International Civic and Citizenship Studies Data for Secondary Analysis

International Civic and Citizenship Studies Data for Secondary Analysis


[David] Thank You Dory, and welcome everyone to
International Civic and Citizenship Education Studies Data for secondary
analysis. I’m so pleased to be joined today by two of my colleagues from IEA.
We have Ralph Carstens and Falk Brese who will be joining us from Hamburg Germany.
And I am really glad to have them with us today, we’ve worked together for
several months now to bring the data together at CivicLEADS Archive and to be able to share it with the world. It’s a really exciting partnership and one that I really value in my role, I am
the Data Project Manager for CivicLEADS at ICPSR. After Ralph and Falk have
talked for a little while I’ll tell you a little bit more about CivicLEADS, and
ICPSR, and how to access the ICCS data from us. But without further ado, I’d like
to pass the microphone over to Ralph and begin our webinar. Thank you. [Ralph] Thank you
David so much for the kind introduction. And just let me echo that this is a
great opportunity for us also to work with you. But Link, obviously, is somebody
who’s on our scientific advisory committee, who’s also on your scientific
advisory committee for the archive. Judy Torney-Purta, which I like to describe
often as the grand dame of civic education, and she was behind much of the early
development since the 1970s of this. So we see it as a great opportunity to
increase the visibility and the reach of this. I only have a few slides to
introduce you broadly into what ICCS is and then lead you to more detailed
information on the web. And then my colleague Falk will take over, and
describe a little bit more what’s in the database, and what could
potentially be done with it. The broad aims of ICCS, the fourth study on the
topic since 1971, are to investigate ways in which young people are prepared to assume the roles as citizens. So this was done in CIVID 1999, … I need to add a digit there, apologies … in ICCS 2009, and ICCS 2016. To monitor
trends, address persisting new challenges, for example 2016 was done on the back of
the Arab Spring, the global financial crisis, the rise of social media for
civic engagement. And we want to continue to reflect changes in context, local and
global, and I have a slide at the end on where we would like to take ICCS 2022.
This gives you an idea of the participation in ICCS 2009, all of those
countries are in our database released through the IEA but also now in CivicLEADS
Archive. You can see it’s a lot of entities from Europe, Russia, a little bit
in Asia, and also Latin America, 38 participants. In between, something that
we might [unintelligible] describe as austerity or shrinking, educational budgets, shrinking
research budgets has happened. So ICCS 2016 had 24 participants, which 23 are
nations, one is a sub-national entity, the state of North Rhine-Westphalia in
Germany, colored in blue on this map. And we hope to be back at the level of 2009
in the 2022 assessment and already a lot of the European countries are coming
back that were in the initial [servette?]. And some discussions are happening
actually this week about possible participation of the United States in
ICCS 2022. Just probably for this audience, probably
the needs for the interest in the data are can be quite varied. I just want to
highlight that this is the same for the countries that participate in the study,
and that might already give you some ideas about where to take analysis. So
Slovenia was transitioning from a socialist system but many
students lacked basic understanding. Sweden, in the European Commission report
recently, the question was asked whether they are knowledgeable but
[tame?]. And in Flanders they were following up and still for continue to follow up
on the lowest level of tolerance among the European countries as reported by
students. And our General Assembly representatives said “Never waste a good
crisis” in these large-scale assessments, it is something to talk about. This gives
you an idea about the instruments and the assessment samples, this is for 2016.
