Explaining variation in CCE outcomes

(Chapters 7 & 8)

National Research Coordinators Meeting Madrid, February 2010

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Content of presentation

• Student background measures• Statistics included in tables• Data presentation• Chapter 7 and 8 outline

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010 BACKGROUND VARIABLES AND MEASURES

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Variables

• Cultural/ethnic family background• Immigrant background• Language use at home

• Social background• Parental socioeconomic status (occupations)• Parental educational attainment• Home literacy resources (books)

• Parental interest in political & social issues

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

MeasuresCoded Measure Transformations

Immigrant Categorical (3) Categorical (2)Native/non-native

Language use Categorical (2) As is

Socioeconomic(HISEI)

Continuous (16-90)ISCO → ISEI scale

Categorical (6)Defined as ranges

Parental Education

Categorical (5) (ISCED-based levels)

Years of education

Home literacy Categorical (5) No of books (unit =100)

Parental interest(politics & social)

Categorical (4) As is

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010 STATISTICS

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Statistical representations

• Group means of scale scores• Country and international averages for groups

• Percentages of students in each group• Country and international averages for groups

• Regression coefficients • Unstandardised prediction of outcome• Represent strength of relationship

• Percentage variance explained

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Immigrant Status

A 94 (0.5) 507 (3.7) 3 (0.3) 510 (11.2) 3 (0.4) 486 (10.9) 11 (7.2) .1 (0.1)

B 85 (1.9) 524 (4.0) 9 (1.3) 526 (10.4) 6 (0.9) 477 (13.8) 19 (9.6) .4 (0.4)

I 92 (0.2) 505 (0.7) 5 (0.1) 476 (3.0) 5 (0.1) 464 (4.2) 36 (2.5) 1.6 (0.1)

C 89 (1.2) 511 (4.1) 2 (0.3) 497 (12.7) 9 (1.1) 455 (8.9) 49 (8.8) 3.2 (1.2)

D 86 (1.2) 548 (3.5) 9 (0.9) 497 (6.7) 5 (0.5) 479 (8.5) 55 (6.5) 3.7 (0.9)

% Mean Δ % Var

Parents born abroad

% Mean

Native students Students born abroadEffect

Native / Non-native

% Mean

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Socioeconomic status (SEI)

A 11 (0.7) 559 (6.1) 19 (0.8) 565 (3.8) 20 (0.8) 604 (4.2) 21 (1.8) 6.0 (1.1)

B 19 (1.2) 468 (4.9) 12 (0.8) 501 (6.8) 8 (0.6) 540 (6.2) 27 (1.8) 11.3 (1.3)

I 17 (0.2) 464 (1.3) 18 (0.2) 495 (1.1) 15 (0.2) 538 (1.3) 29 (0.5) 10.4 (0.3)

C 5 (0.5) 477 (9.4) 23 (1.1) 494 (5.2) 20 (0.9) 548 (4.6) 31 (2.3) 10.0 (1.4)

D 11 (0.7) 464 (7.1) 16 (0.8) 496 (6.1) 16 (0.9) 574 (8.9) 42 (3.6) 15.2 (2.1)

SEI Level 1 (SEI below 30)

SEI Level 3 (SEI 40 to 49)

% Mean % Mean

Effect of SEI on CKSEI Level 5

(SEI 60 to 69)Δ

SD SEI % Var% Mean

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Parent Education

A 24 (1.2) 477 (4.6) 12 (0.6) 513 (4.7) 34 (1.7) 537 (4.5) 7 (0.5) 9.5 (1.2)

B 2 (0.3) 470 (9.6) 40 (1.4) 516 (5.0) 32 (2.3) 537 (6.0) 8 (0.9) 5.9 (1.4)

I 11 (0.2) 461 (1.7) 19 (0.2) 508 (1.2) 29 (0.3) 532 (1.1) 9 (0.2) 6.8 (0.3)

C 7 (0.7) 473 (8.5) 18 (1.1) 511 (6.3) 35 (1.4) 558 (7.7) 10 (1.5) 4.5 (1.1)

D 4 (0.4) 481 (8.3) 22 (0.8) 542 (4.5) 52 (1.5) 558 (4.2) 13 (1.2) 6.2 (1.1)

Δ for one year of edn % Var

Effect of years of parent edn.

