TITRE COURANT, PAGES PAIRES: Judith Torney-Purta
TITRE COURANT, PAGES IMPAIRES:
Civic knowledge
among 14-year-olds
TITRE COURANT, BAS DE PAGE: Prospects, vol. XXXI, no. 3, September 2001
Judith Torney-Purta (United States of America)
Professor of Human Development and Affiliate Professor of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park. Since 1994, Chair of the International Steering Committee for the Civic Education Study conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). She was senior editor of the 1999 volume on the first phase of the study (Civic education across countries: twenty-four national case studies from the IEA civic education project) and senior author of the 2001 volume reporting the second phase (Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries: civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen). She is a developmental and educational psychologist with interests in empirical research and evaluation on the development of the political attitudes of children and youth. Email: jt22@umail.umd.edu.
Civic Knowledge, Beliefs about
Democratic Institutions,
and Civic Engagement
among 14-year-Olds
What are the common features of young people’s understandings of their societies and of their civic rights and responsibilities in democratic countries? How do they intend to fulfil their own responsibilities to maintain democratic political structures and civil society? What roles do schools play in these processes? A massive empirical study of 90,000 young people in twenty-eight countries provides some answers to these questions, which have taken on new urgency in the past decade.
In the mid-1990s
the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement
(IEA), an independent co-operative of research institutes and agencies in more
than fifty countries, began planning the Civic Education Study.1
This is one of twenty large-scale cross-national studies of educational
achievement conducted by the association. Areas related to civic education were
popular topics for research in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and a number of
international organizations, as well as nationally based research units,
conducted studies related to civic education and developed new curriculum and
teacher training programmes. Many of these investigations were conducted by
those interested in political socialization. IEA itself conducted a small civic
education study in 1971 (Torney, Oppenheim & Farnen, 1975). Recognition that
the political and social changes of the late 1980s and early 1990s posed new
challenges for civic education led IEA to develop a study based on the
collection of data in its member countries in 1999.
The IEA Civic
Education Study was conducted in two linked phases, largely because there was
no widely accepted framework available when the study began that could guide
the development of a test and survey across old and new democracies. The first
phase involved qualitative national case studies based around a series of
structured framing questions. Experts within participating countries were
interviewed about what the average 14-year-old student might be expected to
know, understand and believe about topics such as laws and law-making
institutions or the nature of problems in the community. Curriculum guidelines
were examined and the opinions of teachers and other experts were gathered.
This process identified a common core of similar expectations for students
across countries, as well as differences in the curricular structures and
processes designed to ensure that young people would have the opportunity to
meet them. In many countries civic education objectives were embedded in
courses such as history or social studies or spread throughout the curriculum.
A model was
developed showing the embedded nature of individual student’s civic-related
learning in macro- and micro-processes encompassing society, family, peer
group, community and school. The researchers used frameworks such as situated
cognition to understand the ways in which everyday experience both inside and
outside school influences students’ beliefs and behaviours (Lave & Wenger,
1991; Wenger, 1998). The results of this phase were published by IEA in a
volume entitled Civic education across
countries: twenty-four national case studies from the IEA civic education
project (Torney-Purta, Schwille
& Amadeo, 1999).
The second phase
of the IEA Civic Education Study, which forms the basis of this article, began
with an extensive process of developing a content framework built around three
domains of content identified in countries’ submissions during the first phase.
These domains were: i) democracy, democratic institutions and citizenship, ii)
national identity and international relations, and iii) social cohesion and
diversity. This framework was the basis of the test and survey construction.
The IEA National Research Co-ordinators in each country and a ten-member
International Steering Committee contributed to the development, pilot testing
and question selection for the student instrument. This resulted in a
multiple-choice test of civic knowledge and of skills in interpreting
civic-related information (thirty-eight items, each with a correct answer); a
survey of concepts, attitudes and behaviours (136 items without correct
answers); and background questions asking about home literacy resources,
expected years of further education, and membership in organizations and
associations (as well as gender, age and other demographic characteristics). In
addition, there was a school questionnaire and a teacher questionnaire.
The international
co-ordinating centre was at the Humboldt University of Berlin under the
direction of Rainer Lehmann. IEA quality control procedures for sampling,
translation verification, test administration and item response theory (IRT)
scaling were followed. During 1999 approximately 90,000 students in the grade
containing the majority of 14-year-olds were tested in the following countries:
Australia, Belgium (the French-speaking community), Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia,
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany,
Greece, Hong Kong (China), Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland
and the United States.