A 2009 obviously was very similar, we follow broadly the same design. The
numbers changed upwards but generally, you know, we have an international
cognitive test, a student questionnaire, a teacher questionnaire that is given to
all the teachers in the school not just those strictly limited to civic or
social study topics, a school questionnaire, a regional student
questionnaire for Europe and Latin America, it was an Asia and additional
module also in ICCS 2009, and there is information and data at level of
national contexts and systems. Our main findings, just to give you an idea you
know, considerable differences in the context, or how its organized in the
curriculum and we think it has a place in the curriculum, the data shows. But it
varies, for example, Latin America, a number of countries are not explicitly
addressing the topic of voting. We’re also in our data, we cannot make out a
gold standard, and saying you do it in a separate subject or in a dedicated in
the curriculum, we can’t see a clear relationship with outcomes or opinions
or attitudes. And in fact, some countries have hybrid models where by jurisdiction
they have dedicated subjects and sometimes separate. We see increased
levels of civic knowledge, Falk will have slides on this, so I’m not going
into detail now, it’s quite interesting. But again, we see more variation within
most of the countries than across all of them taken together. So there’s really
ample room for the improvement, maybe not so much in
countries in Scandinavia but why not? But more in other areas where civic
knowledge and attitudes are lacking according to those that interpret the
data. We see more support for equal opportunities by young people than in
2009. This is just one of the many constructs and issues and themes tackled
in the data. For example, the trust in institutions, there is a counterpart in
the European question about institutions also there. And then we see more
knowledgeable students less trusting in those countries. For example, where
institutions generally perceived best efficient or transparent. One of the very
clear findings, time and again in these studies, is that we have a link between
civic learning at school, open classroom climate seems to be a draw, I think
factor a civic student engagement and outcome variables emphasizing a bit the
argument that the quality in which civic education is taking place in school
seems to be more influential than the formal or distal ways in which it is
organized. And there are still support for the long-standing argument that more
democratic school environments promote citizenship dispositions and we can
clearly show from the data the relationships and the correlations
between knowledge, attitudes, and engagement and also the anticipation or
interest to participate actively as adults. 2016 has been finalized, the set
of reports for 2009 were quite similar. The reports are all published openly
either through the IEA or through Springer. There was a framework, an
international and European reports which came out in November last year pretty
much a year ago, a public use data and user guide, which is probably for the
audience today the most interesting part, a Latin American report which we
released in Lima earlier this year and the technical report that took a bit
longer but is now available if you want to read up on the details of the implementation. We are currently preparing a volume on
influenced scores of impact with about 20 country representatives and 10
international scholars on ICCS 2009 and 2016. And there are many contributions I
saw for CI years 2019 in April in San Francisco and the IEA’s research
conference in June of 2019 in Copenhagen Denmark. And these are all the reports we
produced for 2016, not in that sequence but if we align
them like this they make for a nice rainbow. Looking ahead at ICCS 2022, here
are five broad topics that we feel need to have a bit of an influence and a bit
of a reflection in the future of ICCS. One is around global citizenship
education and education for sustainable development, not new concepts for example
GCED, but they are mentioned and referenced in quite direct ways in the
sustainable development goal 4.7. And ICCS is actually earmarked indicator
for 4.7 for the proportion of students that have adequate knowledge of these
topics in all United Nations member countries. Digital citizenship about the
increasing importance of Internet and social media for information and
engagement. In 2016 we see that students mostly use it to collect and retrieve
information, less so for engagement say for a political cost, but that could
change. Migration and diversity, recent increases. I’m refusing to call it a
crisis, in particular in the European region and more recently, as you will see
from the news, from Latin America. Populism and alienation from democracy. There is a
long-standing view that there is a democratic recession happening and
success of populist movements. If you would like to read up on this, Yascha Mounk
is publishing in Political Slate, The Guardian, or the New York Times on the
topic. And on personal freedom and national security where the discussion is pretty much an either/or rather than both could be, sort
of you know, balanced in reasonable way. And what we would like to do in 2022 is
to find out how national educational systems are adjusting to these
influences, how they reflected in the local curricula, and how we recognize it
if it happens in schools and how can we ask questions about it. So thank you very
much for the your attention for this very brief introduction. You will find
more information on our microsite, iccs.iea.nl and then for any questions please
send them to [email protected] thank you. [Dory] Okay, we were hearing some slight
feedback for a moment. [Falk] Okay okay (feedback noise) So now I think we solved the feedback issue. [Dory] Yes. [Falk] And thanks Ralph for profiling (unintelligible). Thanks for introducing David. So my name is Falk Brese, also
working for the IEA and I would like to tell you a little bit about the
International Database and its potential use. So, brief overview, I will talk about
five types of data structure and documentation, just the technical part of
it. And then come to what you might be most interested in, an example results, areas
that are still there to explore, and then some comments you need to know when you
analyze the data, but also some solutions to that (unintelligible) and there are some
software options out there in the world already. Some words regarding the database. What you will get if you access the
database is data files that are country specific and you get a lot of
documentation to it. The most important part would be the IDB, which is
international database the abbreviation, user guide, codebooks,
program files and technical report. I’ll come to that in a minute with more details.
