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
Immigrant students, education, success
2
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
Background: Multilevel
Perspective on
Immigrant Students‘
Educational Success
Determinants of immigrant students‘
educational success: A multi-level perspective
Student
Level
Teaching
Learning
Socialization
Development
Teacher
Level
Classroom Level
School Level
Community Level
School Type Level
System Level
Societal Level
Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human
development (see also OECD, 2004)
5
Determinants of immigrant students‘
educational success: A multi-level perspective
Student
Level
Teaching
Learning
Socialization
Development
Teacher
Level
Classroom Level
School Level
Community Level
School Type Level
System Level
e.g., immigration policies,
shared attitudes towards
immigration
Societal Level
Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human
development (see also OECD, 2004)
6
Determinants of immigrant students‘
educational success: A multi-level perspective
Student
Level
Teaching
Learning
Socialization
Development
Classroom Level
Teacher
Level
e.g., tracking, educational
standards, monitoring
School Level
Community Level
School Type Level
System Level
Societal Level
Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human
development (see also OECD, 2004)
7
Determinants of immigrant students
educational success: A multi-level perspective
Student
Level
Teaching
Learning
Socialization
Development
Classroom Level
Teacher
Level
e.g., school types as differential
learning environments
School Level
Community Level
School Type Level
System Level
Societal Level
Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human
development (see also OECD, 2004)
8
Determinants of immigrant students‘
educational success: A multi-level perspective
Student
Level
Teaching
Learning
Socialization
Development
e.g., segregation, socio-structural
Teacher
environment, after-school
Level
programs
Classroom Level
School Level
Community Level
School Type Level
System Level
Societal Level
Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human
development (see also OECD, 2004)
9
Determinants of immigrant students‘
educational success: A multi-level perspective
Student
Level
Teaching
Learning
Socialization
Development
e.g., composition of student body,
Teacher
school & classroom climate
Level
Classroom Level
School Level
Community Level
School Type Level
System Level
Societal Level
Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human
development (see also OECD, 2004)
10
Determinants of immigrant students‘
e.g., immigration background,
educational success: A multi-level perspective
stereotypes, differential
expectations
Student
Level
Teaching
Learning
Socialization
Development
Teacher
Level
Classroom Level
School Level
Community Level
School Type Level
System Level
Societal Level
Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human
development (see also OECD, 2004)
11
Determinants of immigrant students‘
educational
e.g., economical, success:
cultural, socialA multi-level perspective
capital; language proficiency (in L2
and L1?); acculturation orientations
Student
Level
Teaching
Learning
Socialization
Development
Teacher
Level
Classroom Level
School Level
Community Level
School Type Level
System Level
Societal Level
Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human
development (see also OECD, 2004)
12
Determinants of immigrant
students‘
e.g., “language-sensitive
languageperspective
support
educational success:instruction”,
A multi-level
Student
Level
Teaching
Learning
Socialization
Development
Teacher
Level
Classroom Level
School Level
Community Level
School Type Level
System Level
Societal Level
Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human
development (see also OECD, 2004)
13
School Success of
Immigrant Students in
Australia
In terms of structural integration …
… completely different situation in Australia than in
most European countries.
15
Proportion of immigrant students in
selected countries (PISA 2012)
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Italy
Germany
France
Austria
USA
Canada
Australia
0
5
10
15
20
Percent Students
Second-generation
First-generation
16
Social background (ESCS) of students in
selected countries (PISA 2012)
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Italy
Germany
France
Austria
USA
Canada
Australia
-1.00
Second-generation
-0.50
0.00
ECSC
First-generation
0.50
1.00
Non-immigrant
17
Mathematics performance and immigration
background (PISA 2012)
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Italy
Germany
France
Austria
USA
Canada
Australia
-100
-50
0
50
Performance difference to non-immigrant students
Second-generation
First-generation
18
Mathematics performance and language
spoken at home (PISA 2012)
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Italy
Germany
France
Austria
USA
Canada
Australia
-50
0
50
100
Performance difference to non-immigrant students
Immigrant students speak another language
Immigrant students speak language of assessment
19
Motivation for mathematics learning
(PISA 2012)
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Italy
Germany
France
Austria
USA
Canada
Australia
-0.4
-0.2
0
in favor of immigrant students
Instrumental motivation
0.2
0.4
in favor of non-immigrant students
Intrinsic motivation
20
Attitudes and sense of belonging at school
(PISA 2012)
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Italy
Germany
France
Austria
USA
Canada
Australia
-0.3
-0.1
0.1
in favor of immigrant students
Attitutes toward school
0.3
in favor of non-immigrant students
Sense of belonging at school
21
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
Social background (ESCS) of students in
selected countries (PISA 2012)
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Italy
Germany
France
Austria
USA
Canada
Australia
-1
Second-generation
-0.5
0
ECSC
First-generation
0.5
1
Non-immigrant
23
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
Negotiation of orientations toward context of origin
and orientations toward context of residence
Orientation toward context of origin
Acculturation orientations (Berry, 1980, 1997; Phinney, 1990)
Separation
Integration
Marginalization /
Indifference
Assimilation
Orientation toward context of residence
25
Orientation toward context of origin
Negotiation of orientations toward context of origin
and orientations toward context of residence
Separation
Integration
Marginalization
/ Indifference
Assimilation
Orientation toward context of residence
(Berry, 1980, 1997; Phinney, 1990)
… 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).
