3 c doorbrekenvan.stadantwerpen

09/04/2023 | pag. 1

Active citizenship - an international

European perspective. Findings from the International Civic and

Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) Saskia De Groof en Eva FranckDepartment of Sociology – Free University of Brussels (VUB)Educational policy department - City of Antwerp

ICCS-project09/04/2023 | pag. 2

Focus presentation

ICCS: What, when, how? International comparison students

Citizenship Student participation

Explanatory analyses expected active citizenship participation

Policy choices to stimulate student participation at school: case of the city of Antwerp

09/04/2023 | pag. 3

Part I ICCS: What, when, how?


What is ICCS?

Third study of the “International Association for the

Evaluation of Educational Achievement” (IEA) on citizenship

(education)

1971: 9 countries or regions

1999/2000: 28/16 countries or regions

2008/9: 38 countries or regions

May 2006 – September 2010

Are young people prepared for their role as citizen?

Knowledge and understanding

Attitudes, perceptions and behaviours


Participating countries


Respondents

Target population = students in

grade 8 (appr. 14 years of age)

More than 140,000 students, more

than 62,000 teachers and about

5,100 school principals from more

than 5,300 schools


International instruments: students

Cognitive test: 80 items measuring civic and

citizenship knowledge, analysis and reasoning

(exactly 45’)

Student questionnaire: student background, in-

and out-of-school participation, citizenship

attitudes (+/- 40’)

Regional instruments: Asia, Europe and Latin-

America (+/- 30’)


International instruments: other

Teacher questionnaire: Perceptions of civic and citizenship education in their

school, school organization and culture, teaching

assignments (+/- 30’)

School questionnaire: Provision of civic and citizenship education in their

school, school characteristics, school climate and culture

(+/- 30’)

National Context Survey Structure of the education system, civic and citizenship

education in the national curricula, recent developments

in civic and citizenship education


ICCS output

International report (2010) Descriptive international comparisons

(students, teachers and principals) Explanatory analyses per country for

knowledge, expected electoral participation, expected political participation

International technical report (2011) Regional reports (2010, 2011) See: http://www.iea.nl/iccs_2009.html National reports

http://www.iea.nl/iccs_2009.html

09/04/2023 | pag. 10

Part II International comparisons


Dimensions of citizenship

Civic knowledge International mean of 500 and standard

deviation of 100

Skills and willingness to participate in political system International mean of 50 and standard

deviation of 10

Democratic values International mean of 50 and standard

deviation of 10


Skills and willingness to participate in political system

Political discussion with family/friends

Out-of-school civic participation

Interest in political and social issues

Internal political efficacy Trust in institutions Citizenship self-efficacy Attitudes towards country

Importance conventional citizenship

Importance social-movement-related citizenship

Expected informal political participation as a young person

Expected adult participation in political activities

Expected electoral participation

Expected participation in legal protest activities


Democratic values

Attitudes toward gender inequality

Endorsement of basic democratic values

Attitudes toward equal rights for all ethnic

or racial groups

Attitudes toward equal rights for

immigrants


Citizenship as…

Achievement or practice?

Role student participation and school

climate Perception of the value of student participation

at school Participation in civic related activities at school Perception of students’ influence on decisions

about school Perception of openness in classroom discussions Perception of student-teacher relationship


Today focus on …

Skills and willingness to participate in political

system Good citizenship

Civic knowledge

Expected participation

Student participation and perception school

climate Participation in civic related activities at school Perception of students’ influence on decisions about

school Perception of openness in classroom discussions


Good citizenship?

Norms and expectations about what good citizens

are expected to do in a democratic society

Distinction between

Conventional citizenship

Social movement-related citizenship



How important are the following behaviours for being a

good adult citizen?

