related to mathematics and science achievement, s*e Lockheed et al. (1985). .... contributed little to student achievement Rain over time. Presumably,. - 12 - ...
WQRK ll Education andEmployment Population andHumanResources Department TheWorldBank July 1988 WPS27
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
Public Disclosure Authorized
Policy, Planning, andRemath
FamilyBackground and StudentAchievement Marlaine E. Lockheed, Bruce Fuller, and Ronald Nyirongo
Prior research has underestimatedthe influenceof family backgroundon studentachievementin developingcountries.
The Poi;cy. Plannin& and Research Cmpex distributesPPR Woding Papers to di_ninate the finding of wockin pogn and to encourge the cxchange of ideas among Bank staff and all others intested in developent issucs. Thee papas carry thenames of the authors, eflect only their views. and should be used and cited accordingly.The findings. intsprutioUs. and canchisiom are the cuthors own. They should not be attributedto the World Bank, ita BoardofDirectg. its managancnt, orany of itsmanbercaiunmis.
t
Policy,PlannIng,and Re_arch
Eduoatlonand Employmnt|
Past research in developing countries has shown that school-related influences have a greater effect on student achievement than does family background, a finding that contrasts sharply with research in industrialized countries. This has led to the conclusion that schools in developing countries are more effective than schools in industrialized countries. But the earlier work suffers from conceptual flaws. It has defined family background in material terms and failed to consider other motivational factors. Earlier research has also used measurements (such as level of parental education and occupational status) more appropriate to the industrialized world than to the class structure of the country being studied. Two studies of student motivational behavior in Thailand and Malawi address these shortcomings. In the Thailand study, conventional measures of family background (parental education and occupation) were kept constant. Student achievement in both urban and rural settings was related to such motivational variables as educational expectations, attitudes and effort. The Malawi study employed definitions of family background more relevant to a developing country: labor demands placed on children, basic attributes of houses, and mother tongue.
These variables were more consistently related to pupil achievement than were the conventional indicators, parental education and occupation. If, as these two studies indicate, family background is as important to students in developing countries as in industrial ones, two types of action are suggested. First, education programs could be designed to take into account family background characteristics of students. They might include early intervention programs, such as preschool or a change in school schedules to better meet patterns of child labor. Second, education systems could work to improve student motivation and parental support directly by promotg the importance of education. In sum: Researchers should be more careful in their modeling of family and school characteristics in the developing world. Failure to recognize the family's early and apparently lasting influence is a failure to accommodate education programs to indigenous realities. This paper is a product of the Population and Human Resources Department, Education and Employment Division. Copies are available free from the World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433. Please contact Rosemarie Rinaldi, room S-6027, extension 33278.
The PPRWorkingPaperSeriesdisseminatesthe findingsof workunderway in the Bank'sPolicy,Plaming,and Research Complex.An objectiveof the seriesis to get thesefindingsou. quickly,evenif presentationsare less thanfullypolished. The findings,interpretations,and conclusionsin these papersdo not necessarilyrepresentofficialpolicyof the Bank. Copyrignt0 1988by the InternationalBankfor Reconstructionand Development/he WorldBank
Table of Contents
Family Background and Student Achievement
3
A Broader Conception of Pupil Background
5
Study 1:
Thailand
8
Study 2:
Malawi
17
Conclusions
21
family
Effects
on Stndent
Achievement
In Thailand
and Malawi
INTRODUCTION Past research from Third World countries shows that school-related factors have stronger effects on student achievementthan do family background factors. This finding contrasts sharplywith evidence from industrializedcountries,where family background characteristics explain substantiallylarger proportiorsof variation in educational. This has led to the optimisticinferencethat Third World schools &re more effective than schools in industrializedcountries,both in raising achievementand in providing routes for social mobility. However, prior work suffers from conceptualand methodological flaws. Two important conceptualshortcomingsare: (a) limiting the concept of family backgroundto material aspect of class, and failing to consider other aspects of family background,such as motivational variables, that influencestudent performance,and (b) using measures of family background (such as parental educationalattainmentand occupationalstatus) useful in for industrializedsettings rather than indicatorsof class that are more culturallyvalid for the country in which the study is conducted. Methodologically,prior research suffers from: (a) being limited to cross-sectionaldata that are incapableof distinguishinginitial level of achievementfrom achievementgain over time and that tend to confound the effects of school and family characteristics,and (b) seldom analyzing school and family effects separatelyfor different regions within countries; specifically,past researchhas rarely includednon-urban samples. We suggest that once these conceptualand methodologicalshortcomingsare addressed,the influenceof pupil backgroundmay b¢ greater in
-1 -
