07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
Self-efficacy of Tertiary Vocational Students in Relation to Study, Work and Citizenship. The Impact of a Citizenship Education Program/
Isolde De Groot1, Marie-Christine Opdenakker2
1University of Humanistic Studies, Netherlands, The; 2University of Groningen, Netherlands, The
Presenting Author: De Groot, Isolde
Self-efficacy is considered a predictor for success in later life, as it is related to academic success and political participation (Hoskins et al., 2016; Solhaug, 2006; Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). It is also known that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, who are overrepresented in (pre)vocational tracks, have lower self-efficacy compared to their peers from higher socio-economic backgrounds (e.g., Schulz et al., 2018; Sohl and Arensmeier, 2015). Differences in self-efficacy can thus play an important role in the reproduction of educational and civic inequalities (Hoskins et al., 2016; Badou et al., 2021).
Research has established that education programs can help strengthen students’ self-efficacy beliefs. Citizenship education (CE hereafter) scholars, for example, have shown how CE-programs have impacted citizenship efficacy beliefs (Beaumont, 2010; Levy, 2018; Kahne & Westheimer 2006). In her study into the political efficacy of high school students in the US, Beaumont (2010) identified four pathways of political learning that can spur hopeful and realistic political efficacy beliefs: (1) skill-building political mastery experiences (2); models of political efficacy and involvement; (3) social encouragement, supportive relationships and networks, and inclusion in political community; and (4) empowering and resilient political outlooks.
While scholars in the Netherlands, where this research is situated, have shed light on the self-efficacy of students in secondary and higher education, little is known about the self-efficacy of students in tertiary vocational education (VET hereafter) in the Netherlands. Moreover, at the start of our practice-oriented research project in 2019, there were no research-informed experiential CE-programs that specifically supported the development of vocational students’ political self-efficacy. Also, little is known about the interrelatedness of students’ self-efficacy in different domains.
To address these voids, this study examines the self-efficacy of VET-students from one large VET-institute (16.000 students) related to study, work, and politics, and the impact of a 10-week CE-program ‘Making a Difference’ (MADE hereafter) on students’ political efficacy, as well as on their self-efficacy related to study and work. Inspired by Beaumont’s (2010) four pathways to teaching political efficacy, students participating in MADE work together in small groups selecting, examining a societal issue that they are concerned about, organize a first action and present their project in class and for a larger audience. While a 10-weeks program is a rather short period of time to generate a substantial impact, this study does give an indication of what a single program can(not) do. In addition, the study also addresses differential effects of the program in relation to students’ background characteristics.
As half of the students in EU countries attend VET, and students with a migration background are overrepresented in VET (Elffers, 2011), insight into students’ self-efficacy and the impact of a CE-program targeting political efficacy are of interest to a broad range of scholars and practitioners involved in furthering educational and political equality in European countries.
The following questions are addressed:
1) What is the self-efficacy of tertiary vocational students related to study, work and politics and does it vary across student groups related to background characteristics?
2) How does the MADE-program impact vocational students’ self-efficacy related to study, work and politics and does its impact vary across students’ background characteristics and students’ appreciation of MADE?
3) What are the experiences of students with MADE, what strengths and weaknesses of the prototype MAD- program do they identify, and how do they appreciate having a political efficacy-oriented CE-program in the curriculum?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedDesign, procedure, participants
The research involved a mixed-methods pre-post intervention study with a CE-program (MADE) in The Netherlands. The study also included a control group which received CE as usual.
Participants in the study were first year Economy students (N=192) attending a large vocational education school in the Netherlands. 5 classes belonged to the intervention group and 6 classes to the control group.
Survey data (pre- and post) were collected in the spring semester (Feb-July) of 2022.
192 students completed the pre-survey, and 117 completed the post-survey. 99 students completed both surveys, 49 of which were from the intervention group.
In addition, five focus group interviews with Economy students (N=16) were held two weeks after MADE. For these interviews, we selected student project groups (2-4 students each) with a good attendance rate. Nine male students and six female students participated.
