Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Quality and Equity Issues Related to the Integration of Immigrant Students in Education Petra Stanat Institute for Educational Quality Improvement (IQB)

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Quality and Equity Issues Related to the Integration of Immigrant Students in Education Petra Stanat Institute for Educational Quality Improvement (IQB)"— Presentation transcript:

1 Quality and Equity Issues Related to the Integration of Immigrant Students in Education Petra Stanat Institute for Educational Quality Improvement (IQB) at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

2 2 Immigrant students, education, success

3 Outline 1.Background: Multilevel perspective on immigrant students‘ educational success 2.School success of immigrant students in Australia: Evidence from PISA Potential determinants/correlates of immigrant students‘ achievement: 3.Cultural identity orientations 4.Composition of the student body in classrooms 5.Language use and proficiency Controversial open question: Role of L1? 3

4 Background: Multilevel Perspective on Immigrant Students‘ Educational Success

5 5 Classroom Level Societal Level System Level Community Level School Level Student Level Teacher Level Teaching Learning Socialization Development School Type Level Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human development (see also OECD, 2004) Determinants of immigrant students‘ educational success: A multi-level perspective

6 6 Classroom Level Societal Level System Level Community Level School Level Student Level Teacher Level Teaching Learning Socialization Development School Type Level Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human development (see also OECD, 2004) Determinants of immigrant students‘ educational success: A multi-level perspective e.g., immigration policies, shared attitudes towards immigration

7 7 Classroom Level Societal Level System Level Community Level School Level Student Level Teacher Level Teaching Learning Socialization Development School Type Level Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human development (see also OECD, 2004) Determinants of immigrant students‘ educational success: A multi-level perspective e.g., tracking, educational standards, monitoring

8 8 Classroom Level Societal Level System Level Community Level School Level Student Level Teacher Level Teaching Learning Socialization Development School Type Level Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human development (see also OECD, 2004) Determinants of immigrant students educational success: A multi-level perspective e.g., school types as differential learning environments

9 9 Classroom Level Societal Level System Level Community Level School Level Student Level Teacher Level Teaching Learning Socialization Development School Type Level Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human development (see also OECD, 2004) Determinants of immigrant students‘ educational success: A multi-level perspective e.g., segregation, socio-structural environment, after-school programs

10 10 Classroom Level Societal Level System Level Community Level School Level Student Level Teacher Level Teaching Learning Socialization Development School Type Level Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human development (see also OECD, 2004) Determinants of immigrant students‘ educational success: A multi-level perspective e.g., composition of student body, school & classroom climate

11 11 Classroom Level Societal Level System Level Community Level School Level Student Level Teacher Level Teaching Learning Socialization Development School Type Level Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human development (see also OECD, 2004) Determinants of immigrant students‘ educational success: A multi-level perspective e.g., immigration background, stereotypes, differential expectations

12 12 Classroom Level Societal Level System Level Community Level School Level Student Level Teacher Level Teaching Learning Socialization Development School Type Level Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human development (see also OECD, 2004) Determinants of immigrant students‘ educational success: A multi-level perspective e.g., economical, cultural, social capital; language proficiency (in L2 and L1?); acculturation orientations

13 13 Classroom Level Societal Level System Level Community Level School Level Student Level Teacher Level Teaching Learning Socialization Development School Type Level Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human development (see also OECD, 2004) Determinants of immigrant students‘ educational success: A multi-level perspective e.g., “language-sensitive instruction”, language support

14 School Success of Immigrant Students in Australia

15 In terms of structural integration … … completely different situation in Australia than in most European countries. 15

16 16 Proportion of immigrant students in selected countries (PISA 2012)

17 17 Social background (ESCS) of students in selected countries (PISA 2012)

18 18 Mathematics performance and immigration background (PISA 2012)

19 19 Mathematics performance and language spoken at home (PISA 2012)

20 20 in favor of immigrant studentsin favor of non-immigrant students Motivation for mathematics learning (PISA 2012)