26
Cultural Identity
Orientations and
Achievement
(Edele, Stanat, Radmann &
Segeritz, 2013)
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
Sense of belonging to context of origin
Four cultural identity orientations:
Theoretical assumptions
Separation
Integration
Marginalization /
Indifference
Assimilation
Sense of belonging to context of residence
29
Sense of belonging to context of origin
Four cultural identity orientations:
Theoretical assumptions
Strong identification with context
of origin (+)
(e.g., Caldwell et al., 2003; Chavous et al., 2009)
Marginalization /
Indifference
Assimilation
Sense of belonging to context of residence
30
Sense of belonging to context of origin
Four cultural identity orientations:
Theoretical assumptions
Separation
Integration (+)
Marginalization /
Indifference
Assimilation
(e.g., Berry et al, 2006;
Oysermann et al., 2003)
Sense of belonging to context of residence
31
Sense of belonging to context of origin
Four cultural identity orientations:
Theoretical assumptions
Separation
Strong
identification
with context of
residence (+)
Marginalization /
Indifference
(e.g., Alba & Nee, 1997;
Esser, 2006; Horenczyk,
2010)
Sense of belonging to context of residence
32
Sense of belonging to context of origin
Four cultural identity orientations:
Theoretical assumptions
Separation (-)
(e.g., Oysermann et al.,
2003; Hannover et al., in
press)
Marginalization /
Indifference
Integration
Assimilation
Sense of belonging to context of residence
33
Sense of belonging to context of origin
Four cultural identity orientations:
Theoretical assumptions
Separation
Integration
Marginalization /
Indifference
(-)
Assimilation
(e.g., Berry, 1997)
Sense of belonging to context of residence
34
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
2009.
35
Operationalization
36
Operationalization
81 If 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)
not at all
somewhat
very
a) the people from the country of my
parents
b) the people from Germany
37
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
Cultural orientations
Integration
Assimilation
Separation
(valid %)
(valid %)
(valid %)
Marginalization /
Indifference
(valid %)
26
26
28
20
One parent
26
38
19
18
2nd Generation
26
22
31
20
1st Generation
27
19
33
21
Former USSR
20
32
26
22
Turkey
29
16
32
24
Poland
25
28
26
20
Total
Generation
Country of origin
Gender
Girls
Boys
30
22
28
25
27
29
15
25
39
Relationship between cultural orientations
and reading achievement
Model 1
b
SE
Model 2
b
SE
Students from native families
496
2.4
496
2.5
Integration
-12
5.4
3
5.4
Assimilation
5
5.7
11
5.4
Separation
-33
6.1
-10
7.0
Marginalization / Indifference
-33
5.4
-20
5.4
Girls
31
2.3
31
2.3
SES
17
1.4
17
1.4
Cultural possessions
13
1.4
13
1.4
Parents‘ education
11
1.2
10
1.2
-34
5.0
Language other than German spoken at home
N
7023
7023
R2
.21
.22
bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p < .05)
40
Relationship between cultural orientations
and reading achievement
Model 3
Former USSR
b
SE
Model 3
Turkey
b
Model 3
Poland
SE
b
SE
Model 3
Other
b
SE
Integration
11
13.1
-22
9.8
2
12.1
10
7.9
Assimilation
23
7.0
-22
12.4
14
15.0
13
7.6
Separation
6
10.0
-19
10.1
-33
14.5
-12
8.8
-13
11.6
-37
10.9
-16
25.4
-17
8.0
Marginalization / Indifference
Controlling for gender, SES, cultural possessions, parents‘ education, language spoken at home.