Measures and Research Instruments
The online questionnaire instrument includes four scales related to self-efficacy in study namely, academic self-efficacy, self-efficacy for learning, self-efficacy related to self-regulated learning and self-efficacy for learning and performance related to CE, which are based on existing surveys (Midgley et al., 2000; Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2007; Bandura, 2006; Usher and Pajares, 2008; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Chen, Gully & Eden, 2001). The scale (eight items) on Self-efficacy related to future work was adapted from the New General Self-Efficacy Scale (Chen, Gully & Eden, 2001). Political efficacy was measured with five scales (with three items each), adapted from existing surveys (Syvertsen, Wray-Lake and Metzger, 2015; Thijs et al., 2019).
All scales were scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree. The self-efficacy for self-regulated learning scale ranged from 1-not at all certain to 5-totally certain. Reliabilities and the number of items in each scale related to the pre- and post-measurement will be provided in two Tables.
Intervention group students’ experiences with MADE, were examined via a selection of items from the Carnegie Foundation Political Engagement Survey, tailored to the MADE context. The focus group interview guide contained similar questions on strengths and weaknesses of MADE as well as a question on students’ appreciation of a program at their institute that attends to their political self.
Analysis
Analysis of variance (GLM) with posthoc testing was conducted, and complemented with content analysis of the qualitative data.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsExamination of the VET-students’ self-efficacy related to study, work and politics (RQ1) revealed that students scored highest on academic self-efficacy and self-efficacy related to work and CE, and lowest on individual and collective political efficacy, and perceptions of system responsiveness. In addition, some significant differences related to students’ background were found indicating lower individual civic and collective political efficacy of students with low-educated mothers compared to students with high-educated mothers, and lower individual political and collective civic efficacy and self-efficacy related to civics education and academics in general of students speaking mostly only another language than Dutch at home, compared to students speaking Dutch or a combination of languages (including Dutch) at home.
Minor, yet no significant changes were found in students’ citizenship efficacy between the intervention and the control group (RQ2). That said, the impact score (0.16) is quite neat when taking into account the impact of Covid, the small sample, and the fact that we measured the impact of a pilot program. In addition, the first preliminary results on the potential differential impact of the intervention related to student background reveal significant differences related to the mother's education indicating that the intervention seems to have impact on students’ political efficacy, in particular, when the mother is very low educated, which resides with earlier findings (Sohl, 2014).
Three directions for further development of MADE are identified: attention to political skepticism (Beaumont’s 4th pathway); guidance in student-collaboration and initiating an action; and teacher professionalization. Providing professionalization support is a known issue in Dutch VET-institutes where one in four CE-teachers has no teaching degree on the subject (Oberon, 2022). We also discuss how insights gained contribute to existing knowledge on effective ways to mitigate the civic engagement gap between low and high SES students across Europe via political learning.
ReferencesBadou M. Day M. Verwey-Jonker Instituut (Utrecht) & Gelijke Kansen Alliantie. (2021). Kansengelijkheid in het onderwijs: verkennend onderzoek naar factoren die samenhangen met onderwijs(on)gelijkheid [Factors influencing educational inequality]. Verwey-Jonker Instituut. Retrieved January 13 2023 from INSERT-MISSING-URL.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Beaumont, E. (2010). Political agency and empowerment: Pathways for developing a sense of political efficacy in young adults. Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth, 525-558.
Elffers, L. (2011). The transition to post-secondary vocational education: students’ entrance, experiences, and attainment. Ipskamp drukkers.
Hoskins, B., Janmaat, J. G., Han, C., & Muijs, D. (2016). Inequalities in the education system and the reproduction of socioeconomic disparities in voting in England, Denmark and Germany: the influence of country context, tracking and self-efficacy on voting intentions of students age 16–18. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46(1), 69-92.
Kahne, J. & Westheimer, J. (2006). The limits of political efficacy: Educating citizens for a democratic society, Political Science & Politics, 39(2): 289-296.