% Mean % Mean %

ISCED Level 2 (Lower secondary)

ISCED Level 4/5B(Post secondary)

ISCED Level 5A/6(Tertiary education)

Mean

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Home literacy (NBOOKS)

A 15 (0.8) 469 (5.9) 8 (0.6) 529 (6.3) 19 (2.0) 4.8 (1.0)

B 13 (0.8) 458 (5.7) 9 (0.6) 540 (8.1) 21 (2.1) 6.5 (0.9)

I 19 (0.2) 467 (1.1) 7 (0.1) 535 (2.1) 22 (0.5) 6.2 (1.2)

C 10 (0.6) 485 (4.9) 12 (0.7) 594 (6.3) 28 (1.9) 10.8 (2.7)

D 16 (0.8) 487 (6.4) 7 (0.6) 584 (7.3) 32 (2.4) 10.3 (0.9)

% Mean Variance explained

Books Level 6 (more than 500 books)

Δ per 100 books

Books Level 2 (11 to 25 books)

% Mean

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Parental Interest

A 26 (1.0) 506 (6.0) 52 (1.0) 515 (4.2) 20 (0.8) 490 (4.0) 2 (0.2) 461 (11.7) 9 (3.0) .6 (0.4)

B 20 (0.7) 515 (4.4) 64 (0.9) 509 (3.0) 15 (0.8) 484 (4.6) 1 (0.1) 480 (19.2) 14 (2.6) 1.2 (0.4)

I 23 (0.2) 511 (1.2) 48 (0.2) 510 (0.8) 26 (0.2) 484 (1.0) 3 (0.1) 443 (2.5) 17 (0.6) 2.2 (0.2)

C 24 (0.9) 552 (5.8) 55 (1.1) 534 (4.3) 20 (1.0) 510 (4.1) 2 (0.2) 482 (14.1) 22 (3.3) 3.4 (1.0)

D 19 (1.1) 549 (9.7) 50 (0.9) 531 (5.0) 25 (1.0) 503 (4.1) 5 (0.5) 467 (10.4) 26 (4.2) 3.8 C

Very interested Quite interested Not very interested Not interested at all

Δ for one level of interest % Var% Mean % Mean % Mean % Mean

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

REGRESSION CK

Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE)

A 42.8 (10.4) -11.6 (13.5) 5.1 (0.9) 10.2 (1.9) 8.9 (1.3) 5.6 (2.7)

B 17.1 (8.0) -22.8 (7.1) 2.9 (0.5) 15.2 (2.0) 5.8 (1.1) 10.9 (2.3)

I 28.6 (1.8) -15.7 (2.3) 3.0 (0.2) 18.4 (0.4) 7.0 (0.2) 8.1 (0.5)

C 26.8 (11.3) -5.8 (10.1) 4.6 (1.2) 22.0 (2.4) 10.2 (1.0) 9.2 (2.8)

D 21.6 (9.6) -1.3 (9.1) 0.3 (1.3) 28.5 (3.4) 13.1 (1.4) 14.4 (3.1)

SEI NBOOKS PARINT

B COEFFT.

