. She also
explained the term she-males, and the fact that she-males were not a bad thing and have to be treated equally. After the group lesson the children had to colour a picture of a doctor. At the end of the day and the beginning of the day the children greeted the teachers and the head-teacher.
4.3.2 Pedagogical methods
The children were addressed to as a group and got individual assignments. The teacher sometimes asked the children a question, the children answered this question as a group. During the group lessons, there was not much personal contact between the teacher and the individual students. When the
children worked in smaller groups or individual, there was more personal contact. The teachers gave compliments for example. The teachers teached the children in a playful way, they learned them songs with movements on several teaching subjects. Sports was also an important part of the school
curriculum, the children started every morning with small gymnastics, at Wednesday they did this longer, the children could play soccer and there were dancing lessons.
4.3.3 Me and You program
The teachers of the school actively taught the Me & You program. The have put the thematic lessons into the teaching time schedule. When the teachers gave these lessons, both the younger and older children joined together. The teachers used the books and dolls, but sometimes they also used other materials, like other books and colour paintings. During the lessons the children responded as an group, there was no much individual contact between the teacher and the children. It should be noted that when the dolls were not used for teaching they were either in the storage room or on the shelf, it was not clear if the children could take them by themselves and play with it. The children cannot look at the books by themselves.
5. Discussion
The current research was executed to evaluate the Me and You program in Jakarta, the research question was ‘What is the impact of the Me and You program’. Therefore, an evaluation tool was developed, preschool children were interviewed and classroom-observations were conducted. To answer the main and sub-questions of this research the findings will be explained by and linked to earlier research and theories in the next section. Every section will cover a sub-question on sexual knowledge, social life skills and school-environments and pedagogical methods and end with a small conclusion concerning the sub-question.
5.1 Sexual knowledge
Children who follow the Me and You program have more sexual knowledge. A significant difference was found between the experimental group and the control group.
The children who received the Me & You program were better able to name the genitals of the children and the adults in the pictures. A majority of all the children knew that genitals were used for peeing. Only three children (from which two experimental) knew that the vagina was also used for having baby’s. Looking at the picture of the woman giving birth, six children from the experimental and three from the control group could mention that the baby came out of the vagina. Conception was not mentioned by any of the children as a function of the penis or the vagina. This was confirmed once more when none of the children could mention how the baby got in the belly. Only three children from the experimental group mentioned ‘through the vagina’ or ‘by the father’ as an answer to this question. In comparing the knowledge of the male and female genitals, it appeared that there was an overall lack in the knowledge about the name of the vagina. In the control group as well as in the
experimental group the amount of children that could not name the vagina was bigger than the amount of children that could not name the penis. It appears that children more often know the term for the male genital than they do for the female genital. This differences was found by other researches as well (Wurtele, Melzer & Kast; 1992; Bem, 1989; Volbert, 2000;
Brilleslijper-Kater & Baartman, 2000). Looking at the results it appears that children from the Me & You program have a higher level of sexual knowledge than children who did not follow the program, but still lack a lot of knowledge. This lack of knowledge can be possibly
explained by several matters.
At first the Me & You program does not includes a part which actually explains that parents have to have sex in order to make an baby. They do teach about the egg and the sperm, but they do not tell where the sperm comes from and how it gets to the egg.
Another possible reason for this lack could be found in the cultural taboo on sexuality in Indonesia (UNESCO, 2011). According to Hull, Hasmi and Widyantoro (2004) Indonesian parents still do not feel comfortable to talk to their child about sexual subjects like sexuality, genitals and conception. Kao, Buthrie and Loveland-Cherry (2007) found that mothers-daughter relationships, particularly mothers’ traditional cultural values, influence their daughters’ sexual decision-making process. In this case this could mean intergenerational transaction of the taboo on sexuality.
The last possible explanation could be that the perception of children on sexual behaviour, is not the same as the perception of adults. Carey (1988; 1994) describes
conceptual changes during a person’s life. This theory describes the acquisition of knowledge not only as a sum of facts, but as a process of restructuring of intuitive theories, therefore it comes from an biological offset. Children would start off with very few intuitive theories and develop these by reorganization of their knowledge caused by adjustments of these theories. Volbert (2000) uses this theory to look at the sexual knowledge, specific the knowledge of conception, of children. In this view preschool children do not see conception, pregnancy and birth as an biological happening, but as a social behaviour of the parent, like getting married. According to Volbert (2000) and the theory of Carey (1988; 1994), children around the age of 9 or 10 can be expected to understand the connection and the differences between the social and the biological parts of the propagation. The children in this research were in between 3 and 7 years old and thus not in the possibility to have formed the right concepts yet.
Summarized can be concluded that children who followed the Me and You program have acquired more sexual knowledge, but they still lack on knowledge about functions of the genitals and conception. This could possibly be because the program lacks in the details they give on these subjects, or because the program does not attributes to the developmental stage of the children, like perception, or the culture.
5.2 Social life skills
Children who follow the Me and You program do not develop more social life skills. There was no significant difference found between the experimental and the control group. In some of the questions the children from the experimental school even scored significantly lower than the control school.
The Me and You children scored lower on the questions on whether it was allowed for boys and girls to play with toys from the opposite sex. A possible explanation can be that the Me and You program makes the children more aware of their gender identity, this could be supported by the significantly higher score on naming typical boys and girls habits and playing. It is possible that the program makes the children more aware of the differences between boys and girls instead of teaching them that boys and girls are equal and can play with the same toys.
Another important find was the difference between the experimental school and control school on the question ‘What do you do when somebody gives you a hug when you
don’t want it?’. The control school scored significantly higher on this question than the
experimental school. The control school also scored higher on the questions about friendship and how to treat your friends. Looking at the teaching material, this is a strange outcome, there is a lot of attention on personal boundaries and friendships. Two of the three educational comic books are related to these subjects. A possible explanation could be that the books are not in reach of the children to read them by themselves. Another possible explanation could be that the children cannot read yet. In that case they only look at the pictures. It is possible that the pictures on itself are not supporting the message of the Me and You program enough. The qualitative open question about the importance of friendship can also give a possible explanation for the difference in score on the friendship questions. The children from the control schools gave more answers and had more variation in their answers. Were the