There was some
initial scepticism about possibilities for test development in the civic
education area. Much nationally-based research on civic education had dealt
with particular details of that one nation’s governmental structure, but such
questions were unsuitable for use cross-nationally. The IEA Civic Education
Study devoted resources to the process of international test development over a
four-year period. Through a process that included building cross-national
consensus about the framework, preparing 140 draft items, reviewing and pilot
testing these questions, and obtaining the agreement of National Research
Co-ordinators, a meaningful, valid and reliable instrument resulted. Alpha
reliabilities for the resulting 38-item test of knowledge and skills exceeded
.80 in every participating country. Both the test and the survey were scaled
using IRT methods to meet IEA’s standards.
This
process of designing cross-national measures gave the participants and study
leaders an awareness of the essence of core fundamental understandings and
beliefs about democracy applicable across countries. In addition, this process
led to agreement cross-nationally about a range of valued outcomes of effective
civic education not limited to knowledge or to attitudes.
The
design, in which nationally representative samples were tested and in which
every student answered the same instrument, allows several types of analysis
and presentation. First, international averages based on the responses of all
students tested can be used (and much of this article describes the typical
14-year-old across these twenty-eight countries). Second, cross-national
differences can be examined. Graphs presenting performance by the different
countries predominate in the volume reporting the study’s findings, Citizenship and education in twenty-eight
countries: civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen (Torney-Purta,
Lehmann, Oswald & Schulz, 2001). Some cross-national differences are
presented in this article as well. Third, one can identify correlates or
predictors within countries of important civic outcomes, such as knowledge or
engagement. These analyses suggest possible directions for exploring civic
education reform within countries. These analyses can examine the effect of one
school factor, such as classroom climate, while holding constant other factors,
such as home educational resources and gender. These analyses provide a clearer
picture than simple comparisons of the mean scores of different groups. A brief
section of this article presents a model predicting civic knowledge.
The analysis and
conclusions of this study are summarized in this article under the following
content headings: Civic Knowledge, Civic Engagement and Civic Attitudes. Both
the average responses across countries and some country differences are
presented. In addition, a short section of this article presents a model
relating civic knowledge to a selection of student characteristics and schools
factors. A great deal more about the cross-national differences and the
predictors of civic knowledge and civic engagement can be found in Torney-Purta
et al. (2001) and in the national reports that are being issued by
participating countries (references at www.wam.umd.edu/~iea/).
The IEA civic
education data show that the average student across the participating countries
has an understanding of fundamental democratic values and institutions. For
example, test results indicate that internationally a majority of students
recognize the function of laws, private civil society associations and
political parties. Their understanding sometimes appears superficial, however.
This corroborates previous research on smaller samples in single countries
using interviews or written essays, which have suggested that many young people
understand democracy by referring to a set of slogans about freedom or in
relation to one particular institution (Doig et al., 1993/94; Torney-Purta,
Hahn & Amadeo, 2001).
The average student
in the IEA Civic Education Study demonstrated a moderate level of skills in
interpreting civic-related material such as political cartoons or a mock
election leaflet and in distinguishing between statements of opinion and of
fact (Torney-Purta et al., 2001, chapter 3).
There are
statistically significant differences between countries in performance on the
test of civic knowledge and skills, however. The countries are grouped in Table
1 according to whether they fell above,
at or below the international
mean. Most differences between countries within these three groups were not
significant.
It is helpful to
relate these results to studies in other subject areas. The differences between
countries in civic knowledge and skills were similar in size to those found in
previous IEA cross-national literacy studies, but were not as large as those
found in previous IEA mathematics studies, such as the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).
There are no simple explanations for these differences in levels of civic knowledge among these countries. The high performing group includes not only long standing democracies but also nations that have experienced massive political transitions during the lifetimes of the 14-year-olds under study, and are in the process of consolidating democracy (the Czech Republic, Poland and the Slovakia). These countries experienced political changes that were highly visible and widely discussed. Soon after these changes, the school systems in these countries moved rapidly to institute new programmes of democratic civic education. These factors may have influenced student performance, and national reports will suggest additional factors.