Voting in every national election

Showing respect for government representatives

Following political issues in the newspaper, on the radio, on TV

or on the internet

Learning about the country's history

Engaging in political discussions

Joining a political party



Above international mean

Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0

Below international mean




54,4 Italy 53,2 Cyprus 51,2 Norway 50,8 Poland50,6 Lithuania50,1 Ireland50,0 Latvia

Malta 49,6 Greece 49,4 Spain 48,9 Luxembourg 48,8 W-Europe 48,8Bulgaria 48,7 Europe 48,4 England 48,4Austria 48,1Switzerland 47,9


Liechtenstein 47,8Denmark 47,6

Estonia 47,1Netherlands 46,8

Slovenia 46,4Sweden 45,5Slovakia 45,4Finland 45,0

Czech Rep. 44,0Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0




54,4 Italy 53,2 Cyprus 51,2 Norway 50,8 Poland 50,6 Lithuania 50,1 Ireland 50,0 Latvia

Malta 49,6 Greece 49,4 Spain 48,9 Luxembourg

48,8 W-Europe 48,8 Bulgaria 48,7 Europe 48,4 England 48,4 Austria 48,1 Switzerland 47,9


Liechtenstein 47,8

Denmark 47,6 Estonia 47,1 Netherlands

46,8 Slovenia 46,4

Belgium/Flanders 45,5

Sweden 45,5Slovakia 45,4Finland 45,0

Czech Rep. 44,0

Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0


Importance social movement-related citizenship

How important are the following behaviours for being a

good adult citizen?

Taking part in activities to protect the environment

Taking part in activities promoting human rights

Participating in activities to benefit people in the local

community

Participating in peaceful protests against laws believed to be

unjust




Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0





53,7 Bulgaria53,1 Greece52,2 Cyprus52,2 Spain51,9 Italy51,2 Norway50,3 Ireland

Latvia 49,4 Malta 49,2 Poland 48,8 Lithuania 48,7 Europe 48,6 W-Europe 48,4 Slovenia 48,2Slovakia 48,0Estonia 48,0Czech Rep. 47,7In

tern

ati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0


Sweden 47,6England 47,5Austria 47,3

Luxembourg 46,9Finland 45,8

Switzerland 45,3Liechtenstein 45,1Netherlands 44,9

Denmark 44,1




53,7 Bulgaria 53,1 Greece 52,2 Cyprus 52,2 Spain 51,9 Italy 51,2 Norway 50,3 Ireland

Latvia 49,4 Malta 49,2 Poland 48,8 Lithuania 48,7 Europe 48,6 W-Europe 48,4 Slovenia 48,2 Slovakia 48,0 Estonia 48,0 Czech Rep. 47,7In

tern

ati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0


Sweden 47,6 England 47,5 Austria 47,3

Luxembourg 46,9Belgium/Flanders

46,4 Finland 45,8

Switzerland 45,3 Liechtenstein 45,1 Netherlands 44,9

Denmark 44,1


Civic knowledge

Cognitive test:

In total 74 multiple choice and 6 open

questions

Rotated design: 7 different tests


Civic knowledge

Thomas buys new school shoes. Thomas then learns that his new shoes were made by a company that employs young children to make the shoes in a factory and pays them very little money for their work. Thomas says he will not wear his new shoes again..

Why would Thomas refuse to wear his new shoes?

He thinks that shoes made by children will not last very long

He does not want to show support for the company that made them *

He does not want to support the children that made them

He is angry that he paid more for the shoes than they are actually worth

Finland: 92% correct Denmark: 91% correct … Flanders: 81% correct … Slovakia: 61% correct Cyprus: 52% correct

Example:


Civic knowledge


Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

00



Civic knowledge

Above international mean576 Finland / Denmark537 Sweden 536 Poland 534 Ireland 531

Switzerland/Liechtenstein/Italy

529 Slovakia 525 Estonia 519 England518 W-Europe516 Slovenia515 Europe / Norway510 Czech Rep.505 Lithuania / Spain 503 Austria


Netherlands 494 Malta 490 Latvia 482

Greece 476 Luxembourg 473

Bulgaria 466 Cyprus 453

Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

00


Civic knowledge

Above international mean576 Finland / Denmark 537 Sweden 536 Poland 534 Ireland 531

Switzerland/Liechtenstein/Italy

529 Slovakia 525 Estonia 519 England518 W-Europe516 Slovenia515 Europe / Norway514 Belgium/Flanders510 Czech Rep.505 Lithuania / Spain 503 Austria