Levy, B. (2018). Youth Developing Political Efficacy Through Social Learning Experiences: Becoming Active Participants in a Supportive Model United Nations Club, Theory & Research in Social Education, 46(3), 410-448, DOI: 10.1080/00933104.2017.1377654
Oberon. (2022). Stappen in LOB en burgerschap Professionalisering en kwaliteitsverbetering LOB en burgerschapsonderwijs mbo [CE and professionalisation in VET]. Oberon.
Sohl, S. (2011). Pathways to Political Efficacy – Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Illustrations on Youths’ Acquisition of Political Efficacy: Politics, Culture and Socialization, 2(4), 389-414.
Sohl, S. (2014). Youths' political efficacy: sources, effects and potentials for political equality. Dissertation. Sweden: Örebro university.
Sohl S & Arensmeier C (2015) The school’s role in youths’ political efficacy: Can school provide a compensatory boost to students’ political efficacy? Research Papers in Education 30(2): 133–163.
Solhaug, T. (2006). Knowledge and Self-Efficacy as Predictors of Political Participation and Civic Attitudes: With Relevance for Educational Practice. Policy Future Education, 4, 265–278.
Syvertsen, A. K., Wray-Lake, L., & Metzger, A. (2015). Youth civic and character measures toolkit. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.
Thijs, P., Kranendonk, M., Mulder, L., Wander, F., ten Dam, G., van der Meer, T. & van de Werfhorst, H. (2019). Democratische kernwaarden in het voorgezet onderwijs. Adolescentpanel Democratische Kernwaarden en Schoolloopbanen [Exploring SE students’ democratic values]. Jaar 1 – 2018-2019. Universiteit van Amsterdam.
07. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Paper
How is Moral Development in Middle School? Adaptation and Validation of “Community Voices and Character Education” to Portuguese Context
Maria Azevedo1, Marcelo Porrua1, Ana Paula Monteiro1, Margarida Simês1, Teresa Silva Dias2, Inês Carvalho Relva1
1University of Tráz os Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal; 2University of Porto, Portugal
Presenting Author: Azevedo, Maria
Moral education/education in values is a topic discussed in the scope of Philosophy and of Education Sciences, namely in studies on curriculum and didactics, varying its orientation according to the adopted foundations, both of ethical order and referring to psychological research on moral development.
In the Portuguese case, a general orientation has been defined through the National Strategy for Education for Citizenship in 2017, and a set of mandatory and transversal themes has been established that clearly fall within the sphere of values, but without explicit reference to moral education or development. The proposed framework is the Whole-school Approach, although there are different curricular situations depending on the level of schooling, namely the curricular subject “Citizenship and Development".
Given this reality, the research question is: "What components of morality do children (10-12) develop through the subject of Citizenship and Development?"