TABLE 1. Country performance on total civic knowledge in the IEA Civic Education Study: means and standard deviations
|
Countries significantly above the international mean of 100 |
Countries not significantly different from the international mean of 100 |
Countries significantly below the international mean of 100 |
|||
|
Poland |
111 (1.7) |
Australia |
102 (0.8) |
Portugal |
96 (0.7) |
|
Finland |
109 (0.7) |
Hungary |
102 (0.6) |
Belgium (French) |
95 (0.9) |
|
Cyprus |
108 (0.5) |
Slovenia |
101 (0.5) |
Estonia |
94 (0.5) |
|
Greece |
108 (0.8) |
Denmark |
100 (0.5) |
Lithuania |
94 (0.7) |
|
Hong Kong (China) |
107 (1.1) |
Germany |
100 (0.5) |
Romania |
92 (0.9) |
|
United States |
106 (1.2) |
Russian Federation |
100 (1.3) |
Latvia |
92 (0.9) |
|
Italy |
105 (0.8) |
England |
99 (0.6) |
Chile |
88 (0.7) |
|
Slovakia |
105 (0.7) |
Sweden |
99 (0.8) |
Colombia |
86 (0.9) |
|
Norway |
103 (0.5) |
Switzerland |
98 (0.8) |
|
|
|
Czech Republic |
103 (0.8) |
Bulgaria |
98 (1.3) |
|
|
Notes: Samples of tested students were nationally representative, weighted to correspond to population figures, and ranged in size from 2076 in Belgium (French) to 5688 in Chile. Students were tested in grade 8 or 9 (whichever national statistics suggested would contain the larger proportion of 14-year-olds). The lowest mean age was in Belgium (French), 14.1, and the highest was in Hong Kong (China), 15.3.
Data Source: IEA Civic Education Study, 14-year-old samples tested in 1999. See
Torney-Purta et al., 2001.
The total
knowledge score presented in Table 1 is composed of two subscores, entitled
‘content knowledge’ (of fundamental democratic principles) and ‘skills in
interpreting civic-related information’ (such as political cartoons, election
leaflets or newspaper articles). Comparing performance on these sub-scales
shows interesting patterns. Students in Australia, England, Sweden, Switzerland
and the United States ranked higher in their performance on the items measuring
skill in understanding civic-related information than on the items measuring
content knowledge of fundamental democratic principles. In contrast, students
in countries such as Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Russian
Federation and Slovenia ranked higher on the items measuring content knowledge
than on the items assessing skill in interpreting concrete political
communication. The performance of these countries may reflect differences in
curricular emphases, for example, more stress on abstract political concepts and
principles in the post-Communist countries and on their concrete application in
North America, Australia and parts of Western Europe. Countries not mentioned
above performed at a similar level on the two subscales.
In almost all the
participating countries, students who reported having more books in their homes
demonstrated more civic knowledge. Comparing the availability of such literacy
resources can also help in interpreting some of the cross-national differences.
Students in four of the eight countries that performed below the international
mean on the knowledge test, reported having few of these literacy resources at
home (for more detailed analysis see Torney-Purta et al., 2001, chapter 3).
The extent to which 14-year-olds understand democratic principles is
also demonstrated in the study’s ‘concepts of democracy’ measure. Students’
responses to these rating scales (which asked what was good for democracy and
what was bad for democracy, but did not have designated correct answers)
corroborate the test results cited above. Across these twenty-eight countries
there is consensus that democracy is strengthened when citizens can elect
leaders freely, when many organizations exist for people who wish to join them,
and when everyone has the right to express opinions. Conversely, these young
people believe that democracy is weakened when wealthy people have special
influence on the government, when politicians influence the courts, when one
company owns all the newspapers, and when people are forbidden to express ideas
critical of the government.
Although many
students have a grasp of the basic fundamentals of democracy, there are groups
in each country that do not show this level of understanding. The relatively
low level of skill in understanding some civic-related communications (e.g.,
leaflets like those issued at the time of an election) among students in some
countries is of concern.
The IEA Civic
Education Study placed an emphasis on several aspects of civic engagement. The
survey instrument included a number of questions without right and wrong
answers to measure participation and involvement. These included the extent to
which young people thought different aspects of citizenship were important for
adults, the civic-related activities in which they were already participating
along with those in which they intend to participate as adults, and the amount
of confidence they had in the value of participation in organized school
groups.