Netherlands 494 Malta 490 Latvia 482

Greece 476 Luxembourg 473

Bulgaria 466 Cyprus 453

Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

00



Vote in local elections Vote in national elections Get information about candidates before voting

in an election




Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0





54,1 Italy52,2 Ireland51,8 Norway51,8 Lithuania51,1 Spain50,6 Austria50,2 Latvia50,0 Greece50,0 Liechtenstein

Slovenia 49,6 W-Europe 49,5 Malta 49,3Finland 49,2Denmark 49,1Europe 49,0Sweden 49,0 Cyprus 48,5Poland 48,2

Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0


Slovakia 48,0Switzerland 47,7

Bulgaria 47,7England 47,5

Luxembourg 47,4Estonia 46,6

Netherlands 46,6Czech Rep. 43,7




54,1 Italy 52,2 Ireland 51,8 Norway 51,8 Lithuania 51,1 Spain 50,6 Austria 50,2 Latvia 50,0 Greece 50,0 Liechtenstein

Slovenia 49,6 W-Europe 49,5 Malta 49,3 Finland 49,2 Denmark 49,1 Europe 49,0 Sweden 49,0 Cyprus 48,5 Poland 48,2

Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0


Slovakia 48,0 Switzerland 47,7

Bulgaria 47,7 England 47,5 Luxembourg

47,4 Estonia 46,6 Netherlands

46,6Belgium/Flanders

45,5 Czech Rep. 43,7



Writing a letter to a newspaper Wearing a badge or t-shirt expressing

your opinion Contacting an elected representative Taking part in a peaceful march or rally Collecting signatures for a petition Choosing not to buy certain products




Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0





52,7 Lithuania51,6 Greence51,4 Ireland51,3 Bulgaria51,3 Cyprus50,5 Slovakia50,5 Austria50,4 Latvia50,1 England

Spain 49,8 Finland 49,5Luxembourg 49,4Slovenia 49,3Czech rep. 49,3Europe 49,3W-Europe 49,1 Italy 48,5Estonia 48,5

Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0


Liechtenstein 48,5Malta 48,3

Switzerland 48,0Sweden 47,9Norway 47,8

Denmark 47,4Poland 46,4

Netherlands 45,6




52,7 Lithuania 51,6 Greece 51,4 Ireland 51,3 Bulgaria 51,3 Cyprus 50,5 Slovakia 50,5 Austria 50,4 Latvia 50,1 England

Spain 49,8 Finland 49,5 Luxembourg

49,4 Slovenia 49,3 Czech rep. 49,3 Europe 49,3 W-Europe 49,1 Italy 48,5 Estonia 48,5

Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0


Liechtenstein 48,5

Malta 48,3 Switzerland 48,0

Sweden 47,9 Norway 47,8Denmark 47,4

Belgium/Flanders 46,8

Poland 46,4 Netherlands 45,6


Participation in civic related activities at school

Voluntary participation in school-based music or drama activities outside of regular lessons

Active participation in a debate Voting for class representative or school

parliament Taking part in decision-making about how the

school is run Taking part in discussions at a student assembly Becoming a candidate for class representative

or school parliament




Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0





55,0 Greece54,1 Poland54,0 Norway52,3 Spain51,9 Cyprus/Slovakia50,8 Slovenia50,4 Sweden50,2 England50,1 Ireland


Austria / Europe 49,2 Latvia / W-Europe 49,1

Liechtenstein 48,8 Lithuania 48,6 Denmark 48,5

Finland 48,3Czech Rep. / Bulgaria 47,7

Switzerland 47,5Italy / Estlonia 47,2

Malta 46,6Luxembourg 44,8Netherlands 42,7

Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0




55,0 Greece 54,1 Poland 54,0 Norway 52,3 Spain 51,9 Cyprus/Slovakia 50,8 Slovenia 50,4 Sweden 50,2 England 50,1 Ireland