HLANg IMMIG PARED

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

REGRESSION CK % VARIANCE

HLANG IMMIG PARED SEI NBOOKS PARINT

A 0.7 0.0 1.2 0.9 2.8 0.1 7.0 12.7

B 0.5 0.7 1.1 2.3 1.2 0.9 10.7 17.4

C 0.2 0.0 0.6 4.2 3.6 0.4 10.6 19.6

D 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 6.1 1.1 10.7 23.2

Unique varianceCOMM

VARTOTVAR

Percentage variance explained

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

REGRESSIONINTEREST IN POLITICS

Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE)

A -0.1 (0.2) 1.2 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.3 (0.1) 3.3 (0.0)

B 0.7 (0.5) 2.6 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) -0.3 (0.1) 0.0 (0.1) 3.6 (0.0)

I -0.3 (0.1) 1.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.0) 3.9 (0.0)

C -1.4 (0.1) 2.6 (0.4) -0.1 (0.1) 0.7 (0.1) 0.8 (0.0) 4.7 (0.3)

D -0.7 (0.2) 2.6 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1) 0.3 (0.0) 5.3 (0.0)

HLANg IMMIG PARED SEI NBOOKS PARINT

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

REGRESSION INTPOL% Variance

 UNIQUE VARIANCE

COMMVAR

TOT VAR

  HLANG IMMIG PARED SEI NBOOKS PARINT

A 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 6.5 0.8 15.5

B 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 7.4 0.0 16.2

                

C 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.4 1.9 8.9 6.0 7.0

D 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 11.6 2.8 12.4

HLANG IMMIG PARED SEI NBOOKS PARINT

A 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 6.5 0.8 15.5

B 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 7.4 0.0 16.2

C 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.4 1.9 8.9 6.0 7.0

D 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 11.6 2.8 12.4

TOT VAR

UNIQUE VARIANCE COMMVAR

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

REGRESSION Expected Electoral Participation

Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE) Coefft (SE)

A 0.6 (0.5) -3.9 (0.4) 0.3 (0.0) 0.5 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 2.2 (0.1)

B 1.5 (0.6) -4.0 (0.7) 0.1 (0.0) 0.7 (0.1) 0.3 (0.0) 2.7 (0.1)

I 1.1 (0.0) -3.9 (0.0) 0.2 (0.0) 0.6 (0.0) 0.3 (0.0) 2.4 (0.0)

C 1.8 (0.3) 1.0 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 1.4 (0.1) 0.4 (0.0) 3.7 (0.2)

D -1.3 (0.6) 1.0 (0.5) -0.1 (0.1) 1.5 (0.1) 0.8 (0.1) 4.5 (0.2)

PAROCC NBOOKS PARINT

Regression coefficients

HLANG IMMIG PARED

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

REGRESSION ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION

NLANG IMMIG PARES SEI NBOOKSParent interest

A 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.5 0.8 10.6 5.4 18.6

B 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.6 2.0 10.9 9.1 23.8

C 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 9.4 0.6 11.0

D 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.5 4.3 2.1 7.5

TOT VAR

COMM VAR

Percentage variance explained

Unique variance

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010 CHAPTER 7 OUTLINE

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Chapter 7 Outline• Research question 6

influence of background on outcomes• civic knowledge • expected electoral participation • student interest in political and social issues

• Cultural/ethnic family background– Immigrant background

• native students, students with parents born abroad and students born abroad) and effects

– Language use at home

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Chapter 7 Outline (Cont)• Socio-economic family background

– Parental occupation – Parental education and effects – Home literacy

• Parental interest

• Combined influences

• Regression models

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Chapter 8: Model

• Hierarchical Linear Models

• Students nested within classroom (in most countries equivalent to schools)

• So far unweighted analysis and listwise exclusion of missing values

• Criterion variables:– Civic knowledge– Expected electoral participation

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Chapter 8: Explanatory variables

• Student characteristics– Gender (female=1, male=0)– Test language at home (yes=1, no=0)– Expected educational level (in

approximate years of further education)– Students’ interest in political and social

issues

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Chapter 8: Explanatory variables (cont.)

• Home background variables– Index of socio-cultural background”

derived from highest parental occupation, education and home literacy

• Factor scores from principal component analysis

• Mean of 0 and SD of 1 for equally weighted countries

– Highest parental interest

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Chapter 8: Explanatory variables (cont.)

• Indicators of students’ activities – Reading for enjoyment (5-point scale)– Watching TV news (4-point scale)– Time spent with friends (5-point scale)

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Chapter 8: Explanatory variables (cont.)