Table 2: International means on items assessing the concept of good citizenship for adults:
|
An adult who is a good citizen: |
Importance |
An adult who is a good citizen: |
Importance |
|
Obeys the law |
3.65 |
Votes in every election |
3.12 |
|
Takes part in activities promoting human rights |
3.24 |
Follows political issues in the newspaper, radio, or on TV |
2.85 |
|
Takes part in activities to protect the environment |
3.15 |
Engages in political discussions |
2.37 |
|
Participates in activities to benefit the community |
3.13 |
Joins a political party |
2.11 |
Notes: Rating scale ranged from 1 (not important) to 4 (very important). On these eight items there was either high or moderate consensus across countries, defined as a difference of one scale point or less between the lowest country mean and the highest country mean.
Data Source: IEA Civic Education Study, 14-year-old samples tested 1999. See Torney-Purta et al., 2001.
Table 2 displays
items assessing what 14-year-olds across countries believe is important for
adults to do as good citizens. These young people view obeying the law is a
very important responsibility of adult citizenship and voting as important.
Other behaviours that have traditionally been associated with adult
citizenship, such as engaging in political discussion or joining a political party,
are viewed by these young people as relatively unimportant. On the other hand,
across countries, young people believe that the responsibilities of adult
citizens include taking part in activities that promote human rights, protect
the environment and benefit the community. In some countries following
political issues in the media is also important (for further detail see
Torney-Purta et al., 2001, chapter 4). In summary, the responsibilities of
conventional citizenship are perceived by these students as considerably less
important than what are sometimes called ‘social-movement-related activities’.
Students were
also asked to estimate the kinds of political participation they expected to
undertake as adults. Only about 20% of the respondents across countries said
that they intended to participate in those activities usually associated with
conventional adult political involvement, for example joining a political
party, writing to newspapers about social and political concerns, or being a
candidate for a local or city-wide office. 80% across countries did say that
they would probably or definitely vote, however. These students were also
likely to say that they would collect money for a social cause or charity
(international mean of 59%) and somewhat likely to say that they would
participate in a non-violent protest march (international mean of 44%). In
contrast, participation in protest activities that would be illegal in most
countries, such as blocking traffic or occupying buildings, were likely for
only about 15% of the students across countries. Aside from voting, students
appear quite sceptical about traditional forms of political engagement. On the
other hand, many are open to other involvement in civic life.
To look at
cross-national differences, three separate scales relating to civic engagement
were constructed—one emphasizing beliefs about the importance of conventional
citizen activities, one emphasizing beliefs about the importance of
social-movement-related citizen activities, and one asking about the intention
to participate in conventional citizen activities as an adult.
When county means
were compared, students in the following countries had high levels of civic engagement (above the international mean on
two out of the three scales listed in the previous paragraph and at least at
the average on the third scale): Chile; Colombia; Cyprus; Greece; Poland;
Portugal; Romania; United States. Students in the following countries had low levels of civic engagement (below
the international mean on all three of these scales): Australia; Belgium
(French); Czech Republic; Denmark; England; Finland; Sweden; Switzerland. Other
countries showed more mixed patterns.
These results
suggest that involving young people in civic-related activities is a complex
process within different political contexts. Among the countries where students
were relatively enthusiastic about civic participation and appeared to be
engaged were four countries that scored low on civic knowledge (Chile,
Colombia, Portugal and Romania) and four that scored high on knowledge (Cyprus,
Greece, Poland and the United States). Among the countries where students
appeared relatively disengaged in a civic sense were countries with high
knowledge scores (the Czech Republic and Finland) as well as those with more
moderate knowledge scores (Australia, Belgium [French], Denmark, England,
Sweden and Switzerland). High levels of civic knowledge and of civic engagement
do not necessarily go together when country differences are examined.
In addition to
examining potential engagement in citizenship activities oriented to the
national or community scene, the IEA instrument included a measure entitled
‘Confidence in participation at school’ to inquire about the democratic
experiences of students at their schools. Previous research often included
political efficacy measures in which respondents were asked about citizens’
effectiveness in influencing national or local government. The IEA study
examined the everyday experience of young people in their schools, and not only
their orientations toward more distant governmental authorities. This measure
was developed to assess the sense of school efficacy, to what extent students
think that getting together with other students to try to improve their school
is likely to have positive results.