The research is based on Rest's integrative model of moral development. While named neo-kohlberguian (Rest et al, 2000), Rest model of moral development is rather different from Kohlberg approach. Faced with the question "What processes or functions must have occurred in order for an individual to perform a moral act?" (Rest, 1986, p. 3), Rest identified four components (Rest, 1979; 1986), each of which corresponds to a different psychological process, being moral behavior the result of these different processes and not just the logical or affective consequence of a single process, as follows: moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation and moral action, each of which can be studied separately. By moral sensitivity, is meant that the person is aware of the moral dimension of the situation and so s/he’s able to interpret the situation in terms of how his/her actions will affect the welfare of others. Moral judgment is the ability to formulate possible moral courses of action and to formulate a plan of action that applies a moral standard or ideal in that specific situation. Moral motivation is the capacity to decide for one course of action by evaluating if it serves moral values. Moral action is the ability to accomplish what one has decided to do, by identifying and validly overcoming obstacles and difficulties. (Rest, 1984; 1986) Several studies have been made on moral judgement of college students and professional groups by Rest and his research group, namely using the DIT (Defining Issues Test) (Rest, 1979; 1987). Based on this integrative model, between 1998 and 2002, the Department of Education of the University of Minnesota (Narvaez et al., 2004) developed the community voices and character education project (CVCE), a moral education project addressed to children from 10 to 12 years old, in collaboration with middle school teachers. The project addresses some important questions that are present in the Portuguese context. In fact, as said above, “citizenship education aims to contribute to the education of responsible, autonomous, supportive people, who know and exercise their rights and duties in dialogue and respect for others, with a democratic, pluralistic, critical and creative spirit, with reference to the values of human rights” (Working Group on Citizenship Education, 2017; p. 3). In view of the above, this communication intends to present the results of a project in the Portuguese context, which aimed to adapt and apply the community voices and character education project (CVCE).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis is an exploratory investigation to meet the objectives outlined. The sample consisted of approximately 12 classes, with 300 students, of the 2nd cycle of middle school, collected in schools in the North region of Portugal, through self-report scales distributed to students on paper. It used a sociodemographic questionnaire to collect data that allows us to characterize the sample. Also, scales developed by Narvaez et al. (2004), that have been translated, adapted and validated for the educational Portuguese context: Concern for Others (Ethical Sensitivity); Citizenship Scale (Ethical Focus/Motivation); Community Bonding Scale (Ethical Focus/Motivation); Ethical Identity Scale (Ethical Focus/Motivation); Ethical Assertiveness (Ethical Action) and the Basic Empathy Scale – BES, developed by Jolliffe and Farrington (2006). Taking into count the adaptation, the model was translated and verified the language according to three specialists: one in moral development, on in methodology and one in English. The protocol was initially previously applied to a group of 5students for language measurement. The study received a favourable decision from the Ethics Committee of the University of Porto. After authorization from the schools, the informed consent of the parents or legal guardians of the students involved was also requested. The students were free to participate or leave the study in any moment. In the data collection, a project researcher was always present to clarify possible doubts to the students and present the objectives of the project. It will be carried psychometric and correlational analyses.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIt is expected that the scales, translated and adapted to the Portuguese context, have good psychometric properties. It is also expected to identify the levels of Ethical Sensitivity, Citizenship, Community Bonding, Ethical Identity, Ethical Assertiveness (Narvaez et al., 2004) and Basic Empathy Scale (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006; Portuguese version of Pechorro et al., 2018). It is expected that there is a positive correlation between all scales and that high scores on the different ethical scales correspond to high levels of empathy. Finally, there are expected no sex differences. Taking into account the results from the Narvaez et al. (2004) study it is expected that, that students with high commitment in schools will have a higher gain in feelings toward and perceptions of teachers and school, and also an increased sensitivity to perceiving peers intolerance and an increase in concern for others.
ReferencesWorking Group on Citizenship Education (2017). National strategy for citizenship education. https://cidadania.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/pdfs/national-strategy-citizenship-education.pdf
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 589-611. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive developmental approach. In Lickona, T. (ed.), Moral Development and Behavior (pp. 31-53). Holt, Rienhart, and Winston.
Narvaez, D., Bock, T., Endicott, L., & Lies, J. (2004). Minnesota’s community voices and character education project. Journal of Research and Education, 2(2), 89-112.
Pechorro, P., Jesus, S. N., Kahn, R., Gonçalves, R. A., & Barroso, R. (2018). A versão breve da Escala de Empatia Básica numa amostra escolar de jovens Portugueses: Validade, fiabilidade e invariância. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica, 49(4), 157-169. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP49.4.13
Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis. MN: University of Minnesota.
Rest. J. (1984). The major components of morality. In W. Kurtines, and J. Gewirtz (eds.), Morality, Moral Development and Moral Behavior (pp. 24–38). New York: Wiley
Rest, J. (1986). Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. NY: Praeger Press.
Rest, J. et al (2000). A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach to Morality Research. Journal of Moral Education, 29 (4), 381-395.
Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S. J., Bebeau, M. J. (1999b). DIT2: Devising and testing a new instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 644-659.
|