First of all regarding file types, as you see there are a couple of different file
types and these contain data from the different instruments we use to gather
data. So for example, if you’ve come files starting with ISG, you know that’s
data from the International Student Questionnaire. Then we have the file from data with Students Civic Knowledge Test Files, from Student Reliability Files,
that’s about scoring of the open-ended items, we had
some quality measure to assure that the scoring and takes place reliable.
We had a Regional Student questionnaire, two actually. One for the countries from
Europe, and their students were asked to … in addition to the International (unintelligible)
Tests and the International Student Questionnaire, provide some answers to
questions relating to Europe and also the European Union. And we had an
additional regional questionnaire for the Latin American countries, major focus
on that was actually on violence and so we had regional editions with
different foci. For the most we asked teachers and teachers of 8th grade students in that school to provide some information about civic education
and their personal background, and we also asked school principals to provide
data on the school context. Finally, we asked national research coordinators to
fill in what we call the National Context Questionnaire with information
about policies and also the context at the national level. So as an example, you
might find the file ISGCHLC3.sav. So first of all, the file extension
tells you the file type, so in this case it would be an SPSS data file and as you
will hear from David later on there will be more formats available. Then the
first three letters of that file name, ISG in this case, will tell you the
source of the data. In this case it will be International Student Questionnaire
data. The fourth to sixth letter in the file name will tell you what country the
data is from, and in this case, CHL stands for Chilean data.
And finally, C3 at the end of the file name is an indicator of the third
cycle of ICCS or a Civic Education Study we implemented at IEA, so that would tell
you that this data is from ICCS 2016. The records that are included in the
different files, so we included obviously all school questionnaires that were
returned by school principals and the same for teacher questionnaires. But
there was an additional criteria and we only included the data when the school
met the minimum within school teacher participation rate of 50%. For the
students there’s also a criteria that regarding minimum participation. And we
included data and the student files if, first of all, in the sample class at
least 50% of the students returned the questionnaire and if all sample classes
that have been sampled participated. And the class, in addition, was regarded as
participating if at least 50% of its students participate. A further note,
participating from the student level was counted for if either
the student answered the civic knowledge test or the questionnaire data. So only
returning the European or Latin American questionnaire was not sufficient for
counting as participation. Some words to the data structure, so you’ll find
different kinds of variables. One source is the server itself, of course. We
start with ID variables that indicate different students in
different classes, another ID variable, and then different schools. So for all of
these levels you will find a variable indicating the different entities. And
finally, you will get a variable, an ID variable for each country separating
the data from different countries. Then you have tracking variables which tells
you, for example, what part of the civic knowledge test students took and
other participation information. Then we have, of course, the variables from the
questionnaire and the variables from the Civic Knowledge Tests. Later on, while we
were processing the data, we edit a couple of variables where we simply
calculated indices out of variables or edit other derived variables. We also
added the Reliability Scoring Agreement Indicator and some metadata. Also
important what you need to add in order to come up with estimations for the
student population, we added some estimation and design weights and also we added variables that you would need to calculate and estimate the
variance. I will come to that again in a minute. And finally, from the Scaling
Stage, variables were added about scales that we came up in the questionnaire and
we also added the civic knowledge scores. The documentation you will be provided with
is, first of all, codebooks. These are Excel files with separate tabs for file type, and
you’ll get a description out of these regarding variable names, labels, and the
valid response codes and options in the questionnaire. There’s also some program
files available in SPSS and SAS where that you might need to score the
open-ended items. So for some questions in this student test, in the Civic
Knowledge Test students were asked to answer text and this has been coded into, for example,
correct or not correct. And in order to get these coding from the original