21 21 Attitudes and sense of belonging at school (PISA 2012)

22 In terms of structural integration… … completely different situation in Australia than in most European countries.  In Australia, structural integration of immigrant students in terms of achievement seems to be largely ensured.  Partly due to societal level: Differences in immigration policies affect composition of student body. 22

23 23 Social background (ESCS) of students in selected countries (PISA 2012)

24 In terms of structural integration… … completely different situation in Australia than in most European countries.  In Australia, structural integration of immigrant students in terms of achievement seems to be largely ensured.  Partly due to societal level: Differences in immigration policies affect composition of student body.  Yet some challenges associated with immigration and integration may nevertheless be similar to those experienced in other countries. 24

25 Negotiation of orientations toward context of origin and orientations toward context of residence Orientation toward context of residence Orientation toward context of origin SeparationIntegration Marginalization / Indifference Assimilation Acculturation orientations (Berry, 1980, 1997; Phinney, 1990) 25

26 26 Orientation toward context of residence Orientation toward context of origin SeparationIntegration Marginalization / Indifference Assimilation … general framework relevant for: social integration cultural integration (e.g., language use and proficiency) identification-related integration  Central: Relevance of these aspects for structural integration.  Focus of presentation: Identity and classroom composition (and briefly: language). (Berry, 1980, 1997; Phinney, 1990 ) Negotiation of orientations toward context of origin and orientations toward context of residence

27 Cultural Identity Orientations and Achievement (Edele, Stanat, Radmann & Segeritz, 2013)

28 Cultural Identity Cultural identity as sense of belonging to a social group (e.g., Horenczyk, 2008; Phinney, 1990). Most studies thus far focused on the role of immigrant students’ cultural identity for school-related adaption in terms of attitudes toward school, self-efficacy, self-reported grades (e.g., Altschul et al., 2008; Berry et al., 2006; Oyserman et al., 2001). Studies have rarely used achiement measures. Samples are rarely representative. 28

29 Sense of belonging to context of residence Sense of belonging to context of origin SeparationIntegration Marginalization / Indifference Assimilation Four cultural identity orientations: Theoretical assumptions 29

30 Strong identification with context of origin (+) (e.g., Caldwell et al., 2003; Chavous et al., 2009) Marginalization / Indifference Assimilation Four cultural identity orientations: Theoretical assumptions Sense of belonging to context of residence Sense of belonging to context of origin 30

31 Separation Integration (+) (e.g., Berry et al, 2006; Oysermann et al., 2003) Marginalization / Indifference Assimilation Sense of belonging to context of residence Sense of belonging to context of origin Four cultural identity orientations: Theoretical assumptions 31

32 Separation Strong identification with context of residence (+) (e.g., Alba & Nee, 1997; Esser, 2006; Horenczyk, 2010) Marginalization / Indifference Sense of belonging to context of residence Sense of belonging to context of origin Four cultural identity orientations: Theoretical assumptions 32

33 Separation (-) (e.g., Oysermann et al., 2003; Hannover et al., in press) Integration Marginalization / Indifference Assimilation Sense of belonging to context of residence Sense of belonging to context of origin Four cultural identity orientations: Theoretical assumptions 33

34 SeparationIntegration Marginalization / Indifference (-) (e.g., Berry, 1997) Assimilation Sense of belonging to context of residence Sense of belonging to context of origin Four cultural identity orientations: Theoretical assumptions 34

35 Current state of research Findings of existing studies are heterogeneous. Most studies focused on the role of cultural identity for school-related adaption in terms of attitudes toward school, self-efficacy, self-reported grades. (e.g., Altschul et al., 2008; Berry et al., 2006; Oyserman et al., 2001) Studies with achievement as dependent variable are rare. Samples are rarely representative.  First analyses in the context of the German PISA study

36 Operationalization 36

37 81If your parents weren‘t born in Germany: To what extent do you feel you belong to the following groups? (please tick only one box in each row) 37 Operationalization a)the people from the country of my parents b)the people from Germany not at all somewhatvery