Austria / Europe 49,2 Latvia / W-Europe 49,1

Liechtenstein 48,8 Lithuania 48,6 Denmark 48,5

Finland 48,3 Czech Rep. / Bulgaria 47,7

Switzerland 47,5 Italy / Estlonia 47,2

Malta 46,6Belgium/Flanders 45,8

Luxembourg 44,8 Netherlands 42,7

Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0


Perception of students’ influence on decisions about school

The way classes are taught What is taught in classes Teaching/learning materials The timetable Classroom rules School rules




Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0





52,0 Lithuania51,9 Norway51,2 Italy50,5 Malta

Luxembourg 49,6Bulgaria 49,6Sweden 49,4Netherlands 49,1Slovakia 49,1Latvia 49,0Cyprus 48,9W-Europe 47,9Europe 47,9Spain 47,9Estonia 47,4

Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0


Austria 47,3Greece 47,2

Slovenia 46,6Finland 46,1

Czech Rep. 45,9England 45,8

Switzerland 45,8Liechtenstein 45,6

Denmark 45,5 Poland 44,6Ireland 44,3




52,0 Lithuania 51,9 Norway 51,2 Italy 50,5 Malta

Luxembourg 49,6

Bulgaria 49,6 Sweden 49,4 Netherlands

49,1 Slovakia 49,1 Latvia 49,0 Cyprus 48,9W-Europe 47,9Europe 47,9Spain 47,9Belgium/Flanders

47,6Estonia 47,4

Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0


Austria 47,3Greece 47,2

Slovenia 46,6 Finland 46,1

Czech Rep. 45,9 England 45,8

Switzerland 45,8 Liechtenstein

45,6 Denmark 45,5

Poland 44,6 Ireland 44,3


Perception of openness in classroom discussions

Teachers encourage students to make up their own minds

Teachers encourage students to express their opinions

Students bring up current political events for discussion in class

Students express opinions in class even when their opinions are different from most of the other students

Teachers encourage students to discuss the issues with people having different opinions

Teachers present several sides of the issues when explaining them in class




Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0




Above international mean54,7 Denmark54,3 Italy 53,1 England52,2 Ireland / Norway51,0 Sweden50,9 Poland / Greece50,6 Cyprus50,5 Latvia50,4 W-Europe / Estonia50,1 Europe50,0 Slovakia


Slovenia 49,9Lithuania 49,6

Finland 49,4Czech Rep. 48,9

Netherlands 48,5 Liechtenstein 48,2

Switzerland / Luxembourg 48,0

Spain 47,9Bulgaria 47,8Austria 47,7

Malta 45,8

Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0



Above international mean54,7 Denmark 54,3 Italy 53,1 England 52,2 Ireland / Norway 51,0 Sweden 50,9 Poland / Greece 50,6 Cyprus 50,5 Latvia 50,4 W-Europe / Estonia 50,1 Europe 50,0 Slovakia


Slovenia 49,9Lithuania 49,6

Finland 49,4Belgium/Flanders 49,1

Czech Rep. 48,9 Netherlands 48,5 Liechtenstein 48,2

Switzerland / Luxembourg 48,0

Spain 47,9 Bulgaria 47,8 Austria 47,7

Malta 45,8

Inte

rnati

on

al m

ean

= 5

0

09/04/2023 | pag. 50

Part III Explanatory analyses


Two in-depth papers

Decline or shift in the political and

civic engagement of young people?

An empirical, comparative analysis.

The relative strength of teaching

versus experiencing democracy in

school


First paper

Decline or shift in the political and

civic engagement of young people?

An empirical, comparative analysis.


Context

Concern about increase in cynicism,

apathy, disengagement from politics and

the democratic system

Especially young people seem to be less

participating in elections, less involved in

parties, less knowledgeable … than older

contemporaries


Context

Shift in engagement

or

Withdrawal of civic life ?


Shift in engagement?

Process of modernization has not lowered

but altered participation of young people

Youngsters still interested in politics, but

in a different way

“Shift from the politics of loyalties towards

the politics of choice” (Norris 2004)

(less organized, one-off engagements)


Implications

H1: Engagement in

“conventional” and

“alternative” politics are

negatively interrelated

H2: In individualized

societies Less

engagement in traditional

politics but more

alternative participation

C

A-

IC

A

-

+


Decline of engagement?