variables we would need those scoring syntax. And finally and maybe most
important, and all of what I’ll talk about currently, you will find in much
more detail in the so-called User Guide for the International Database. This
includes an introduction in the database, as I said, much more in detail about
data file structure and contents, an introduction also to the use of
weighting and variance estimation variables, an introduction to a software
piece IEA developed to easily analyze IEA data, which is called the IEA IDB Analyzer,
and also important, some appendices where you, for example, in Appendix A get a
view on the international versions of all questionnaires that we use in the
ICCS 2016, in this case. By the way, the same is available for ICCS 2009. In
Appendix B, you will find the National Adaptations of International
Questionnaires. For example, for the question about the education levels
parents receive throughout their life, this will be coded according to an
international classification scheme and that has been adapted to the country’s
context, and you will find the original question at every country asked in there.
Finally, or Appendix C provides you with information about additional
variables that we derived during data processing from the survey data, so these
are information about indices and scales. And finally, there’s an Appendix D
talking about items that have been removed from the original database
because of data protection issues. More to that you will find also in the User Guide.
So that was so far about the technical details. Now some Example Results. Let’s
talk a little bit about the results ICCS 2016 came up with. So there we found that
predictors of student civic knowledge in all countries or 21 countries that
participated were at the first place socioeconomic home background. So this,
the home background of students, predicts student civic knowledge. Again in all
countries there was a relation between open classroom climate for discussion
and especially for discussing political and social issues with students’ civic
knowledge. Also there in every country these two variables were associated. And
finally, in almost all countries, 19 out of 21, female students tend to have higher
levels of civic knowledge and civic engagement. What else did we find?
So students who expect to probably or definitely vote in local elections, these
amounts across all countries to 86%. The same percentage probably or
stated they will probably or definitely vote in national elections and comparing
that to voter turnout nowadays in elections, that is quite promising I
would say. And finally, also 81% of the students said they
probably or definitely would get information about candidates before going to vote in
an election. The final slide with some graphical representation of the results
is this one. It’s about students perception of the threats for the
world’s future. For example regarding pollution, 76% of the students said they
regard that as a threat to the whole world’s future. And as you see in Colombia it’s
90% and Lithuania 86%, so there’s some variation already across countries. Some
of the students were also asked if they see water shortages as a
threat, and 65% on average across all ICCS 2016 countries said so. And also
food shortage and climate change were seen by the majority of students as a
threat to the world’s future. So this is a very small selection of what you can
find out with ICCS data already and since we have two cycles of ICCS, so the
first ones are surveyed in 2009 second one 2016, we can also look at changes
between the two points and time. And this table is developed the Civic Knowledge
and the difference between the Civic Knowledge that was in (inaudible) 2016 and the
one in 2009. And you can see here most of the countries indicated by the black
bars to the right, most of the countries’ civic knowledge increased in
that time period. The white bars indicate that the change in whatever direction is
not significant on a 95% confidence level. So you could also for those
variables that remain the same throughout the two assessments, and there
are a lot of them, look at changes over time. What areas are there to explore? I would like to draw attention to one of … one of the publications of the related
researchers, so Ryan Knowles, and as you see also Judith Torney-Purta, Ralph mentioned
her already, and Carolyn Barber. Those were involved
and they checked on the research that was done on ICCS 2009 data and also
CIVID 1999 data. And they came up with four themes for civic
educators that are frequently addressed and then are of interest for
educators. First one is Open Classroom Climate. So in all the research they
looked in, in all the papers there was a positive association with higher levels
of civic knowledge with open classroom climate, and also with the expected
political behavior, and also supportive attitudes regarding gender, ethnic, and
immigrant rights. So open classroom climate seems to be an important factor
regarding those behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes. Also they found that
conceptual teaching had students acquire concept and skills more effectively than