N = 7023, R2 = .22
bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p < .05)
Caution: N of students within some subgroups is small.
41
Cultural identity orientations and
achievement: Summary of findings
 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.
42
Composition of the Student
Body in Classrooms and
Achievement
(Stanat, Schwippert & Gröhlich, 2010)
Determinants of immigrant students‘
educational success: A multi-level perspective
Student
Level
Teaching
Learning
Socialization
Development
e.g., composition of student body
in classrooms
Teacher
Level
Classroom Level
School Level
Community Level
School Type Level
System Level
Societal Level
Stanat (2006), based on Bronfenbrenner‘s ecological model of human
development (see also OECD, 2004)
44
Proportion of immigrant students
Composition of student body in classrooms
Separation
Integration
Separation
Proportion of non-immigrant students
45
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
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
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
Classroom composition
Percent students not
speaking German at
home
N classrooms
0-5%
77
5-10%
78
10-20%
144
20-30%
103
30-40%
65
40-50%
39
> 50%
16
Total
522
49
Results: Control variables at individual level
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Individual Level
Reading achievement T1
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
Immigration background
-13.48
-12.74
-11.90
-12.19
-12.08
-11.87
-4.21
-2.71
-4.57
-2.99
-3.03
-2.86
SES
2.31
2.43
2.41
2.47
2.48
2.50
Parents‘ education
3.55
3.39
3.39
3.35
3.34
3.33
-3.36
-3.13
-3.17
-3.08
-3.07
-3.03
Cultural ressources
4.35
4.36
4.35
4.36
4.37
4.37
Cultural activities
-0.72
-0.66
-0.65
-0.65
-0.65
-0.66
Home language not German
Economic ressources
bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p < .05)
50
Results: Effects at classroom level
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Classroom Level
% immigration background
% not speaking German at home
Mean SES
Mean reading achievement T1
School type
Comprehensive track
Academic track
R2 at individual level
R2 at classroom level
bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p < .05)
51
Results: Effects at classroom level
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Classroom Level
% immigration background
-6.45
% not speaking German at home
Mean SES
Mean reading achievement T1
School type
Comprehensive track
Academic track
R2 at individual level
R2 at classroom level
23.02
110.11
31.0%
85.8%
bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p < .05)
52
Results: Effects at classroom level
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 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
R2 at individual level
R2 at classroom level
23.02
23.42
110.11
108.37
31.0%
85.8%
31.9%
86.8%
bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p < .05)
53
Results: Effects at classroom level
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Classroom Level
% immigration background
-6.45
% not speaking German at home
-2.44
-7.31
-5.65
23.02
23.42
22.90
110.11
108.37
107.95
31.0%
85.8%
31.9%
86.8%
31.1%
86.9%
Mean SES
Mean reading achievement T1
School type
Comprehensive track
Academic track
R2 at individual level
R2 at classroom level
bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p < .05)
54
Results: Effects at classroom level
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
-2.44
0.54
-5.65
-2.96
Model 6
Classroom Level
% immigration background
-6.45
% not speaking German at home
-7.31
Mean SES
37.60
Mean reading achievement T1
School type
Comprehensive track
Academic track
R2 at individual level
R2 at classroom level
23.02
23.42
22.90
16.07
110.11
108.37
107.95
83.22
31.0%
85.8%
31.9%
86.8%
31.1%
86.9%
31.1%
90.1%
bold = significant partial regression coefficients (p < .05)
55
Results: Effects at classroom level
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
-2.44
0.54
1.20
-5.65
-2.96
0.32
37.60
10.18
Classroom Level
% immigration background
-6.45
% not speaking German at home
-7.31
Mean SES
Mean reading achievement T1
0.65
School type
Comprehensive track
Academic track
R2 at individual level
R2 at classroom level
23.02
23.42
22.90
16.07
9.37
110.11
108.37
107.95
83.22
35.76
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)
56
Student composition and achievement:
Summary of findings
 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).
Language Use and
Proficiency
(Edele, Stanat, Radmann &
Segeritz, 2013)
Use of / proficiency in L1
Four patterns of language use /
proficiency
Language-related
separation
Bilingualism
„Semilingualism“ Language-related
assimilation
Use of / proficiency in L2
(Esser, 2006)
59
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
Patterns of language use: Controversies
Support of L1
Support of L2
Family
School
61
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.
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?
www.iqb.hu-berlin.de
[email protected]
Vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamk it!