Process of modernization, welfare state,

democratization, … weakened old clashes

and left-right divide

Need for engagement withers away

“The end of ideology”


Implications

H3: In Welfare states Less

engagement in civic life, both

traditional and alternative

WC

A+

-

-


Method

Multivariate multilevel models 2 dependent variables: expected

conventional and alternative participation

3 levels (Pupil – School – Country)

Selection of 34 countries


Expected Conventional Participation

1 Join a political party2 Help a candidate / party during an election campaign3 Join a trade union4 Stand as a candidate in local elections5 Vote in local elections6 Join an organization for a political or social cause7 Vote in national elections8 Get information about candidates before voting

(PCA: α = 0.83; e= 3.7; R2 = 46.3%)


Actual & Expected Alternative Participation:

“Have you…”(participated in)1 A voluntary group doing something to help the community2 Human Rights organisation 3 An organisation collecting money for a social cause4 Environmental organisation

“Would You… ”(in the future)5 Volunteer time to help people in the local community6 Taking part in a peaceful march or rally7 Collecting signatures for a petition8 Choosing not to buy certain products

“What Should …” (a good adult citizen do)9 Participating in peaceful protests against laws believed to be unjust10 Taking part in activities promoting human rights11 Participating in activities to benefit people in the local community12 Taking part in activities to protect the environment

(Cat-PCA: α = 0.77; e= 3.3; R2 = 27.1%)


Core variable 1: Development WFS

Possible variables: • Development of welfare state

- GINI index for income inequality (UN, Human Development Report, 2010)

- Government expenditures in health care (World Bank, 2010)

(PCA; e = 1.6; R2 = 82%)

• Degree of democratization: FHI

Highly correlated (r=.81)Selected: Development of welfare

state


Core variable 2: Individualization

Possible variable: • 3 items from WVS (wave 3 & 4) concerning traits

desired in children:– Independence– Imagination– Obedience (-)

(PCA; e = 1.3; R2 = 44%)


Modelling Strategy - MLA 2 dependent variables

H1 Covariances of C & A on individual & country level

Control for individual background: gender, age, SCES,

immigrant status

H2 & H3 Background model + macro-indicator for individualization

Background model + macro-indicator for development

welfare state


Results H1: Negative correlation C & A

Correlation between the two dependent variables: Conventional and alternative political engagement

At the country level 0.81

At the individual level 0.41

% Variation on level of country (r)

Conventional Political engagement 13.2%

Alternative Political engagement 22.1%


Results H2: Individualization (- C / + A)

Conventional

Alternative

b bGender (0 = boy) - .03 *** .09 ***

Age .02 *** .02 ***

Immigration status (0 = native) .00 - .02 ***

Cultural capital .11 *** .10 ***

Level of individualization - .08 - .23 ***

% of explained variance on level 3 5.3% 25.8%


Results H3: Welfare State

(-C / -A)

Conventional

Alternative

b bGender (0 = boy) - .03 *** .09 ***

Age .02 *** .02 ***

Immigration status (0 = native) .00 - .02 ***

Cultural capital .11 *** .10 ***

Degree of WF-state development - .27 *** - .41 ***

% of explained variance on level 3 50.4% 71.0%


Graphic presentation


Conclusion

No evidence for hypothesis 1 & 2 No negative correlation between conventional &

alternative participation, but a strong positive

correlation

No shift in engagement as countries modernize

Individualization: negative effect on

conventional (but not sign.) AND on alternative

participation (sign.)


Conclusion

More evidence for hypothesis 3 As countries modernize, lesser ‘need’ for

engagement, whether conventional or

alternative

Even stronger negative effect of welfare state on

alternative engagements


Limitation

Mostly data on expected participation and

not effective participation

But: expected <> actual alternative

participation are positively correlated (r

= .89 country level; r = .66 individual level)

Other alternative forms of participation

(new technologies)


Second paper

The relative strength of teaching

versus experiencing democracy in

school.