Among the most
interesting of the cross-national comparisons involve the ‘Confidence in
participation at school’ measure. In Chile, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Portugal
and Romania students showed high levels of civic engagement both in the political realm of adult
activity (see the countries listed as high and as low in civic engagement
previously in this section) and also
high levels of confidence in engagement at school. In these countries it
appears that experience with democracy at school and civic engagement in the
broader society are reasonably congruent. In contrast, in Denmark and Sweden,
there were high levels of confidence in participation at school but relatively
low levels of engagement in the realm of national or local politics. In these
two Nordic countries, students report positive experiences of political
efficacy at school, but this does not seem to translate into civic engagement
in the arenas of adult-oriented political behaviour.
In summary,
across nations, there is considerable variability in the civic engagement of
students. Most young people are not drawn to the kind of activities that are
common among politically involved adults in many democracies. There is also a
complex picture of cross-national differences. Countries where students express
relatively high levels of belief in the importance of conventional and
social-movement related activities include some countries that performed well
on the knowledge test, and others that performed relatively poorly. Further, countries
where students report positive experiences with participation at school do not
always correspond to the countries where students believe in the importance of
conventional political and social movement activities outside of school.
A variety of
measures of civic and political attitudes were included in the IEA instrument.
Because the legitimacy of democratic governments is thought to depend on a
sense of political trust on the part of citizens, and because of previous
cross-national research in this area (Inglehart, 1997; McAllister, 1999), a
measure of trust in government-related institutions was included. Across
countries, the courts and police were trusted the most by these 14-year-olds,
followed by national and local governments. Some countries deviated from this
pattern, with national or local governments trusted more than the justice
system institutions. In all countries political parties were trusted the least,
however.
14-year olds already appear to be members of the political cultures of their countries, expressing levels of trust that largely correspond to those of adults in their nations. The highest level of trust in government-related institutions was found among 14-year-olds in Denmark, Norway and Switzerland, and the lowest in Bulgaria, the Russian Federation and Slovenia. Generally, the countries with short histories of democracy (including the post-Communist countries) showed lower levels of trust in governmental institutions (for more detail see Torney-Purta et al., 2001, chapter 5; for similar data on adult samples, see McAllister, 1999).
One of the
purposes of the study was to investigate attitudes toward social cohesion and
diversity. This proved difficult because of the different situations and
characteristics of groups subject to discrimination in different regions. In
some participating countries, discrimination is a problem of racism or
religious intolerance; in other countries, it is a problem of discrimination
against national minorities, immigrants or those speaking a mother tongue
different from that of the majority population. A scale regarding attitudes
toward rights for immigrants did prove feasible, however. Across countries
students were supportive of the rights of immigrants, with the greatest support
for educational opportunity and the least support for the right to keep their
own language.
Women constitute
another group subject to discrimination in the political life of many
societies. A scale of support for women’s political and job-related rights was
included in the IEA instrument; students were largely supportive of these
rights, agreeing with items such as, ‘women should run for public office and
take part in the government just as men do’ and disagreeing with items such as,
‘men are better qualified to be political leaders than women’ and ‘when jobs
are scarce, men have more right to a job than women’.
Students in
Australia, Denmark, England and Norway had the highest scores on support for women’s rights, with scores also
above the international mean in Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland
and the United States. Students in Bulgaria, Latvia, Romania and the Russian
Federation had the lowest scores on
women’s rights, with Chile, Estonia, Hong Kong (China), Hungary, Lithuania and
Slovakia also below the international mean. In almost all the countries where
students scored below the international mean on women’s rights, adult
unemployment rates were greater than 10% of the labour force. Low scores in
these countries may have been related to the items on the scale about
competition for jobs.
The political
dimension of this scale is also important. These data provide an opportunity to
compare a range of countries from several regions with differing
representations of women in national legislatures. In Denmark, Finland,
Germany, Norway and Sweden, where women hold more than 30% of the parliamentary
seats, young people’s support for women’s rights is high. The majority of
countries whose adolescents score significantly below the international mean on
support for women’s rights have relatively few women in their national
legislatures—ranging from 6% in the Russian Federation and Romania to 17% in
the three Baltic States. It may be that young people see women holding political
positions, view them as role models, and develop more positive attitudes toward
women’s rights. Or it may be that voters who developed support for women’s
rights during their adolescence are more likely to vote for women candidates
when they become adults. An alternative explanation involves a combination of
these processes and other factors such as a well organized and visible women’s
movement (for more detail see Torney-Purta et al., 2001, chapters 1 & 5).
