1. The IEA Civic Education Study as a Source for Indicators of Civic Life Skills Judith Torney-Purta Carolyn Barber Gary Homana Britt Wilkenfeld University of Maryland, College Park jtpurta@umd.edu

2. Outline of the Presentation: Criteria for indicators of civic life skills and examples of issues –in the U.S.; in Europe The IEA Civic Education Study data base –data collection, primary and secondary analysis New approaches to indicators tailored to audiences –Academics and researchers –Policy-makers –General Public

3. IEA Civic Education Study Early 1990s –IEA ’ s member countries decided to go beyond science, math, and reading assessments to conduct a knowledge and attitudinal study of civic-related outcomes. Mid-1990s Civ-Ed Phase 1 –An international consensus process achieved agreement on concepts for a test and survey. 1999 Civ-Ed Phase 2 –Nationally representative samples of 14-year-olds were tested in 28 countries –90,000 students; nearly 2500 schools. 2001 to the Present –Data analyzed internationally and with special attention to U.S. in comparative context. –Policy implications examined

4. Countries Testing in Civic Education Study (at age 14) Australia, England, United States Belgium (French), Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland Hong Kong (SAR) Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia Chile, Colombia

5. Academics and Researchers as Audiences: The importance of multi-dimensional views of participation Differences across 28 countries in average performance on 3 indicators of expected participation Differences across 4 countries in the predictors of 3 types of expected participation

6. Examples of Diverse Patterns in Three Types of Expected Participation Using IRT scales mean 10; SD 2: All countries above International Mean in Civic Skills

7. Summary of Multidimensional Patterns of Participation: Southern countries (Latin America, Greece, Cyprus, Portugal) high in expected participation; Northern European and most Post- Communist countries low in expected participation; However, considerable variation by dimension of participation.

8. Summary of Differential Predictors of Multiple Participation Dimensions: School-related variables predict likelihood of voting in the future. –Civic knowledge, experiences at school Parent discussion and political interest but not school variables predict likelihood of joining a party in the future. Current volunteer activity but not school variables and not political interest predict likelihood of volunteering in the future.

9. International and National Policy Makers as Audiences: Modeling analysis that relates country-level variables to students’ knowledge and attitudes Wide range of items and scales in the IEA data base and a nested sampling design make this feasible Choice of appropriate national or international indicators is key.

10. Summary of Results on Knowledge Items: Students in countries with stronger civil/political rights –less likely to know about the Declaration of Human Rights, but –more likely to know about the purpose of the United Nations Students in countries paying more attention to human rights in intergovernmental dialogue are –more likely to know about the Convention of the Rights of the Child

11. Percent Correct on Question about the Convention on the Rights of the Child by Country’s Focus on Human Rights in Intergovernmental Dialogue:

12. Summary of Attitudes toward Immigrants’ Rights: Recent history of government issues with human rights did not predict attitudes toward immigrants’ rights Alternate hypothesis: attitudes associated with the level of diversity in the country –Language, religious, ethnic and cultural

13. Immigrant Attitudes by Religious Fractionalization

14. Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Attitudes toward Refugees by Religious Fractionalization

15. Summary Students in more homogenous countries have more positive attitudes toward the rights of immigrants/refugees; Fractionalization is more significantly related to immigrant attitudes than the country’s human rights situation; Students who know more about human rights have more positive attitudes toward immigrants and refugees.

16. The Public and Policy Makers as Audiences: How do attitudes cohere in students? What characteristics distinguish clusters or typologies of adolescents in different countries? Is any substantial group of concern because of attitudes or expected behavior?

17. U.S. Clusters

18. Distribution of Cluster Membership in the United States:

19. Civic Knowledge Scores by Cluster Membership:

20. IRT Means on Four Expected Participation Dimensions by Cluster:

21. Percent Disagreeing that a Good Citizen “Obeys the Law” by Cluster Membership:

22. Sweden Clusters:

23. Distribution of Cluster Membership in Sweden:

24. Characterizing the Potential for Analysis in IEA Dataset: Multiple levels –Country and student Multiple student outcomes –Knowledge and different dimensions of attitudes Multiple categories of country predictors –Political and cultural/demographic Multiple types of analysis relating to indicators: –Patterns of dimensions by country –Predictors by country –Country-level predictors –Individual typologies or clusters