study 2: barriers to the participation of socially disadvantaged students in stem programs february,...
Post on 11-Jan-2016
227 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Study 2: Barriers to the Participation of Socially Disadvantaged Students in STEM Programs
February, 2014
Social Disadvantage
• Ethnic minorities (Armenian living in Samtskhe-Javakheti, Azerbaijanian living in Kvemo-Kartli)-about 10-12% of population speak other language than Georgian
• Low income (Students from Families who were ranked below the 70 000 point by SSA)-25% of population defined as poor of which 64% live in rural communities
• High mountain areas –about 7-8% of population live in high mountain area
• Others (includes displaced families)-20,000 of population internally displaced persons
Defining the socially disadvantaged in the scopes of the study
Main Massages
• Socially disadvantaged students leave school with fewer STEM skills than socially advantaged students
• The quantity and quality of schools available for students from some socially disadvantaged groups are not equal to those available for socially advantaged students
• Poverty, parents and culture are important determinants of schooling outcomes for students from socially disadvantaged groups
• Few socially disadvantaged students continue to post secondary education
• The GoG has taken steps to improve education for socially disadvantaged students, but more actions may be necessary
• Employers have low experience to employ social disadvantages students or support special programs for their development.
Message 1: Socially disadvantaged students acquire and leave school with fewer STEM skills than socially advantaged students
• Grade 12 CAT -2011
• Grade 12 CAT - 2012
• UEE 2009-2012 years
Year Group Mathematic Biology Chemistry Physics Geography
2011
Ethnic Minorities 6.06 5.85 6.56 5.81 6.77
Others 6.36 6.69 6.83 6.5 7.15
2012
Ethnic Minorities 6.4 6.21 6.85 5.83 7.09
Others 6.92 6.71 7.2 6.67 7.31
Ethnic minority students score lower in CAT STEM subjects as compared with other students
Average CAT scores in STEM subjects, 2011-2012
Ethnic minority girls outperform boys in most of CAT STEM subjects
Average Scores on tests of Math and science
Math Biology Chemistry Physics Geography0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
6.396.67
7.04
6.36
7.15
6.236.4 6.53
6.37
7
Girls Boys
Math Biology Chemistry Physics Geography0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
6.84 6.87
7.33
6.58
7.3
6.68
6.26
6.85
6.24
7.18
Girls Boys2011 2012
Average CAT scores in STEM subjects in 2011-2012
Low income family students underperform those from non-low income families in all CAT STEM subjects
Math Biology Chemistry Physics Geography0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
6.28
6.96 6.82 6.847.04
6.89
7.37 7.25 7.22
7.59
Low income family Non low income family
Math Biology Chemistry Physics Geography0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
6.756.96 7.08
6.867.097.21
7.36 7.437.28
7.55
Low income familyNon low income family
2011 2012
Low income family student girls outperform boys in most of CAT STEM subjects
Low income family girl students show better results than boys in CAT STEM subjects
Math Biology Chemistry Physics Geography0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
6.756.96 7.08
6.867.097.21
7.36 7.437.28
7.55
Low income family Non low income family
Math Biology Chemistry Physics Geography0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
6.756.96 7.08
6.867.097.21
7.36 7.437.28
7.55
Low income familyNon low income family
2011 2012
Year Group Mathematic Biology Chemistry Physics Geography
2011
Mountain Dweller 6.31 6.53 6.78 6.37 7.07
Others 6.86 7.12 7.22 6.93 7.55
2012
Mountain Dweller 6.76 6.55 7.08 6.4 7.24
Others 7.19 7.03 7.41 6.99 7.51
Mountain dweller students score lower in CAT STEM subjects as compared with other students
Average CAT scores in STEM subjects, 2011-2012
Average scores in General Skills for ethnic minority students, UEE 2011-2012
Ethnic minority students underperform in General Skills compared to other students
2011 20120
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
138.37 138.98
150.28 150.26
Ethnic minorities (Kvemo-Kartli and Samtskhe-Javakheti )Others
Average STEM scores in UEE 2011-2012
Ethnic minority students underperform in STEM subjects at UEE compared to other students
Math Biology Chemistry Physics0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
139.93 142.61 145
158150.12 150.12 150.06 150.07
Ethnic minorities (Kvemo-Kartli and Samtskhe-Javakheti )Others
მათემატიკა ბიოლოგია ქიმია ფიზიკა0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
139.93 142.61 145
158150.12 150.12 150.06 150.07
Ethnic minorities (Kvemo-Kartli and Samtskhe-Javakheti )Others
Socially disadvantaged students find STEM subjects very hard
• Socially disadvantaged students find Math, Physics very hard (girls less so than
boys)
• Students remember and understand better the topics when the teacher used
some practical exercises or lab. work
• Some students indicated that they have laboratories although the teacher do
not use it
• 1 year Bridging Program is popular, though information is not fully available
Main message 2: The quantity and quality of schools available for students from some socially disadvantaged groups are not equal to those available for socially advantaged students
• Availability of upper secondary grades
• Infrastructural disadvantage
• Teacher and teaching quality
• About 30% of mountain schools do not offer upper secondary grades (10-12)
• 25% of village schools do not offer the upper grades compared to 5% in urban areas
• 2/3 of Azeri schools offer upper secondary grades, for Georgian language schools it
is 80%
Schools often lack upper secondary grades
• Old textbooks, some in Russian language
• Lack of practical teaching-The school students indicated that experiments and
practical exercises were used most frequently in physics (40.8%), chemistry (49% )
and biology (32.7%.)