rote methods of instruction. The third theme that they found researchers are
addressing and they’re of importance regarding outcome of civic education is
also student identity: gender, I believe we sketched that, and that overall across
all countries in most countries, at least participating ICCS 2016,
female students were a little bit more knowledgeable regarding civic knowledge
than their male peers. Another big topic is race and ethnicity, and also
immigration status. And finally, a couple of researchers that’s more recently
came up with profiles of citizenship norms and attitudes. So they found out,
for example, groups of students, one of them they called
social justice supporters, mainly in favor of equal rights and also equal rights
for ethnic groups, and tolerance towards minorities than conventional citizens,
indifferent … group of indifferent students or even disaffected, or even alienated. So
also this kind of research shows that there’s a lot of potential and also new
ways to look at civic education and its outcomes. Do we have a little bit an
overview of what’s all in this ICCS data. So there is a framework which includes
first of all the civic and citizenship framework, talking about civic knowledge,
attitudes, and engagement. And also the contextual framework which puts
everything into context. For example, within the wider community the school
and the classroom, home and peer context, and student characteristics. This is
taken from the ICCS framework. So the aspects I just mentioned are also put
into (unintelligible) regarding antecedents and processes and the outcomes will be then
be covered and affected-behavior learning outcomes. All of these areas you see
here, they have been implemented in the survey so you can have data on that. Data
that’s available, for example, on the student level you don’t need to read
through all of them. Just to highlight, it’s about citizenship self-efficacy,
as an example, endorsement of equal rights, expected electoral participation or participation at school, and a lot of
others. So all these scales actually, they are representative on this
slide, are available in the data. We have also data from school principals
regarding, for example, parents’ participation at school, or social
tension in the local community. And finally, data available from 8th grade
teachers about, for example, the perception of classroom climate, personal
development activities, and whatnot. So these last slides shall only show you
that there’s a lot data to be still explored. So now some information about
How to Analyze the data. Coming back to that table with changes over time in
civic knowledge since 2009, let’s look at the first row which represents data from
Sweden. So you see here the average scale score for ICCS 2016 was 579 and 2009 was
537, so a difference of 42 scale points. So as it is said here, a significant
increase from 2009. What do we need to know in order to come this conclusion? First of
all you need to take into account the study design and that’s a little bit
special and that’s a specialty of all this international large-scale
assessments. There’s a specific measurement design and a specific
sampling design you need to take care of. A little bit more to it in a minute.
You need to know that ICCS was to include report on population levels. So we want
to have some information about 8th grade students within a country or
education system but not on student level, so this is not a student
assessment. So we will have estimates for the population, in this case of 8th
graders. And they are estimations, these all come with an error. And where
does it come from? So first of all for the measurement
design, for the civic knowledge test we wanted to include as many items as
possible to have a broad range of aspects of civic education and also
levels of difficulties represented. How that was implemented is that not every
student get every item, but the booklets the students get included only a set of
items. And you see here the distribution. So each C stands for a cluster and there
were eight clusters that were distributed among different places in each booklet.
So for example, Booklet 1 students answered cluster 1, 2, and 4. And
Booklet 2, it was just 2, 3, and 5 and so on, so on. So that each
cluster appeared every possible location in the booklet, but not every
student needed to answer every booklet. Still we could come up with an overall
civic knowledge scale for all of the students using IRT technology. So the
more in order to account for that uncertainty because not every student
answered all items, we used Plausible Value techniques. This is elaborated much more in the documentation, especially in the
Technical Report of ICCS, and we used five Plausible Values. That means that whatever
analysis you do, you need to do that five times with each of the Plausible Values, and then
average the results. But don’t worry, I come to the nice solution for that in a
minute. And again this is not a test for students but we are interested in the
population on country level. We also need to take into account the sampling design.