• School-related variables at the individual level – Student participation at school (scale)– Perception of openness in classroom

discussions

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Chapter 8: Explanatory variables (cont.)

• Classroom level variables– Average scores of the students’ index of

socio-cultural background– Average of scale scores on perception of

openness in classroom discussions

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Modelling results in general

• Need for summarising results across country (not yet in draft tables)

• In many cases results similar to finding from CIVED

• Effects of variables AFTER controlling for all other variables– Sometimes results may be different for

factors presented in earlier tables

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Example of table

with results

Predictor

Intercept 286.9 (35.6) 341.5 (35.1) 143.8 (39.6)

Gender (female) 5.0 (2.8) -8.8 (2.5) 6.5 (2.6)

Use of test language at home 46.3 (4.0) 31.1 (4.0) 22.8 (5.0)

Expected years of education 7.5 (0.6) 2.6 (0.6) 4.7 (0.5)Student's interest in political/social issues (IRT scale: SD = 10) .6 (0.2) -.5 (0.1) .2 (0.1)Index of socio-cultural background (SD=1 for equally weighted countries) 6.9 (1.8) 7.8 (1.6) 4.1 (1.7)Parents' interest in political/social issues (4-point scale) 5.5 (2.0) 1.8 (1.7) -3.1(1.7)

Enjoyment of reading (in half hours) 15.4 (2.0) 21.2 (2.3) 7.8 (2.0)

Watching TV news (4-point scale) 6.3 (1.3) 6.6 (1.1) 5.7 (1.1)Time spent outside of home (in half hours) -6.0 (1.6) -8.2 (1.3) -3.2 (1.6)Openness in classroom discussions (IRT scale: SD = 10) .1(0.2) .6 (0.1) .3 (0.1)Students' participation at school (IRT scale: SD = 10) .5 (0.1) .4 (0.1) 1.5 (0.1)Index of socio-cultural background (class average) 46.5 (5.6) 72.1 (5.9) 57.5 (5.5)Openness in classroom discussions (class average) .9 (0.7) 1.7 (0.7) 3.5 (0.8)

Variance explained at student level

Variance explained at classroom level 71

13

73

20

79A

ustr

ia

Belg

ium

(F

lem

ish)

Bulg

aria

21

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Modelling results: Civic knowledge

• Female gender generally positive effect

• Test language only in countries with higher percentages of students speaking another language

• Expected education consistent positive predictor

• Student interest only in few countries positive (weak) predictor

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Modelling results: Civic knowledge (cont.)

• Both reading for enjoyment and watching TV news tend to be positive predictors of civic knowledge

• Spending time with friends negative predictor of civic knowledge

• Both school-based civic participation and individual perceptions of openness in classroom discussion positive predictors

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Modelling results: Civic knowledge (cont.)

• Context level variables:– Average socio-cultural background index

scores positive predictor in most countries– Average scores of perceptions of

openness in classroom discussions also tends to be positive predictor

• Model explanation– 62 percent at classroom level– 23 percent at student level

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Modelling results: Expected electoral participation

• Gender and test language not consistent predictors

• Expected education only weak to moderate effects

• Higher levels of civic knowledge have consistently positive effects

• Hardly any influence of index of socio-cultural background

• Parental interest important predictor

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Modelling results: Expected electoral participation (cont.)

• Watching TV news positive predictor

• Both civic participation at school and perceptions of openness in classroom discussions tend to have positive effects

• Few countries with significant effects for the average socio-cultural background and average perceptions of openness in classroom discussions

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Modelling results: Expected electoral participation (cont.)

• Model explanation– 64 percent of the class-level– 23 percent of the student level variance

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

NRC feedback on:

• Appropriateness of– Presented statistics – Included items and scales– Tables and figures

• Coverage of report– Aspects that are missing– Content that may be omitted from report

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

NRCMeetingMadrid

February 2010

Questions or comments?