• Lack of modern teaching facilities such as laboratories or computers-42.8% of
school students state that their classrooms are not equipped with modern services
and equipment such as computers, internet, etc. only in 38.1% of students agreed
that their laboratory is equipped with modern equipment. The lowest percentage of
using practical exercises was informatics; only of the students had this kind of
experience. 2%
School infrastructure is often poor
Teacher and teaching quality is poorer for socially disadvantaged students
020406080
Teacher attitudes
• 58% of teachers surveyed said that there was no difference between learning
socially disadvantaged children and the others!- 76.2% of teachers think that the
socially disadvantaged students do not experience barriers to success. This indicates that the
teachers have a low understanding of what kind of problems the socially disadvantaged students
are faced with
• Teachers report that parental engagement in socially disadvantaged students’
education could be better- The majority of teachers think that parents could be more
involved in their socially disadvantaged children’s’ education
Students think that the teacher is crucial in their learning
Quotes from FGD discussions:
• “when I love the teacher I love the subject too”
• “I believe when the teacher gives me some advice. She is clever and my
favourite. She advises me to apply for economic because I study math well”
Main message 3:Poverty, parents and culture are important determinants of schooling outcomes for students from socially disadvantaged groups
• 50% of socially disadvantaged students in the survey were influenced by their
families; in the focus groups the % was much higher, approaching 100%
• Very few females in the focus group for socially disadvantaged students would
not obey their parents’ wishes even if these conflicted with their own
Main message 4: Few socially disadvantaged students continue to post secondary education
Share socially vulnerable applicants, who passed UEE in 2011-2012 (definition provided by SSA)
2011 20120.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
8.0 8.5
82.0
91.5
1 Socially vulnerable 2 Not vulnerable
Schools provide little career guidance to students
• The evidence of the survey was that socially disadvantaged students did receive
more career guidance than the others (but not for TVET), but there was no
evidence that it was any more beneficial than the lower level of guidance
received by the population as a whole
HEI 78.6%
TVET 26.2%
Bigger number of HEI applicants received information regarding admission process
• There was a big difference in
information about institutions and
admissions for those aiming for HEI
and those aiming for TVET
HEI 85.7%
TVET 14.3%
Bigger number of HEI applicants received information regarding scholarships
• There was a big difference in information about scholarships for those aiming for HEI and those aiming for TVET
• 52% of Socially Disadvantaged students say they could not study without the scholarship
Year Frequency Percent
2011
Do not pass 172 29.0
Academic program 27 4.5
Preparation in Georgian language
380 64.0
Professional Program 15 2.5
Total 594 100.0
2012
Do not pass 201 27.8
Academic program 22 3.0
Preparation in Georgian language 499 69.1
Professional Program 0 0
Total 722 100.0
Only a few Ethnic minority students pass the UEE and enroll directly in academic and professional programs
Main message 5: The GoG has taken steps to improve education for socially disadvantaged students, but more actions may be necessary
• School facility rehabilitation - the school facility rehabilitation efforts currently
underway by GoG and by GoG with support from MCC
• Language “bridging” program
• Scholarships for TVET and HEI
About two-thirds of ethnic minority university applicants enroll in Georgian language program
Language minority students enrolled in 1 year Georgian language course
All Ethnic minority applicants Ethnic minority applicants enrolled in Georgian language program0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
594
380
732
499
2011 2012
Georgian 1 year language program and professions after it
But only 20% of those who enrol in the “Bridging” course are reported to enter the University programs
Government Scholarships are provided for both: TVET and HEI students
• The highest number of socially disadvantaged students applying for scholarship is within the category of the low-income families: 42% in 2009, 44.9% in 2010, 37.2% in 2011 and 43.9% in 2012.
• The percentage of the funding of the students from low-income families is not stable and there are significant differences between years: 8.5% in 2009, 52.3% in 2010, 18.7% in 2011 and 16.7% in 2012.
• The percentage of funding of the students in the low-income category is the lowest in all years except 2010 compared to other categories.
Scholarships are important for socially disadvantaged students
• 52% of socially disadvantaged students enrolled in university programs say they could not study without the scholarship
• Other special efforts may be necessary: • Only one-third of TVETs have special programs of support for socially disadvantaged
students, other than scholarships• No university STEM faculties have special programs of support for socially
disadvantaged students, other than scholarships• Only one-fourth of university STEM faculties report having scholarships for socially
disadvantaged students
Main message 6: Employers do not have special programs or benefits for socially disadvantaged
• Socially disadvantaged students do not think there will be any
discrimination in finding employment
• Employers do not have special programs for socially disadvantaged
students, neither do they see the need or know how they would do it
Recommendation: An organised plan to enable socially disadvantaged students to study on an equal basis with all other students
– A clear identification of the problems socially disadvantaged students face in STEM subjects– An in-service teacher training program to make teachers aware of the issues and develop plans
to address these– A scoping of the need for any enrichment teaching that socially disadvantaged students may
needin order to achieve better results in STEM– A plan to upgrade school facilities over time (e.g. Labs, computer rooms and etc.) and
implementation of appropriate teaching tools– Better information about scholarships to be available in all areas in a planned and organised
way– Socially disadvantaged ethnic minority students need stronger language support – Improve career guidance (see Study 3)– Special programs for socially disadvantaged students at TVET & HEI– Program for employers to promote their Corporate Social Responsibility to socially
disadvantaged people– Improved data bases for social disadvantage– In general, increase delivery of the information thought pubic communications means
top related