We used what is called a Probabilistic, stratified, multistage sample. Not so
important as you are analyzing the data, that is, that you know what that is, but you
need to know what to take care of. So we first sampled schools and then
sampled classes or teachers. So for example, we have a couple of schools: blue
ones representing a certification like private schools, and the yellow or orange
ones are public schools. And then we sampled a couple of these schools and out
of the schools where there, in this example, are four classes in sample one and out
of the 8th grade teachers we sampled at least 15, and we did the same for
many schools. That leads us to if we want to do … if you want to estimate population
statistics we, first of all, need to use weights and then use a certain
technique called Jackknife repeated replication. Basically that means that
you need to run all of your analysis 150 times, in the case of ICCS, and then average
the results. If you do all of that, you see here, you can come up with the difference,
and with its standard error. And if you estimated all of it then you can say,
okay there was a significant change (several words unintelligible) time. Some may be
a little bit complicated, but there’s, first of all, good documentation
provided in the Technical Report and also User Guide. And furthermore, there’s
software available that helps you little bit. I already mentioned IEA IDB
Analyzer, which is the software where you simply can enter the variables
you want to have in your analysis and the IDB Analyzer takes care of
all the rest. ACER Replication I talked about, and also the Plausible Value technique.
And there’s other software that does all that. One is from colleagues
from the Australian Council for Education Research. They have also replicates
module you can use with SPSS. There are several R packages and there’s Mplus.
So there’s a couple of software that helps with all that and so don’t be
worried and you can do it. And it’s actually, if you are … if you
get familiar, which is quite easy, with all of the software packages, it’s easy
to analyze the data. But you need to take care of the [caveats?]. Well that’s
so far from my site. And I think I now hand over to you David. [David] Thank you so much Falk. I hope that everyone so far is seeing
why ICCS data are such a wonderful, wonderful dataset to use. Especially
for researchers who are interested in comparing civic education across
countries, across cultures, across time. It’s such a wonderful, rich study
with such great data and that’s why we’re ecstatic to have these data
available at CivicLEADS, at ICPSR. And hopefully now you’ll be seeing my
screen and I will show you a little bit more of what CivicLEADS is all about. As
I said before, my name is David Bleckley and I’m the Project Manager for CivicLEADS. Okay. So first I’d like talk a little bit about ICPSR. ICPSR is the Inter-university Consortium for
Political and Social Research. We were established over 55 years ago
and we are part of the Institute for Social Research here at the University
of Michigan. We are a consortium of over 780 academic institutions around the
world. And we are hopeful that many of you are members of our consortium
because we make an archive of over a quarter million data files from over
10,000 studies available to our members. However, Civic Learning, Engagement, and
Action Data Sharing (CivicLEADS) is a special project within ICPSR which is
available to the general public. So it is not available only to our member
organizations and their stakeholders but also to the general public and anyone
doing research around the world. And we’re very proud to be able to make
those data available to whoever is interested. We are a centralized repository for all of the multidisciplinary research that happens
around civic education and youth civic engagement. We know that data come from
all variety of disciplines from education scholars, from political
scientists, from sociologists, and many more, and we wanted to make sure that we
could find a centralized way to share that. Because as people look at those
datasets with their disciplinary lenses and look at datasets that were
collected from one discipline and examine them in different ways, there’s
really a lot of opportunities for secondary analysis. And so our main
objective is to disseminate great datasets for researchers to look at with
that secondary analytical lens. We’re also trying to create a learning
community. That’s why we provide webinars, and we have a mailing list, and try to do
a lot of outreach around civic education and engagement research.