38 Database German PISA 2009 sample Target population: 15-year-old students N = 6146 students without an immigrant background N = 2478 students with an immigrant background N = 202 schools Main test domain: reading literacy (M = 500, SD = 100) 38

39 Cultural orientations Integration (valid %) Assimilation (valid %) Separation (valid %) Marginalization / Indifference (valid %) Total Generation One parent nd Generation st Generation Country of origin Former USSR Turkey Poland Gender Girls Boys

40 Relationship between cultural orientations and reading achievement Model 1 b SE Model 2 b SE Students from native families Integration Assimilation Separation Marginalization / Indifference Girls SES Cultural possessions Parents‘ education Language other than German spoken at home N7023 R2R bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p <.05) 40

41 Relationship between cultural orientations and reading achievement Model 3 Former USSR b SE Model 3 Turkey b SE Integration Assimilation Separation Marginalization / Indifference bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p <.05) Model 3 Poland b SE Model 3 Other b SE Controlling for gender, SES, cultural possessions, parents‘ education, language spoken at home. N = 7023, R 2 =.22 Caution: N of students within some subgroups is small. 41

42  More than half of adolescents in Germany report a sense of belonging to the context of residence.  About 20% of the adolescents are marginalized / indifferent.  Marginalization / Indifferences seems to be associated with lower achievement.  A lack identification with the country of residence seems to be associated with lower achievement.  Hypothesis: Lack of identification likely to be more prevalent in Germany / European countries than in Australia Limitations of the study:  Operationalization of cultural identity based on two items.  Causality unclear  longitudinal analyses necessary (National Educational Panel Study).  Underlying mechanisms unclear, such as the interplay among cultural identity, language, and achievement. Cultural identity orientations and achievement: Summary of findings 42

43 Composition of the Student Body in Classrooms and Achievement (Stanat, Schwippert & Gröhlich, 2010)

44 Classroom Level Societal Level System Level Community Level School Level Student Level Teacher Level Teaching Learning Socialization Development School Type Level Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human development (see also OECD, 2004) Determinants of immigrant students‘ educational success: A multi-level perspective e.g., composition of student body in classrooms 44

45 Proportion of non-immigrant students Proportion of immigrant students SeparationIntegration Separation Composition of student body in classrooms 45

46 Assumptions about composition effects The proportion of immigrant students may have negative effects on student learning for a number of reasons (for an overview see Eksner & Stanat, 2010): Fewer ressources, lower teacher motivation in schools with higher proportions of immigrant students (e.g., Rumberger & Willms, 1992). Lower teacher expectations (e.g., Westerbeek, 1999). Less exposure to language of instruction (e.g., Esser, 2006). 46

47 Current state of research During the last 15 years, a number of studies have tested student composition effects on achievement (e.g., Westerbeek, 1999; Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2001; Stanat, 2006; Thrupp et al., 2002). The quality of the studies has increased over time (e.g., from cross-sectional to longitudinal studies). Main research questions: -Does an immigration-related composition effect exist, independent of SES-related composition effects? -Can background-related composition effects be attributed to achievement-related composition? 47

48 Database KESS-study carried out in Hamburg (Bos et al., 2004) Longitudinal assessment: -T1 at end of 4th grade -T2 at beginning of 7th grade N = 10,447 students with data for both measurement points N = 3744 students with an immigrant background N = 2056 students who mainly speak another language than German at home Focus of analyses: reading comprehension (M = 0, SD = 100) 48

49 Classroom composition Percent students not speaking German at home N classrooms 0-5% % % % % %39 > 50%16 Total522 49

50 Results: Control variables at individual level 50 Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6 Individual Level Reading achievement T10.52 Immigration background Home language not German SES Parents‘ education Economic ressources Cultural ressources Cultural activities bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p <.05)