Context

ICCS-Project07-12-2011 | pag. 73

Concern about increase in cynicism, apathy, disengagement from politics and the democratic system

Renewed interest in ‘citizenship

education’

Schools are expected to ‘form’ future citizens

Disagreement about implementation


Learning politics and

democracy

Versus

Experiencing politics and

democracy


KNOWLEDGE (Institutions, persons, procedures)

INSIGHT (comprehension)

ATTITUDES/BEHAVIOUR (‘Civic attitude’)

“Ignorance is the father of fear, knowledge is the mother of trust”

Learning Politics & Democracy


Experiencing Politics & Democracy

EXPERIENCE (Democratic school climate)

ATTITUDES/BEHAVIOUR (‘Civic attitude’)

“It is how we run our schools, rather than what we teach in them, that will determine levels of active citizenship”


Question

(PASSIVE) KNOWLEDGE

(ACTIVE) EXPERIENCE

?POLITICALLY RELEVANT (EXPECTED) BEHAVIOUR

Data and Dependent variables

Same as first paper:

Data Selection f 34 countries Multilevel analysis (3 levels)

Dependent variables: Expected conventional participation Actual and expected alternative

participation


Independent Variables

Proxy for ‘Learning Politics’: ‘Civic literacy’ = Scale for Civic knowledge

‘Experiencing democracy’ Perception of Openness in classroom

discussions (6 items, a= .76)

Students’ civic participation at school (6 items , a= .66)

Students’ perception of influence on decisions about school (6 items , a= .88)


Results Teaching


Conventional

Alternative

b b

Age .02 ** .03 **

Gender (0=boy) -.04 ** .08 **

Immigration status (0=native) -.00 -.03 **

Cultural capital .09 ** .06 **

Civic knowledge and skills .06 ** .11 **

Variance Country level (Rho) 13.5% 23.5%

Explained variance Country level (R2) -7.7% -13.4%

Explained variance Ind. level (R2) .3% .9%

Results Learning


Conventional

Alternative

b b

Civic participation at school .19 ** .25 **

Openness Classroom Discussions .10 ** .12 **

Perception of influence on decisions .09 ** .11 **

Variance Country level (Rho) 9.1% 16.3%Explained variance Country level (R2) 35.9% 36.3%

Explained variance Ind. level (R2) 6.1% 10.8%

Results Teaching + Learning


Conventional

Alternative

b b

Civic knowledge and skills .03 ** .07 **

Civic participation at school .18 ** .24 **

Openness Classroom Discussions .09 ** .11 **

Perception of influence on decisions .10 ** .13 **

Variance Country level (Rho) 9.4% 17.7%Explained variance Country level (R2) 33.5% 30.0%

Explained variance Ind. level (R2) 6.2% 11.3%

Conclusion


Knowledge or experience? Both, … but… Experience exceeds the impact of

civic knowledge Especially civic participation at school

Limitations? Validity of civic knowledge scale to test political

literacy (biased by general knowledge & IQ?) Expected participation= general attitude rather

than predictive for future participation (but correlation between items ‘have you been involved’ <> ‘would you take part’ r = .89 country level; r = .66 individual level).

09/04/2023 | pag. 84

Part IV Policy initiatives:

“Stimulating Student Participation at school”

City of Antwerp

Origin


Literature ‘importance of pupils’ participation at school’

Subsidies for school projects: ‘pupils’ participation’

Broader stimulation through workshops

Platform ‘pupils’ participation’


Conclusion

With modernization young people

appear to attach less importance to

active participation and have lower

internal political efficacy (but higher

civic knowledge)

Consequences? For schools, society,

…?


More information

International Organization and Study Centre


http://iccs.acer.edu.au/

Flanders

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/obpwo/links/iccs/

[email protected]

[email protected]


http://iccs.acer.edu.au/

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/obpwo/links/iccs/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Discussion

What are the most relevant/striking

conclusions/implications of this ICCS

study?

What would be your policy

recommendation? Local – National –

Europe?