There are
substantial gender differences in support for immigrants’ rights and very
substantial gender differences in support for women’s political and economic
rights. Support for immigrants’ rights and for women’s rights is greater on the
part of females (corroborating much previous research).
Table 3. Predictors of the civic knowledge score.
|
Expected years of further education (+ predictor in twenty-eight countries) |
Frequency of watching television news (+ predictor in sixteen countries) |
|
Home literacy resources (+ predictor in twenty-seven countries) |
Female gender (– predictor in eleven countries) |
|
Spend evening with peers outside the home (– predictor in twenty-four countries) |
Participation in student council (+ predictor in ten countries) |
|
Open climate for classroom discussion (+ predictor in twenty-two countries) |
|
Notes: Squared multiple correlations ranged from .10 in Colombia to .36 in the Czech Republic with a median of .22.
Country
differences, such as those presented in previous sections, are of great
interest in understanding civic education contexts and processes. Numerous
questions of interest to policy-makers, educators and researchers would remain
unaddressed, however, if correlates of students’ civic knowledge and engagement
were not explored. In order to address some of these questions and suggest
directions for future analysis, simple models for predicting civic knowledge
and expressed likelihood of voting were developed. As a first step, a path
regression model was developed for a composite sample in which the twenty-eight
countries were equally weighted; separate regressions using the full weighted
sample for each country were then produced. The regression model for ‘civic
knowledge’ is summarized in Table 3 (for more complete information, including a
parallel analysis of predictors of the likelihood of voting, see Torney-Purta
et al., 2001, chapter 8.)
The most important predictors of the
civic knowledge score were aspirations for higher education and the literacy
resources available in the home, both related positively to knowledge.
Predictors of civic knowledge are quite similar to those found in other subject
areas tested by IEA. Students from backgrounds that foster high educational
aspirations and provide literacy resources possess more civic knowledge and
skills. In addition, young people who spend many evenings out of their homes
with peers have lower civic knowledge and skills. This may indicate a group
that does not spend as much time on schoolwork, or a tendency of some youth to be
oriented to the values of their peers rather than those of parents and
teachers.
Female students
in slightly less than half of the countries had lower knowledge scores than
males (when these other factors were held constant). The size of these gender
differences tended to be relatively small in comparison to studies conducted in
the past.
Frequency of
watching news on television predicted higher knowledge in about half of the
countries. With this variable we cannot discount the possibility that students
who are more knowledgeable about civic matters are also more interested in
watching television news rather than the effect going in the other direction.
Even when the
factors of home, peer group and media are held constant, there are two aspects
of schooling that make a substantial contribution to civic knowledge. The first
replicates a relationship found in the 1971 IEA Civic Education Study and in
other studies reviewed by Torney-Purta, Hahn & Amadeo (2001). In the 1999
IEA testing the extent to which students experienced an open classroom climate
for discussion of issues was positively related to civic knowledge in
twenty-two of the twenty-eight countries. In the ‘classroom climate’ scale
students were asked, for example, how frequently they were encouraged to make
up their own minds about issues, the extent to which teachers respected
students’ opinions and encouraged their expression during class discussions,
and the extent to which teachers encouraged the discussion of issues about
which people have different opinions and presented several sides of these
issues. Nearly 40% of students reported that they were often encouraged to make
up their own minds and felt that their opinions were respected. Only 15–25%
felt that they were often encouraged to discuss issues about which there is
disagreement or that they heard about several sides of an issue. Students who
did have these experiences in their classes had higher knowledge scores, even
when differences in educational aspirations and home literacy were taken into
account.
The other school
experience that was positively related to knowledge was participation in a
student council or student parliament (a positive influence on knowledge in
about one-third of the countries). In some countries, however, such school-based
organizations appear not to be available to many students (Torney-Purta et al.,
2001, chapter 7). The case studies conducted as part of the first phase of the
IEA Civic Education Study also indicated that there is considerable ambivalence
in some countries about how much power these organizations should have in
school (Torney-Purta, Schwille & Amadeo, 1999).