This is our fifth and final year of our current grant from the Spencer
Foundation. We are so grateful that the Spencer Foundation had the foresight to
create this kind of an archive because they sponsor so much research in
this area and they want to make sure that there’s additional research
that can be done through these great datasets and we’re very proud to be
the archive to share those datasets with the research community. We have a
comprehensive website which was launched in 2016, so just a couple of years ago,
And currently we have 15 studies which we have curated and released through
CivicLEADS including the two ICCS datasets we’ve been talking about
today. Plus we also have some additional datasets which have been archived by
other ICPSR projects. So to jump right in, if you were to go to civicleads.org
this is about what you would see. And as you see the main focus is data, we
wanted that to be front and center with a large search bar. And so it’s a keyword
search, driven search and so you could put in any kind of keywords that interest you. It could be political development, or
civic education, or volunteering, or any number of civic related topics and
you’ll pull up some results. Also across our menu bar you can learn a
little bit more about our work, and you could search by variables or by
publications, as well as sharing your own data through our deposit system. And we
also have a news list where our blog posts are posted on a regular basis.
Looking at the Search Results page, what I’ve shown here is just a blank search.
So if you just were to push the search button
without having any keywords you get a full, the full collection from CivicLEADS.
So you can see we have 35 studies, 15 of those, as I mentioned before, were
curated by our archive. And you can filter by a number of filter facets
along the left side of the screen. And you can see our studies there in the
main body of the search results. And the two ICCS studies are our most recent
releases and that’s why they’re there at the top. You’ll also see that there are
other tabs for your search results including publications, variables, and
series. I’d like to show you a little bit more about those. So if a variable
search looks like this, and in this case I search just for the word civics, and we
have over 5,000 variables in our database that have the word civics in
them somewhere in the question text or in the variable name, variable label,
or elsewhere in the variable level metadata. And this tool allows you
to click any of those check boxes, which are there on the left, and then
compare them so that you could see variables across different studies or
different variables within the same study. How are they different, what kinds
of questions are they asking, and what is … what types of frequencies are the
results of those questions? The Publications search tool is another
another search function that we have. And all of our datasets, all of our studies
have linked publications to them so that you can go back and forth, you can find a
publication that interests you and then find out which data were used to
do the research for that publication. And you can also go from a study and find
out what are all of the publications there that used that dataset. So
it’s a really great way to start to explore and think about the possibility
for future research from any of our studies. I wanted also to show
you the, a study homepage. So in this case I’m showing you the ICCS 2009 study
homepage and on this you can see we have study level metadata. If this were an
active website instead of just a screenshot you could scroll down, quite a
ways down, we have a lot of methodological metadata as well as, you
know just, high-level overview of what you can expect to find in this dataset.
We also have tabs here that show the data and documentation which you can
download, the variables. Again, this is study specific variable search, as well
as the study specific publications for for this study. And then on the right, you
can see that 556 people have already downloaded this and
there are 20 related publications. So if I were to click on
the Data and Documentation tab, I would get this and because there are so many
countries involved and there are so many different types of questionnaires used,
the data set list is quite long. If you’re on the live website, it will take
you some time and I apologize for that, but I think you’ll be happy with the
result because there are hundreds of datasets here and each one of those is
associated with rich documentation about the data. We make the data
available in a number of formats. You can download the data in R, SAS, Stata, SPSS.