51 51 Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6 Classroom Level % immigration background % not speaking German at home Mean SES Mean reading achievement T1 School type Comprehensive track Academic track R 2 at individual level R 2 at classroom level bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p <.05) Results: Effects at classroom level

52 52 Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6 Classroom Level % immigration background-6.45 % not speaking German at home Mean SES Mean reading achievement T1 School type Comprehensive track23.02 Academic track R 2 at individual level R 2 at classroom level 31.0% 85.8% bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p <.05) Results: Effects at classroom level

53 53 Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6 Classroom Level % immigration background-6.45 % not speaking German at home-7.31 Mean SES Mean reading achievement T1 School type Comprehensive track Academic track R 2 at individual level R 2 at classroom level 31.0% 85.8% 31.9% 86.8% bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p <.05) Results: Effects at classroom level

54 54 Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6 Classroom Level % immigration background % not speaking German at home Mean SES Mean reading achievement T1 School type Comprehensive track Academic track R 2 at individual level R 2 at classroom level 31.0% 85.8% 31.9% 86.8% 31.1% 86.9% bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p <.05)

55 55 Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6 Classroom Level % immigration background % not speaking German at home Mean SES37.60 Mean reading achievement T1 School type Comprehensive track Academic track R 2 at individual level R 2 at classroom level 31.0% 85.8% 31.9% 86.8% 31.1% 86.9% 31.1% 90.1% bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p <.05) Results: Effects at classroom level

56 56 Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6 Classroom Level % immigration background % not speaking German at home Mean SES Mean reading achievement T10.65 School type Comprehensive track Academic track R 2 at individual level R 2 at classroom level 31.0% 85.8% 31.9% 86.8% 31.1% 86.9% 31.1% 90.1% 31.1% 95.9% bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p <.05) Results: Effects at classroom level

57  Proportion of immigrant students is associated with lower achievement.  The effect largely disappears when the social composition is controlled.  Remaining effect can be attributed to mean prior achievement of students in the classroom.  Largely consistent finding acoss a number of studies (for an overview see Eksner & Stanat, 2010). Open question:  Mechanisms underlying social composition effects are unclear (Rjosk et al., 2014). Student composition and achievement: Summary of findings

58 Language Use and Proficiency (Edele, Stanat, Radmann & Segeritz, 2013)

59 Use of / proficiency in L2 Use of / proficiency in L1 Language-related separation Bilingualism „Semilingualism“Language-related assimilation Four patterns of language use / proficiency 59 (Esser, 2006)

60 Patterns of language use: Research evidence It is possible to acquire high levels of profiency in more than one language. On average, vocabulary (but not necessarily concept knowledge) in each language is smaller in multilingual than in monolingual students (Oller & Eilers, 2002). There is ample evidence that multilingualism is associated with cognitive advantages (esp. attention control) and metalinguistic awareness (meta-analysis by Adesope, 2010). Evidence for transfer-effects L1  L2 (e.g., Edele & Stanat, submitted; Scheele et al., 2010). Evidence for competion effects / time-on-task effects (e.g., Leseman et al., 2009). 60

61 Patterns of language use: Controversies 61 Support of L1Support of L2 Family School

62 Family Concept development can take place in L1 oder in L2; transfer possible. Transfer of some language skills from L1 and L2 (e.g., phonological awareness) possible as well, yet this does not suffice.  Necessary to provide opportunities for L2 acquisition as early as possible.  Can take place within family but does not have to.  Provision of effective learning opportunities in pre-primary education and in schools.

63 School Many countries still struggle with the challenge of providing effective L2-support. Should educational systems also provide L1-support? Evidence suggests that L1-support neither impairs nor promotes L2-learning (e.g., Limbird & Stanat, 2006; Söhn, 2005).  Open, largely normative question: Should school systems invest in bilingual development of immigrant students if they could realistically do so?

64 Vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamk it!


Download ppt "Quality and Equity Issues Related to the Integration of Immigrant Students in Education Petra Stanat Institute for Educational Quality Improvement (IQB)"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google