In summary, there
are two school factors, both indicative of a democratic atmosphere, that appear
to foster 14-year-olds’ achievement in civic education: an open classroom
climate in which discussion of civic-related issues is encouraged and
participation in a school council or school parliament. Encouragement for
students to express their opinions appears to be limited in certain countries,
however, while the opportunity to participate in school parliaments appears
rare in some places. These are matters for further exploration by educators and
policy makers interested in enhancing students’ civic knowledge.
This study paints
a relatively positive picture of the average 14-year-old across these
twenty-eight countries as someone who:
·
Has considerable knowledge about fundamental democratic principles and
moderate skills in analyzing civic-relevant information;
·
Subscribes to the basic ‘narrative of democracy’;
·
Intends to vote;
·
Believes that other activities traditionally associated with adult
citizenship are less important than environmental or community group
participation; and,
·
Is already a member of a political culture shared with adults in the
country.
There are
substantial differences in civic knowledge and skills associated with home
background. Those differences are more modest in the likelihood of voting and
quite small in attitudes. There are some gender differences in knowledge (with
females less knowledgeable than males in some countries), more substantial
differences in attitudes toward immigrants (with females more positive than
males in many countries), and very substantial differences in attitudes toward
women’s rights (with females much more positive than males in all the
participating countries).
Groups of
countries that might have been expected to have similar scores on civic
knowledge and civic engagement (for example, the post-Communist countries), in
fact show quite diverse patterns. The 14-year-olds in some of these countries
have high average scores on both civic knowledge and engagement, while those
from some other countries in this group are low on both. Scores of the students
in still other post-Communist countries show high knowledge and low engagement
(or low knowledge and high engagement). There is similar diversity among the
long-established democracies that participated.
It appears that
schools enhance students’ civic knowledge when they give students opportunities
for open discussion in classrooms. Participation in organizations such as class
or school parliaments also appears to have a positive impact in some countries.
Enhancing these aspects of schooling poses a number of challenges, however. How
can teachers’ skills in establishing an open and respectful classroom climate
be enhanced in a way that still maintains a strong focus on content and skills
in analyzing civic-related topics? How can students’ activities in the
community, environmental groups and other organizations in which they seem
interested be linked to conventional political engagement? How can the
14-year-old’s expressed willingness to vote and engage in certain aspects of
civic life be converted into actual voting at age 18? How can the gaps be
bridged between students from resource-rich homes who are on the way to
tertiary education and those with fewer resources?
The analysis of
this rich set of data has just begun with the issuing by IEA of Citizenship and education in twenty-eight
countries: civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen (Torney-Purta et
al., 2001). Many issues will be discussed in publications authored by other
International Steering Committee members (including the results of a teacher
questionnaire that was not dealt with here). National reports will be issued by
participating countries. The character of civic education in 1999 as reflected
in the responses of these 90 thousand young people will be open for still wider
consideration by the international educational community when the data are
released for analysis in 2002.
Note
1. The IEA Civic Education Study has no official connection to any United Nations agency. The authors of the international report, J. Torney-Purta, R. Lehmann, H. Oswald and W. Schulz, offer thanks to members of the International Steering Committee, National Research Co-ordinators, the IEA Organization, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and the William T. Grant Foundation.
References
Doig, B., et al. 1993–94. Conceptual understanding in social education. Melbourne, Australian Council for Educational Research.
Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and post-modernization: cultural, economic, and political changes in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Lave, J.; Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
McAllister, I. 1999. The economic performance of governments. In: Norris, P., ed. Critical citizens: global support for democratic government, p. 188–203. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.
Torney, J.; Oppenheim, A.N.; Farnen, R. 1975. Civic education in ten countries: an empirical study. Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell.
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, IEA. E-mail: Department@iea.nl. Web address: www.wam.umd.edu/~iea/.
Torney-Purta, J.; Hahn, C.; Amadeo, J. 2001. Principles of subject-specific instruction in education for citizenship. In: Brophy, J., ed. Subject-specific instructional methods and activities. Oxford, UK, Elsevier Science.
Torney-Purta, J.; Schwille, J.; Amadeo, J. 1999. Civic education across countries: twenty-four national case studies from the IEA civic education project. Amsterdam, IEA. E-mail: Department@iea.nl.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.