Transcript 1-Presentationby_Torney

Civic-Related and Social
Outcomes of Schooling:
Insights from Large-Scale
International Assessments
Prof. dr. Judith Torney-Purta
Human Development
University of Maryland USA
I hope to convince you that:
• Acquiring social and civic competences makes
an important contribution to
– each student’s own well being and future
– schools, communities and societies
• Social and civic outcomes
– are observable and measurable
– can be fostered by educational programs
• Large scale assessments can raise awareness
• But processes of change take place on the
school level.
My aims are to present:
• The dimensions of those competences and
associated personal and social resources
• The aspects of the school that have a major role in
enhancing these competences
– A discourse community
– A participatory community
• Examples from cross-national assessments
– Going beyond country rankings to patterns of findings
– How school contexts can develop these competences
• Evidence that attention to the civic dimensions of
schooling prepares young people with
– civic knowledge, personal resources, and interpersonal
skills that contribute to their own futures and the society’s
future in a complex and diverse world.
This is a multidimensional concept of
personal and social resources:
• Resources important in contributing to individual
and public well being in the civic domain include
–
–
–
–
–
–
Basic civic and societal content knowledge
Skills in understanding written texts (in the media)
A moderate level of trust in the political system
Positive orientations toward equality/non-exclusion
Sense of efficacy, both personal and collective
Ability to respectfully discuss issues with others who
hold different opinions
– Acceptance of norms about the value of citizens’
participation
This is a brief history of the
conceptualization of the field:
• “Political socialization” research began in 1960s
– the interdisciplinary study of young people’s political
attitudes and development of survey measures
• Studies of “civic education” in 1970s
– first IEA Civic Education Study
– added measures of knowledge and cognition for
students and surveys for teachers/headmasters
• “Civic or political engagement” since 1990s
– with globalization, migration, fall of communism
– includes the cognitive, attitudinal and behavioral
– IEA’s CIVED99 Study and IEA’s ICCS09 Study
These are the details of the
IEA Civic Education Study-CIVED:
• Mid-1990s CIVED Phase 1
– An international consensus process achieved
agreement on concepts for a test/survey and
developed the Octagon Model
• 1999 CIVED Phase 2
– Nationally representative samples of 14-year-olds
were tested in 28 countries (primarily in Europe)
– 94,000 students; nearly 2500 schools.
– 90 minute test/survey
– In-depth further analysis since 2001
The Octagon Model served as a
basis for CIVED and ICCS:
These countries tested at age 14
in the CIVED Study:
• Australia, England,
United States
• Belgium (French),
Cyprus, Germany,
Greece, Italy, Portugal,
Switzerland
• Denmark, Finland,
Norway, Sweden
• Hong Kong (SAR)
• Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania
• Bulgaria, Czech
Republic, Hungary,
Poland, Romania,
Russian Federation,
Slovak Republic,
Slovenia
• Chile, Colombia
These are details of ICCS (International
Civics and Citizenship Study):
• Similar populations tested in 2009 in 38
countries (Schulz et al, 2010)
–
–
–
–
Did not include a first phase
Similar topics/questions
U.S. did not participate; Netherlands did
Sweden, England in both studies
• Today’s presentation focuses on CIVED
– More opportunities for in-depth analysis
– Some scales that were not carried forward
These content domains were covered
in the two studies:
• In CIVED 1999 [Content Knowledge, Civic Skills, Attitudes]
– Fundamentals of Democracy, Democratic Institutions
and Citizenship
– National Identity and International Relations
– Social Cohesion and Diversity
• In ICCS 2009: [Civic Knowledge, Attitudes]
–
–
–
–
Civic Society and Systems
Civic Principles
Civic Participation
Civic Identities
This is an illustration of a skills item in
the CIVED instrument:
• Cartoon Interpretation Item
The next sections present results in
relation to four questions:
• What resources for civic participation do
adolescents in different countries possess?
• What clusters or profiles of attitudes exist among
adolescents?
• What are the school and classroom correlates of
valued outcomes across and within countries?
• Are traditional and interactive teaching
conflicting or reinforcing?
What Resources for Civic Participation Do
Adolescents in Different Countries
Possess?
Selected CIVED countries
Eleven Countries’ Means on
3 Civic “Resources”
International Means = 10.0, SDs = 2.0
Mean
Support Norms of
Conventional
Citizenship
10.5-.8
Support Norms of
Social-Movement
Citizenship
Support for
Ethnic Minority
Rights
Portugal
England US
Portugal
Italy Norway US
Norway, Finland,
Sweden
10.1-.4
Italy Portugal US
10.0
Latvia
9.6-.9.9
Germany
Germany Sweden
CzechR
Italy Czech Republic
Latvia Estonia
9.2-.5
Estonia
Czech Engl Norway
Sweden
England
Estonia Latvia
Germany
8.8-.9.1
Finland
Finland
What Clusters or Profiles of Attitudes
Exist among Adolescents in Different
Countries?
Analysis of CIVED Data
Specific Research Questions:
• RQ1: Are there groups/clusters of
adolescents with distinctive patterns of
attitudes?
• RQ2: How do distributions of cluster
membership differ by country?
• RQ3: How do individual characteristics,
beliefs and school context relate to cluster
membership?
Person-Centered Analysis
of CIVED Data
• Describing how attitudes are integrated within
individual adolescents
• Analysis to accomplish this
– Cluster analyses using 12 attitudinal variables from
IEA CIVED survey data
– 2 step Cluster Analysis with 12 attitudes scales
– Described cluster with “mottos”
– 30,000 14-year-olds from 10 countries
• Western European: Australia, England, Finland, Sweden,
U.S.
• Eastern European: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia
Next Figure: Cluster Patterns for
5 Countries Sharing
the Western Europe Tradition
Based on the following scales (Mean 10, SD 2):
Support for Ethic/Minority Rights
Support for Immigrant Rights
Support for Women’s Rights
Cynicism
Internal Political Efficacy
Protectionist Attitudes (Nationalism)
Positive Attitudes to Nation (Patriotism)
Trust in Government Institutions
Trust in the Media
Norms of Conventional Citizen Participation
Norms of Social Movement Participation
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Support/Women
Pos. Attit/Minorities
Pos. Attit/Immig
Protective of Nation
Pos. toward Nation
Trust in Political
Social Gov't
Soc Mvm't Cit
Conv. Cit
Social Justice
Conventional
Indifferent
Disaffected
Alienated
13
Parallel Cluster Group 1
• Social Justice Cluster
– Support for minority and immigrant rights
– Low support for norms of conventional or
protest action
– Motto: “I believe in rights for all but do not
feel obligated to do much about it.”
Parallel Cluster Group 2
• Conventionally Political Cluster
– High trust in government institutions;
– High political self efficacy;
– Believe in norms of conventional and social
oriented citizen action;
– Protectionist and patriotic in Eastern Europe
– Also support social justice in Western Europe
– Motto: “I believe in my country and will
support the status quo with expected
political and civic activities.”
Parallel Cluster Groups 3 and 4
• Indifferent Cluster
– All attitudes very close to the mean
– Will do the minimum expected
• Disaffected Cluster
– More negative than Indifferent but not extreme
• Motto for both clusters:
– “I have better ways to spend my time than
thinking about politics, but I won’t do
anything rash.”
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Support/Women
Pos. Attit/Minorities
Pos. Attit/Immig
Protective of Nation
Pos. toward Nation
Trust in Political
Social Gov't
Soc Mvm't Cit
Conv. Cit
Social Justice
Conventional
Indifferent
Disaffected
Alienated
13
Parallel Cluster Group 5
• Alienated Cluster (Anti-Social Justice)
– Uniformly negative attitudes about rights
for minorities and immigrants
– Trust 1 ½ SDs below the international
mean
– Motto: I’m angry about the
immigrants and minority groups in
my country, and I don’t trust the
government. I have the right to do
what I want.”
Distributions of Cluster Groups
in Western Europe
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Australia
Social Justice
England
Conventional
Finland
Indifferent
Sweden
Disaffected
United States
Alienated
A Focus on the Alienated Cluster
• About 7% across countries are Alienated
and hold negative inter-group attitudes
• 25% of these Alienated youth think it is
“not important to obey the law”
– 1% for Conventional; 6% for Disaffected
• Potentially for illegal protest (block traffic):
– Alienated cluster members expect to
protest
– Social Justice cluster members do not
expect to protest
Individual and Proximal
Characteristics of Alienated Students
• Alienated Cluster members likely to:
– Be male
– Lack a sense of collective efficacy in the
school community
– Lack the experience of a respectful climate
for discussion in their classrooms
– Spend evenings “hanging out” with peers
– No differences by SES in Western Europe
Summary
• Intergroup attitudes are part of
emergent citizenship and shaped in
part by schools
– this is the age cohort now young adults
– Many teachers are unprepared for antiracism education
• Many young people believe “citizens
should behave democratically” but are
unwilling to engage in action
What are the School and
Classroom Correlates of Valued
Student Outcomes or Resources
Within Countries?
Data from selected CIVED and ICCS countries
Focusing on the “Discourse Community”
and “Participatory Community”
in Relation to Intercultural Attitudes:
• The Discourse Community at School:
– Experiencing an Open Climate for Class Discussion (CIVED)
– “Students feel free to express opinions in class even when they
differ from other students;” and “Teachers respect our opinions
and encourage us to express them during class.” (2 of 6 items)
• The Participatory Community at School:
– Confidence in the Value of School Participation (CIVED)
– “Lots of positive changes happen in this school when students
work together” and “Students acting together can have more
influence on what happens in this school than students acting
alone.”
– Highly similar results for other resources, such as norms of citizenship
Positive Attitudes towards Ethnic Minority Rights by
High/Low Open Classroom Climate
in Four Countries (CIVED99)
(All differences significant , p < .001)
Positive Attitudes towards Ethnic Minority Rights by
High/Low Open Classroom Climate in Four Countries
(ICCS09)
(All differences significant , p < .001)
Positive Attitudes towards Ethnic Minority Rights by
High/Low Confidence in the Value of Students’
Participation in School in Four Countries (CIVED 99)
(All differences significant , p < .001)
Positive Attitudes towards Ethnic Minority Rights by
High/Low Confidence in the Value of Students’
Participation in Schools in Four Countries (ICCS09)
(All differences significant , p < .001)
Are Traditional and Interactive
Teaching in Conflict with Each
Other or Reinforcing?
CIVED Data from the
United States
[Replicated in 3 Post-Communist
countries]
Comparison of Educational Groups
– Identify groups reflecting different experiences
in civic/social studies classrooms
– Open classroom climate for discussion (5 item
scale)
• Sample: “Students feel free to express opinions in
class even when their opinions are different from
most of the other students.”
– Traditional teaching (4 item scale)
• Sample: “Teachers lecture and the students take
notes.”
The Educational Groups that
Were Compared
Open class climate
Traditional
teaching
Low
High
Low
Neither
Interactive
High
Lecture
Both
Confidential until Release of Report
Mean Civic Skills Score by Educational
Group in the United States
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
Neither
Lecture
Interactive
Both
Mean Attitude toward Ethnic Minority Rights
by Educational Group in the United States
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
Neither
Lecture
Interactive
Both
Summary of Differences
by Educational Group
• Interactive and lecture-based experience in civic
education classroom both relate to higher scores
on nearly a dozen civic/social outcomes
• Students who have neither experience score
lower on the outcomes
• Lecture-based alone is never superior to
interaction alone (or to interactive combined with
traditional)
What Can We Conclude about the
Everyday Life of Schools?
We have learned about enhancing the
discourse and participatory communities:
• Explain and insist on ground rules of respect for
diversity of opinion
• Scaffold discussions to operate with these rules
• Promote shared goals and sense of identity
– with both school and local communities
• Recognize peripheral and direct participation
• Identify problems and promote a sense of
collective efficacy in solving them
• Equip students with cognitive skills
– listening to others and taking their perspectives
We also know about the challenges:
• Educators are often wary about establishing an
open climate for classroom discussion of issues
– Curriculum standards emphasize knowledge
– Interactive methods are risky without
scaffolding
– Intergroup tensions, structural factors and
institutional resistance have an influence
– Alienated students can be challenging
Some are proposing alternative paths to
quality learning and engagement:
• Accountability Path:
– Human capital approach
with external referents
– Test-based
evaluation/benchmarks
– Accountability to outside
standards
• Participatory Path:
– Internal/ self-evaluation;
– Democratic school/
classroom climate
– Feedback within schools
on success of models for
improvement
– An important place for
school inspection
In conclusion, there is a place in this
process for school inspection:
• Begin with the premise that social and civic
capacities along with citizenship competences
contribute to both
– students’ development as individuals and
– their schools, communities & societies (directly and
indirectly)
• Value what students and educators say about
their classroom and school contexts
• Address an appropriately broad view of
emergent citizenship and civic resource
• Develop methods to assess and give feedback
on the discourse and participatory communities
Thanks
• Some organizations supporting the CIVED analyses:
–
–
–
–
–
U.S. Department of Education and German DFG
W.T. Grant Foundation
Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools (U.S)
Council of Europe’s Democratic Citizenship Initiative
University of Maryland
• Individual collaborators in the analyses presented:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Barbara Malak-Minkiewicz, IEA
Carolyn Barber and Jessica Ross, UMKC
Jo-Ann Amadeo, Marymount University
Britt Wilkenfeld, Colorado Department of Education
Gary Homana, Towson University
Wendy Richardson, Richardson Consulting