You can download them as an Excel file or also as a flat ASCII text file and
then import it into any type of analytic software that you’re interested
in. When you do go to download data, you’ll be prompted to login to ICPSR and
if you don’t have an ICPSR account it’s completely free. You just
need to enter your email and create a password, and add a few pieces of
information about yourself and what institution you work for, or what kind of
work you do. You can link them to your Google+, LinkedIn, Facebook, or
ORCID ID, or you can just create a standalone account. So I’d really like to
get into some questions, we only have a few minutes left here but try to make
the most of it. If you have any questions for me, please again check out civicleads.org
or you can reach us at [email protected] but please go to the
control panel and start entering your questions. We’d we’d like to open this up
and get as many questions as possible in the next six minutes or so. So if you
have questions for Falk about the data themselves, or if you have questions for
me about CivicLEADS or how to access the data, please feel free to enter those
into the questions box and we’ll give it a couple of minutes because sometimes
there’s a little bit of a delay in the system. So again, I’m just really thrilled
that Falk and Ralph were able to join us. These data are so important. I
think that these are going to really provide a lot of areas for
researchers to learn more about civic education and civic engagement around
the world and we’re just so excited to have the data as part of CivicLEADS archive. Okay, I’m not having any questions yet. Ah great! Here comes, here’s a question. “Can
someone talk more about the United States being involved in this in the
future as it was mentioned at the beginning of the webinar?” I can give a
little bit of background and then I’ll pass it over to Falk who may know
some more. So the United States was involved in the
1999 CIVED data study. And those data are also available either
from IEA’s website or from CivicLEADS, we have those archived with us as well.
But the United States did not choose to be involved with the 2009 our 2016 data
and so Falk, I don’t know if you have any information about the the next version,
the 2022, or do you have any insights into that? [Falk] Currently, I don’t know
what’s happening there. I mean, of course, we are talking about that. And but yeah,
it’s still a little bit ahead of schedule. So no, I don’t have any
indication yet. [David] Okay, great. And I know that there are a lot of researchers who
have been really advocating for U.S. involvement because this is such an
important international study and, you know, it is really a shame for us to not
be involved. Okay we have another question. “I’d like to understand more
about India’s participation. Do you have, do you know anything about India’s
involvement?” Falk? [Falk] No, sorry. Again, no I don’t think
that currently we have a positive indication, at least. So yeah, as India
IEA studies is not so much representative and we might want for them. But no, and currently we … [David] Okay. [Falk] I don’t have any information on that. [David] Okay, we are
getting several studies asking about specific country participation
or even regions participation, including like Africa or non-
Spanish speaking, Caribbean countries. Could you, maybe, tell us a little bit
about how are … what kind of outreach is done to seek out involvement and
participation? What is that, what does that look like? How does a country get
invited or how did they become involved? [Falk] So the general [route?] you can participate in NIA studies, so first of all IEA is a membership organization, so once a year we have, what we call, general assembly and there we decide upon implementing a study. And there also for member
countries know about that and then can sign up or negotiate, or talk about
participation. We further have in our Amsterdam office mainly, colleagues there are concerned with contacting countries and, you know,
asking for interest in participating in those studies and also
around in the world on conferences and other policy events to talk about maybe
new studies coming up and then trying to get some interest.
Yeah but finally and it’s, of course, up to the countries to participate. And
the example we just had, India for example, not yet a member of IEA. And
also we know that in the African subcontinent or continent where not
as often represented as in other parts of the world and we’re trying to address that also
with other studies. For example, for the [TIMSS?] and the [unintelligible] about
mathematics science and also reading guest books. We try to address the
country’s needs there but it’s always and yeah up to negotiation. [David] Okay, thank
you for that. So I think, you know, if there’s a specific country or a specific
region in which anybody is interested or which anyone is interested in and sort
of encouraging them to be a part of it, I think maybe, being in touch with that
country’s Department or Department of Education or other equivalent and
maybe encouraging them to seek out IEA membership that might be a good first
step. There are a few other questions but I’m aware that we were at the end of
our time limit. So please if you have any questions, please feel free to send me an
email personally my name is David Bleckley and you can reach me at
[email protected] Again, thank you all for joining us today and thank you again
to Falk and Ralph for being, joining us from Hamburg today. We’re really grateful
for your partnership and we wish you all a good evening or a good day. Thank you.

You May Also Like

About the Author: Oren Garnes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *