|
European Educational |
ISSN 1474-9041 | ||
|
Volume 2 Number 3 2003 | |||
Other issues available | Journal home page | Publisher home page | |||
|
|||
|
CONTENTS [click on author's name for abstract and full text] | |||
|
| |||
THEME
| |||
| Introduction |
| VIEW FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| The articles assembled in this issue of EERJ represent a considerable amount of consistent knowledge on civic education across Europe. They were produced as a variety of particular studies developed by some of the 20 countries that participated in the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) International Civic Education Project, initiated in 1994. This set of studies followed, re-examined or expanded the results of the second phase of the general study, looking at particular dimensions, combining or expanding aspects worked within the study, now focused on more restricted universes, or confined to more specific dimensions This special issue of the European Educational Research Journal assembles a group of papers, some of which were presented in a symposium at the Lisbon European Conference on Educational Research (ECER) 2002, that highlight and discuss the data collected within the context of the Civic Education Study promoted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). The involvement of the IEA in this area goes back to 1971 when a first civic education study involved a total of nine countries, all of which with long-established democratic regimes; in 1994 the IEA General Assembly decided to conduct a new study ‘to identify and examine in a comparative framework the ways in which young people are prepared for their roles as citizens in democracies and societies aspiring to democracy’ (Torney-Purta et al, 1999). This second study involved more than 20 countries, from a variety of geographical locations and political traditions, including countries that experienced recent democratic transitions (Amadeo et al, 2002; Torney-Purta et al, 2001). The study used an innovative methodology with a two-phase design, including both a qualitative analysis of national policies and practices, and the testing of national representative samples of adolescents at age 14 and attending upper secondary education (see Torney-Purta, 2003, this issue). Obviously, we are dealing with a rich and extensive database (with more than 150,000 students overall), open to multiple analysis and interpretations, and that constitutes an impressive view on adolescents’ political development across nations. This issue of the EERJ intends to be a contribution to that ongoing process of analysis and discussion. The authors address several dimensions of the IEA Civic Education Study, including the discussion of methodological issues related to test quality (see Nikolova & Lehman), the analysis of the impact of civic skills and knowledge on likelihood to vote (Maiello, Oser & Biedermann), the consideration of students’ concepts of democracy both in terms of their relation to existing models of democracy (Husfeldt & Nikolova) and to their cultural appropriation in different countries (Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides, Fragoulis, Zanni & Ntelikou), the exploration of how participation experiences relate to students’ civic concepts, attitudes and engagement (Menezes), and the comparison between experts’, teachers’ and students’ views on civic education (Mintrop). The articles focus on the data for 14 year-olds and/or upper secondary students, from a diversity of theoretical and disciplinary viewpoints, and stressing cross-national comparisons. Naturally, this special issue does not intend to give a complete picture of the IEA Civic Education Study. However, the articles do bring new insights on the IEA data and raise further questions for research within the area of political development of adolescents – in terms of methodology, topics to be considered, and the significance of the results. Finally, in a time where democracies face particular tensions of integration and inclusion, in Europe and elsewhere, the articles also point out relevant implications for the design, implementation and evaluation of citizenship education projects within educational institutions and beyond. A final word of personal appreciation is due to all the people who made this special issue possible: to Martin Lawn, who was most supportive and enthusiastic of this project from the start; to Maria do Céu Roldão, the co-editor of this issue, whose involvement was (as always) a pleasure and a privilege; to the authors for their notable work; to the reviewers for their comments and suggestions; and to Judith Torney-Purta, whose support throughout the whole IEA Civic Education Study was an inspiration for us all. Correspondence Isabel Menezes, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Porto University, Rua do Campo Alegre, 1055, P-4169‑004 Porto, Portugal (imenezes@psi.up.pt). References Amadeo, J-A., Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Husfeldt, V. & Nikolova, R. (2002) Civic Knowledge and Engagement. An IEA Study of Upper Secondary Students in Sixteen Countries. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J. & Amadeo, J-A. (1999) Citizenship Education across Countries: twenty-four case studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H. & Schulz, W. (2001) Citizenship and Education in Twenty-eight Countries. Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. |
| A European Perspective on the IEA Civic Education Study: an introduction |
| Until the early 1990s there was relatively little interest among comparative or international educators in research on civic education. During the 1980s, for example, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), a consortium of educational research institutes in nearly 60 countries, focused its large-scale data collections on literacy, mathematics, and science. However, in the early 1990s, prompted by recent massive changes in political and social structures, several member countries of the IEA requested a study of civic education that would have a strong knowledge measure as well as an assessment of young people’s attitudes and behaviors. The aim was to study schools in the context of other democratic institutions and to take advantage of the IEA organization’s perspective and resources, including a wide network of research and policy institutes in different countries and a wealth of technical and methodological expertise in cross-national comparative education research. Education policy concerns were central. However, many of those involved in the study were social scientists from fields such as developmental/social psychology or sociology interested in research within a disciplinary framework. Therefore the study melded research and policy-related approaches. Because of the hope that the study could reflect the voices of teachers and students as well as producing data amenable to statistical analysis, the first phase of the IEA Civic Education Study (1994‑98) consisted of the collection of structured national case studies. These case studies served as the basis of a consensus process used to develop content specifications for a test of civic knowledge (with right and wrong answers) and also a survey of political attitudes and civic behavior. These qualitative data also provided contextual information for interpreting the more quantitative data collected in 1999‑2000. For analysis within and across countries of the data collected during Phase 1, see Torney-Purta et al (1999) and Steiner-Khamsi et al (2002).[1] The second phase of the IEA Civic Education Study began in 1997. An international steering committee, together with national research coordinators, constructed items, pre-piloted, and then piloted an instrument (test and survey) that would be suitable for early and late adolescents and would take about two class periods to complete. The attitude survey included a number of scales drawn from surveys of adults and was substantially the same for the two age groups. The test of civic knowledge administered to the older students, however, contained some more difficult test items as well as items about economics, political efficacy, and international relations not administered to the 14 year-olds. Thirteen scales based on Item Response Theory (IRT) were developed for the knowledge items and for sets of attitudes items.[2] Nationally representative samples of students in the modal grade for 14 year-olds (a total of about 90,000 students from 28 countries) were tested in 1999; students ranging in age from 16 to 19 (a total of about 50,000 students from 16 countries) were tested in 2000. See Torney-Purta et al (2001) and Amadeo et al (2002) for a description of scaling and analysis of the 28 and 16 countries, respectively, for early and late adolescents.[3] To give some perspective on the overall results of the study, the current generation of adolescents in countries participating in the study believes in voting as a hallmark of the good adult citizen. However, social movement related activities, including community action or environmental protection, are nearly as important as voting for these adolescents (Torney-Purta et al, 2001). Activities that have conventionally been associated with good citizenship for adults, such as engaging in political discussion or joining a political party, are relatively unimportant for adult citizens, according to these adolescents. There are cross-national differences in conceptions of citizenship at age 14. In summary, some of the post-communist countries (such as Poland) are above the international mean in the extent to which their young people believe that conventional political participation is important, while other countries are below this mean (such as the Czech Republic). All the countries in southern Europe and in North and South America rate relatively high, while all the countries in the northern part of western Europe rate relatively low in adolescents’ belief in the importance of conventional citizenship participation (Torney-Purta et al, 2001; Torney-Purta 2002). There have been several types of publications from the second phase of this study. First were the reports published by the IEA (for example, Torney-Purta et al, 2001 and Amadeo, et al, 2002). Second, the large majority of the research teams under the direction of national research coordinators have produced national reports and other publications for national or international audiences. Third, the chair and members of the international steering committee (along with their research colleagues) have produced a series of publications. For example, the web page <www.wam.umd.edu/~iea> lists or links several chapters and articles from the IEA team at the University of Maryland, presenting results from the USA, Europe, and Latin America. Fourth, some national research coordinators have organized special issues of educational journals, inviting other coordinators and steering committee members to prepare articles. This special issue is one of the first to appear. It demonstrates laudable diversity in its focus, including two articles about the civic knowledge test, two articles analyzing young people’s concepts of democracy, one article that focuses on students’ current and anticipated participation, and one article that links the views of experts (gathered during Phase 1) with the responses of teachers and students (gathered during Phase 2). Data from both 14 year-olds (the Standard Population) and upper secondary students (the Older Population) are included, and there is some consideration of gender differences. The approaches range from strictly statistical ones to interpretative ones. Some of the articles refine or elaborate earlier analysis, while others challenge its framing, methods or conclusions. Several relate the data to alternative current discourses and suggest new perspectives on issues that range from the definition of the social good, to economic inequalities as they affect views of democracy, to generic narratives of participation within democracy. One author questions, for example, whether similarities of views within and between countries are the result of equal opportunities for participation or of homogenization in the society which may be oppressive in character. Another brings up alternative meanings of the term ‘active participation’ found in different democratic traditions. Another calls for attention to indirect as well as direct effects. Among the psychological processes addressed are the filtering process that leads to political judgment, the cultural appropriation of meaning, and increasing differentiation and complexity of concepts with age. Finally, the contrasting views of persons at different levels of the process are highlighted, both the ways in which they provide similar views and the ways in which their perspectives diverge. These articles provide a map suggesting directions for future analysis once the international data become known by researchers and policy analysts around the world who share an interest in the future of citizen preparation and participation. As one author concludes, ‘the field is not where it should be. But the field is in transition’ (Mintrop, this issue). These articles are an important step in promoting the debate that is part of this transition. Correspondence Judith Torney-Purta, Chair of the IEA Civic Education International Steering Committee and Professor of Human Development, College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA (jt22@umail.umd.edu). Notes [1] Major funding for Phase 1 came from the Pew Charitable Trusts (Philadelphia, USA). Major funding for Phase 2 came from the Deutsche Forschunggemeinshaft (Germany) and the William T. Grant Foundation (New York, USA). The IEA Organization, the National Research Centers in the participating countries, the University of Maryland (College Park, USA), and the Humboldt University of Berlin provided support throughout the study. [2] To give an idea of the scope of the instrument, in addition to the knowledge test there are 52 items about concepts of democracy, citizenship and government, including 4 IRT scales; 22 items dealing with trust in institutions and efficacy, including 2 IRT scales; 12 items dealing with attitudes toward the nation, including 1 IRT scale; 28 items dealing with attitudes toward diversity, including 2 IRT scales; 41 school and organization participation items, including 2 IRT scales; and 22 items about expected political and civic engagement items, including 1 IRT scale. Since the release of the IEA reports a number of other scales have been developed by the University of Maryland IEA Team (e.g. 4 types of expected civic participation, 3 more trust scales). [3] Twenty-eight countries tested 14 year-olds. Those 28 countries are: Australia, Belgium (French speaking), Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong (SAR), Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the USA. Sixteen countries tested upper secondary students. Those 16 countries are Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hong Kong (SAR), Israel, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Sweden and Switzerland (German speaking). These countries are very diverse in their histories of democratic governance and this should be borne in mind when interpreting the findings. References Amadeo, J., Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Husfeldt, V. & Nikolova, R. (2002) Civic Knowledge and Engagement: an IEA study of upper secondary students in sixteen countries. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (see also: www.wam.umd.edu/~iea). Steiner-Khamsi, G., Torney-Purta, J. & Schwille, J. (Eds) (2002) New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education for Citizenship: an international comparison. Amsterdam: JAI/Elsevier Science. Torney-Purta, J. (2002) Patterns in the Civic Knowledge, Engagement, and Attitudes of European Adolescents: the IEA Civic Education Study, European Journal of Education, 37, pp. 129‑142. Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J. & Amadeo, J. (1999) Civic Education across Countries: twenty-four national case studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H. & Schulz, W. (2001) Citizenship and Education in Twenty-eight Countries: civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (see also: www.wam.umd.edu/~iea).
|
| On the Dimensionality of the Cognitive Test Used in the IEA Civic Education Study: analyses and implications |
| VIEW FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| The second International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Civic Education Study was designed to measure dimensions of civic knowledge among 14 year-old and upper secondary students across diverse educational systems. One of the major aims of the study on upper secondary students was to attain sufficient commonality with the test instrument for the 14 year-olds in order to facilitate meaningful cross-population references. This requirement could be successfully achieved by including a substantial number of (anchor) items from the test for the younger group, yet leaving room for more difficult items. In addition, the test for the upper secondary students included the newly introduced domain of economic literacy. The quality of the test has been assured through confirmatory factor analysis; analysis of item-by-country interaction and Item Response Theory (IRT) based analyses of item fit within and across countries. Preceded by a short review of previous research on civic knowledge as well as a brief description of the IEA test for the 14 year-olds, this article then focuses more explicitly on some methodological aspects of the test of civic knowledge and economic literacy in the IEA Civic Education Study for upper secondary students. It describes the structure of the test, including three examples of items covering different levels of civic knowledge. Furthermore, the quality of the test is discussed in some detail, referring to the main test analysis procedures. Finally, the test analysis results are briefly discussed, followed by a note of caution, as well as some insights into the relationship of civic knowledge and gender among adolescents. |
| Civic Knowledge, Civic Skills and Civic Engagement |
| VIEW FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| In this article the authors suggest that civic skills and civic knowledge are key components of the political information perception process and try to determine the differential effects of these variables on civic engagement. Starting from a model proposed by Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald & Schulz, they developed an alternative model to explain the likelihood to vote in the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement Civic Education Study Standard Population of 14 year-olds tested in 1999. Results indicate that home environment and school-related factors predict civic knowledge and skills equally well. However, the direct effects of civic knowledge on likelihood to vote appear to be stronger than the corresponding effects of civic skills in 23 out of 28 countries. The evaluation of total effects highlights the meaning of an open classroom climate for discussion with reference to the likelihood to vote. |
| Students’ Concepts of Democracy |
| VIEW FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| In addition to assessing the civic knowledge and skills of adolescents, examining students’ concepts of democracy was an important aspect of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Civic Education Study. Based on theories and previous research with adults and youth in this area, a set of survey items was developed to cover several models of democracy. In the 1999 IEA Civic Education Study of 14 year olds, the confirmatory factor analysis showed one factor with items relating to the generic or rule of law model. A second factor, participatory democracy, did not meet IEA scaling standards. In contrast, confirmatory factor analysis of upper secondary school students’ data revealed a three-factor solution for the democracy items, suggesting that they have more differentiated concepts of democracy than 14 year olds. |
| Cultural Appropriation of Concepts of Democracy |
| VIEW FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| This article investigates how 14-year-old students seem to conceptualise democracy in four countries, namely, Italy, Germany, Hungary and Greece. In particular, it will be examined whether adolescents living in different cultural milieus develop different conceptions and different practices regarding democracy. The article indirectly questions the way in which teaching of social and political education in school is related to students’ concepts and attitudes. Students’ responses in the second phase questionnaires of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) research are the focus of the analysis in this article. A crucial question is whether similarities or homogenisation of students’ conceptions regarding democracy are viewed as the result of equal participation in the processes of constructing meaning through education, for example, or as the result of (oppressive?) homogenisation in school and society. However, it will be argued that there is always varying meaning construction and a definite (re)formulation of practices in any conception, and in any practice, a particular cultural appropriation of concepts and practices. From this perspective, the important issue explored in this article is the ways in which independent-contextual construction of meaning for democracy as well as in relation to the dominant in the West model emerges across the four countries reviewed. |
| Participation Experiences and Civic Concepts, Attitudes and Engagement: implications for citizenship education projects |
| VIEW FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| This article considers participation experiences of 14 year-old and upper secondary students in six European countries that were involved in the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Civic Education Study: the Czech Republic, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden and Switzerland, countries that vary in their history of institution of democratic regimes. Participation has been considered as a crucial dimension of citizenship, and experiences within civil society are viewed as a relevant opportunity for developing personal and social resources essential for the survival and expansion of democracy. Additionally, participation experiences in adolescence seem to be a good predictor of political engagement during adult life. Results show that participation is most evident in organisations that provide enrichment activities (sports, music, computers), but both 14 year-old and upper secondary students are involved in voluntary activities, in some civic-related organisations (mainly Scouts, religious affiliated and environmental), and in experiences within the school (with student councils and school newspapers at the top). However, cross-national and cross-age variations are significant. Overall, there seems to be a positive impact of the frequency of students’ involvement on civic concepts, attitudes and engagement, but results also reveal that more is not necessarily better. The most relevant implication for the development of citizenship education projects is that ‘action’ can be a powerful learning tool but only if it is intentionally designed and systematically supported: the quality of participation experiences, both in terms of meaningful involvement, of interaction with (different) others, and opportunities for personal integration, is therefore crucial if the goal is to promote the personal empowerment and social pluralism on which the essence of democracy relies. |
| The Old and New Face of Civic Education: expert, teacher, and student views |
| VIEW FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| Using the representative database of the Second International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Civic Education Study, this article takes a look at civic education through the lens of expert scholars, teachers, and students. The data reveals that, as some of the experts reported, political interest is not pervasive among students and classrooms are not places where a culture of debate, controversy, and critical thinking flourishes for students. But things have changed if civic education was primarily an imparting of facts about national history and the workings of the political system. As for teachers, now the discourse of rights and the social movements associated with it top the list of curricular concerns. Large majorities of teachers share with national scholars a conceptualization of civic education as critical thinking and value education, repudiating knowledge transformation as ideal, and they recognize the wide gulf that exists between these ideals and reality. As for many students, political disinterest notwithstanding, forms of participation born out of social movements and community organizing are the preferred channels of political activity. And yet, it seems the experts have a point: the field is not where it should be. |
| Civic Education: what are we getting from research? |
| VIEW FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| In this article, some of the more relevant aspects found in the studies presented in ECER’s Conference in Lisbon, 2002, developed within IEA Civic Education Project, are briefly highlighted. The emerging need for rethinking the concept of civic education itself is pointed out, as well as the nature of research questions for future studies in the field, taking into account and expanding the present findings and their contributes for illuminating the complexity of the concept. |
© SYMPOSIUM JOURNALS |