developingcountriesthan the modest effects suggested by earlier findings. This paper presents the results of two studies of family backgroundoffacts on student achievementthat, taken together, address the shortcomingsof past research. We argue, first, that attentionahould be given to a greater variety of student background variables that may affect achievementby mediating, supplemkntingor substitutingfor conventionalbackgroundvariables.In particular,we are interestedin perceptionsheld by childrenthat may motivate higher school performance. The first study, an analysisof longitudinaldata from Thailand, explores the effects of several such motivationalvariables in explaininghow family background influences student achievementover time. Second, we raise the question of whether the influence zfistadent background on achievementcan be adequatelytested in the Third World by relying on conventionalmeasures of class, borrowed from industrializedsocieties. Culturallyspecific indicatorsmay show distinctlygreater influence over student achievementthan such imported indicatorsas parents' occupationalstatus and formal educationalattainment. The second study, an analysisof crossectionaldata from Malawi, examineshow estimates of student backgroundeffects on learning can be improvedby utilizingmaterial indicatorsof class that are more relevantto local conditions. The paper is organized as follows. In this section,we review the literatureon family effects on student achievementin developing countries. In the second section,we present Study 1 on Thailand, and in the third section we present Study 2 on Malawi. In the final section,we discuss our findings in relationto educationalpolicy. - 2-
FIdly
background
Education
and student
achiev_nt
advocates in Third World governmentsand international
agencieshave been buoyed in recent years by evidence that the offect of school characteristicson student achievement,when comparedwith the effect of student family background,appears to be greater in Third World countries than within industrializedcountries. For example in their widely cited reanalysisof InternationalEducation Association (IEA) and other data from 29 countries,Heyneman and Loxley (1983) report that--takenaltogether--characteristics of schooLs in developingcountries explain a greater share of the variance in student achievementthan is explsined by student background characteristics. In addition, a significantnegative correlation
was found between the percentageof variance explained by
school characteristicsand the nation's
level of wealth. As a case in
point, they note that 27 percent of the variance in achievementamong children in India was attributableto school factorswhile only 3 percent -as explained by variation in backgroundcharacteristics. In contrast, achievementlevels within industrializedcountrieswere explained mostly by student background. Similarly,a recent review of approximately60 empirical studies of determinantsof achievement in developingcountries found that school characteristicswere related to student achievementin the vast majority of studies, after holding constant student social class background (Fuller,1986). Yet there is strong evidence that student family background contributes
significantly
to both educationalattainmentand
achievement in developingcountries. Family backgroundaffects the probabilitythat children enroll in, attend, and completevarious levels of education. For example, analyzinghistoricaldata from the -3-
philippines,Smith and Choung (1986) fou,ndthat parental occupational and educationallevel shaped children'sschool attainment,with the some level of magnitude,since the early 20th century. Similarly, using household income as a rough proxy for student social class, Chernichovskyand Meesook (1985) found significanteducational attainmenteffects in Indonosia. In Nepal, Jamison and Lockheed (1987) found that parental and grandparentalsocial class (landholding,ca-te, schooling)stronglydeterminedchild school participation. Adult literacywas *lso measured, and found to be strongly associatedwith years of schooling,a finding recently repeated in Brazil (Psacharopoulosand Arriagada, 1987). This study underscores tho importanceof separatingschool attainment (enrollment and persistence)from level of academic achievementwhile in school as two distinct outcomes. Students' family background also affects lkarningwhile in school. For example, Schiefelbeinand Simmons (1981) found that social class significantlyhelped predict achievementin 28 of 37 Third World studies reviewed. Moreover, family backgroundmay be quite salient for familiar subjects, such as reading, and less so for subjects relatively less familiarto many Third World communities,such as science. On this point, Schiefelbeinand Simmons noted that student family characteristicsaccounted for a higher proportion of variance in reading achievement than in science achievementin multivariate stu .iesfrom India, Peru, and Malaysia. And Heyneman and Loxley's findings,while widely celebrated,applied only to achievement in science. Third, family backgroundappears more strongly to deternine student achievementwithin urban schools,whereas school factors have -4 -
greater influence on the achievementof rural and va-y poor children (Brazil,Wolff
1970; Iran, Ryan 19731 Indonosia,Haron 1977). This
pattern may result from less
variation in social class within rural
azdas or to the fact that Western measures of class are even less valid in rural areas (comparedto Third World urban areas). In sum, family backgro
appears to be more influentialin
developing countrieswhen (&, the formal school is highly institutionalized,(b) class structuresare more defined, and (c) in subjects that are familiar or linked to parentO' own knowledge. In contrast, when the school is foreign to the setting and teaches unfamiliar areas of knowledge (such as, a rural school providing science instruction),school characteristicsappear to be more efficaciousthan family background.
A Broader Conceptionof Pupil Background Studies of family backgroundeffects on student achievementin Third World settingswould be improvedby the inclusion of two types of variables: (a) a broader range of family background indicators,and (b) more culturallyvalid indicatorsof social and material background. Broader range of indicators. Most fundamentally,the construct of "pupil background" should be broadened to include other aspects of parents and the child that may operate independentlyof material aspects of class. We focus on two sets of factors in this regard. First, the value placed on staying in school and achievingwell has been found to vary among parents within several societies,including the United States, Japan (Hess and Holloway 1984), Mexico (hollowayet al. 1986), and Taiwan (Stevensonet al. 1985). Parents'own reports -5-
of value placed on schoolingand the frequencywith which they communicatethis priority is *s*ociat*dwith
higher
achievement in
reading and mathematics independentof parents' occupationaland educationalown schooling (at least among young children in Japan and the U.S.; Hess et al. 1980).
This communication
of value may take the
form of expectationsfor higher levels of school attainment,greater support (both material and non-material)for learning,or communicationregarding the relevanceof education for adult occupationalattainment. Yet these factors have received slight attention from researchersworking within developingcountries. A notable exception is Jamison and Lockheed's (1987) researchon determinantsof child schooling in Nepal, which examined a number of such variables, includingp_..atalattitudinalmodernity and demand for child education;both were found to have strong and posit..ve effects on child school participation. In a parallel study undertaken in Thailand, Cochrsne and Jamison (1982) found that parental aspiration for educa,-ion was the most importantpredictor of male educationalattainment,while parental landholding (an indicator of wealth) was the most importantpredictor of female educational attainment. Another example is provided by a study of urban Grade 10 students from Sri Lanka, (Niles, 1981) which found that family social class (parentaleducation and occupation)and parental interest in the child's progress and parental aspirationswere strongly associated with student achievement,and taken togetherwith material possessions in the home (non-significant) and school factors (only modestly significant)accounted for 49% of the variance in student achievement. Second, pupils vary in the effort they expend on school work and the extent to which they feel efficaciousin performingwell. This is
-6-
an old idea in the school effects literature. Coleman et al
(1966),
for instance, found that studentswho perceived that their achievement was due to their own efforts,end not to their teachers or school, achieved at higher levels (controllingfor their class background). More recently, Brookov-r *t al. (1979) found that pupils achieved at higher
levels
when they felt that their effort on school work was
recognized and rewardedby their teachers (again, independentof pupils' social class).
Natriello (1987) also found that whera
students' work was more frequentlyand carefully evaluated, achievementlevels were higher. For a recent review of factors related to mathematics and science achievement,s*e Lockheed et al. (1985). Relevant social class
indicators. Most studies of family
background characteristicsin developingcountries have employed two indicators occupational
of social class: parental educationalattainmentand status. As H-yneman has noted,
in Third World settings
there may be little variation in terms of education or occupation; educational levels of adults are uniformly low, and occupationsare preponderantlyrelated to rural agricilture (at least in the lowest income countries). Yet social class differencesare quite pronounced, and have been found to strongly effect child school participationand performance. For example, in the Jamison and Lockheed study, which employed indicatorsof parents' social class that were relevantto the Nepalese setting -- amount of land owned by the father, his level of literacy,
caste
membership,
and district of residence,capturing
inter-regionaldifferencesin wealth -- child school participationwas strongly determinedby these social class elements.
- 7-
In sum, the true influence of pupil
backgroundon achievementcan
be better estirated if we take into account:(a) those family backgroundcharacteristics--
garentalvalues and press to achievement
and the child's own effort and perceived efficacy -- that appear to operate independentlyof conventionalaspects of class (for
the few
countries in which theme factors have been studiedi, and (b) better indicatorsof material and *octal aspects of class. STUDY 1: THAILAND Our first analysis examines family effects on Grade 8 mother achievementgain in Thailand,
s
and focuses on a broader range of
background indicators,specificallymotivationalvariables.
Method Sample. Data were drawn from the Second InterntionalMathematics Study, conductedunder the auspicesof the InternationalAssociation for the Evaluationof EducationalAchievement. The IEA SIMS sample comprised 99 mathemathicsteachers and their 4030 eighth-grade students and was derived from a two-stage,stratifiedrandom sample of classrooms. The primary samplingunits were the twelve national educationalregions of Thailand plus Bangkok.Within each region, a random sample of lower-secondaryschools was selected,with replacements. At the second stage, a random sample of one class per school was selected from a list of all eighth grade mathematics classes within the school. The
esultingsample representeda 12
sample of eighth grade mathematicsclassroomswithin each region. At both the beginning and end of the school year, studentswere administereda mathematics test covering five curriculumcontent areas -8-
(agrithmetic, algebra, geometry, statisticsand measurement). ftudents also completed a short backgroundquestionnaireat the pretest and a longer ort at the poattest administration.
In the following
sections, a descriptionof each of the variables analyzed in this paper is provided; definitionsof variables and summary statisticsare presented in Table 1. Mathematicn achievementmeasures. The IE developed five mathematics testi for
is in SIMS, one forty-iteminstrument (the core
test) and four thirty-five item instruments(rotatedforms A through D). The five test instrtmentscontained roughly equal proportionsof items from each of five mathematics curriculumcontent areas. In Thailand, studentswere pretestedusing the core test and or. rotated form. At posttest, students again took the core test and one rotated form, but were prevented from repeatingthe rotated form taken at pretest. In this analysis,we created formula scores from the four rotated forms, after they were equated (throughthe core form) to adjust for differencesin test length and difficultysscores were adjusted for guessing. A complete descriptionof the equating and score developmentprocedure is provided in Lockheed, Vail and Fuller (1987). Family backzround indicators.Basic informationabout each student includedhis or her sex, age, number of older siblings,paternal and maternal education,paternal and maternal occupationalstatus, and home language. Parental occupationwas classifiedinto four internationalcategories: (a) unskilledor semi-skilledworker, (b) skilled worker, (c) clerical or sales worker, and (d) professionalor managerialworker. Because paternal and maternal occupationalstatus were highly correlated (r - .39) we analyzedthe effects of paternal
-9-
occupationalstatus only in this paper. Highest parental education was also classified into four categories: (a) vary little or no schooling, (b) primary school, (c) secondary school, and (d) college, university or some form of tertiary education. Because paternal and maternal educationalattainmentwere also highly correlated(r - .58), we aaalyzedthe *affectsof maternal educationalattainmentonly. District level per capita income was derived from World Bank estimates. Student educationalexpectationswere measured by a single item that asked about the number or year more of full-timeeducation the student expectedto complete. Parentalencouragementwas measured by a four-item index composed of Likert-typestatementsa-king studentsto describe their parent's intarest in and encourageme
for mathematicsachievement,for example
"My parents encourageme to learn as much mAthematicsas possible"; response alternativesranged from "Exactlylike" the student's parent (- 1) to "Not at all like" the student's parent (- 5). The four items comprised a single factor,with principal component factor loadings ranging from .72 to .83 and communalityof 2.43. A low score representedgreater perceivedparental support. Student attitudes. Three indices of student attitudeswere analyzed: (a) perceivedmathematics ability, (b) perceived usefulness of mathematics,and (c) motivation toward mathematicsachievement.All were developed from a factor analysisof the student attitude survey, which containedLikert-type items having responsealternativesranging from "Stronglydisagree (- 1)" to "Stronglyagree ( 5)." Factors were initially identifiedthrough varimax factor analyses, and then confirmed through principal component analyses,from which factor scores were constructed.Perceivedmathematicsability (or mathematics
-
10
-
self-efficacy)was formed from five items (e.g.:
"I am not so good at
mathamatics")having principal component factor loadings ranging from .63 to .79 and communalityof 2.55; a low value represtnteda positive attitude, due to the reversewording of the items. Perceived usefulnessof mathematicswas formed from eight items (e.g.: "Mathematicsis important to get a good job") having principal component factor loadings ranging from .37 to .61 and communalityof 2.26. Motivationwas measured by three items (e.g.: "I want to do well in mathematics")having principalcomponent factor loadings ranging from .71 to .81 and communalityof 1.77. Stu.denteffort was measured by the number of hours the student reported spending on homework during the previousweek.
Results This section is divided into four sections. First, we report the effects of family backgroundon pretest mathematics achievement,using a conventionalcross-sectionalapproach,and on achievementgain, taking advantage of the longitudinaldesign of the study. Second, we examine family backgroundeffects on the mediating variables of student educationalexpectations,perceivedparental encouragement, attitudes and effort; this analysis is conducted first without statisticallycontrolling for student pretest achievementand then second with such statisticalcontrols. Third, we report the effects of family background and mediatingvariables on achievement gain. Finally,we report differencesfor rural and urban schools. Family back2round effects on student achievement.Cross-sectional analysesof family background effects on student achievement typically find statisticallysignificant,albeit modest, effects. Our
cross-sectionalanalysesof determinantsof mathematicsachievementin Thailand are consistentwith previous findings. We found statisticallysignificanteffects on both pretest and posttest scores for paternal occupation,maternal educationand district-levelper capita income and less strong but statisticallysignificanteffects for use of languageof instructionat home and for its interaction with district-levelincome (Table 2, columns 1 and 2). Students having fatherswith more professionaloccupationsand mothers with higher levels of educationhad higher levels of eighth grade mathematics achievement. Students in wealthier districts and those in familiesusing the languageof instructionat home also scored higher on both tests. The interactionbetween districtwealth and use of language of instructionat home was statistically significant,with the negativesign on the coefficientindicatingthat these two variables substitutefor one another. The total variance in achievementexplainedby family backgroundvariables,however, was modest, with 7Z explained at both pretest and posttest. Our longitudinalanalysis,moreover, showed little effect of family backgroundeffects on posttest,once pretest achievementwas statisticallycontrolled. Of the family background factors examined, only district-levelper capita income exerted further influence on student achievementgain (Table 2, column 3). In the next section,we examine why this apparent lack of effect is misleading. Family backiroundeffects on parental support, student attitudes and effort. In the previous section we noted that conventional measures of family social class background,although correlatedwith initial and final levels of eighth grade mathematics achievement, contributedlittle to student achievementRain over time. Presumably, -
12 -
this was because by the eighth grade, family characteristicshad completed their influenceover achievement. However, families continue to influence student achievementby providingmaterial and non-materialsupport for learning activities,by raising children's educationalexpectations,and by reinforcingstudent motivation and effort. In this section,we examine the extent to which such importantmotivationvariables are affectedby family background. Family background effects on six motivation variables are reported in Table 3. Overall, little variance in parental support, student attitudes or effort was explainedby conventionalsocial class backgroundvariables (varianceexplained ranged from 0 to 62). However, several effects were statisticallysignificant,and are reported here. First, we found significantgender-related. effects. Boys reported lower educationalaspirations,less parental encouragement,lower valuing of mat!hematics and less motivation in mathematics than did girls. However, they reportedhigher perceived mathematics ability than did girls, although in actuality,there were no sex differences in achievement. Second, conventionalsocial class measures were significantlyrelated to the mediating variables. Higher paternal occupationalstatus and maternal educational attainment levels were positivelyrelated to higher levels of student educationalaspirations,perceived parental encouragement,and. motivation. In addition,paternal occupationalstatus was positively related to student perceptionsof mathematicsas useful, and maternal educationwas positively related to greater student effort. Finally, district per-capita income was positivelyrelated to educational aspirations.
-
13 -
Effects of backaroundfactors on motivationvariables,with initial achievementheld constant. After the effect of initial mathemtics achievementwas statisticallycontrolled,family backgroundvariables continuedto affect five of the six student attitudes and perceptions;they had no effect on student effort (Table 5).
With protest achievementheld constant,boys still reported
higher level of perceived ability than girls, and lower levels of perceived parental encouragement,educationalexpectations,motivation and p-rce-ved utility. With initial achievementheld constant, paternal occupationand maternal educationwere still significantly related to student *ducationalexpectations,perceived parental support and motivation. Surprisingly,the higher the district-level per-capita income, the less students reportedmathematics as being relevant to their future employment. Effects of motivationvariables on student l1arnint zain. As we noted previously,the main impact of family social status and student background characteristicwas through initial performancelevell once established,background characteristicshad little additionaleffect on achievement gain (Table 2, column 3). By comparison,student educational expectations,student attitudes and student effort were positively related to learningzain (Table 4). Controlling for the effects of pretest achievemontand family characteristics,five of the six motivationvariables--theexception was perceived parental support--werepositivelyand significantly related to posttest student achievement. The fact that perceived parental support is unrelatedto achievementgain is surprising. It may be the students are unaware of parental support or that parents
- 14 -
may not have specific opinions about mathematics (as comparedwith reading, for example). These findingshave importantimplicationsfor understanding achievement among students in developingcountries,where many students come from rural low-income
families
lacking material supports
for learning. Most research
has attended to differencesin material
support
between low-incomee and higher income children. The argument is made that greater material support is available to students from wealthier, better educsted familiesand less
to students from poorer, less
educated families. This difference in material wealth has been claimed to explain the clear differencesin achievementbetween the two groups. The evidence of this study, however, suggests that there may be a different explanation.Students from wealthier and more educated families,who are largely urban residents,may perceive that stchoolingis more importantfor thu5r futures than do students from rural settings. Schooling is more compatiblewith urban students' goals, and therefore parental support and student attitudeshave more positive effects for them. To explore this question further,we analyzed the effects of family backgroundon student achievementgain, separately for urban and rural students. Urban rural differences. To test the hypothesisthat parental support and student attitudeswould have strongereffects for urban students than for rural students,we separatesd the sample into two groups, those from urban districts and those from rural districts.All analyseswere reconducted,but only selected ones are reported in Tables 6 and 7.
-
15
-
Family backgroundaccounted for relativelylittle protest achievementvariance in either type of school (62 for students in urban schools and 7X for students in rural schools). The effects of maternal education,paternal occupation,sex and district per-capita income were statisticallysignificant,although not consistent for the two groups (Table 6, columns 1 and 2). For both urban and rural children,maternal educationwas stronglyassociated
with pretest
achievement. For urban childrenonly, paternal occupationalstatus was associatedwith pretest achievement,while for rural children only, district-1.el per capita income was positivelyassociatedwith pret it achievement. The failure to find significantsex differencesin achievement for the total sample may be explained by the rural-urbandifferences. In urban schools, girls outperformedboys by 1.2 points, but in rural schools,boys outperformedgirls by 1.0 points. Since the urban and rural samples were approximatelyequal in size, these effects would cancel each other out. Holding constant stadent backgroundcharacteristics,we found that student educationalexpectations,attitudes,motivation and effort were positively related to student achievementgain in both urban and rural settings; also, in both settings, perceived parental encouragementwas unrelated to learninggain (Table 7). In both urban and rural settings, family backgroundcharacteristicsthat were significantlyrelated to initial levels of achievementwere unrelated to gain, except insofar as they operated through other variables.
- 16 -
STUDY 2: MALAWI Our second analysis examines social class effects on achievement among a modest sample of 105 primary school students in the east African nation of Malawi. Here we focus on material facets of class that
are relevant to a particularThird World setting,moving beyond
Western indicators.
Method Samle.
Fourth- and seventh-gradestudents from 11 urban and 10
rural primary schools (most Malawi primary schools include 8 grades) were randomly selected and interviewed,as part of a project evaluationconducted by World Bank staff. Interviewswere conducted in the local tribal language, although governmentstaff doing the interviewsdid not necessarilycome from the local tribe. Schools selectedwere spread across the country's three administrative regions. Given resource constraints,selected schools tended to be close to paved roads, which biased the sample, and under-represented children of remote subsistencefarmers. Nevertheless,variation in class backgroundwas great, as detailedbelow. Achievementmeasures. Studentswere tested in both mathematics and in Chichewa, the state-sanctionednational language. Each exam consisted of ten items, developedby a group of primary schools teachers and reflectingthe curriculumthey covered in their own classes. Items from the pool developedby the teacherswere field tested and a final set of items, with a reasonablerange of difficulty were selected for inclusion in the final instrument. The Chichewa exam includedprima-ily vocabularyitems. The mathematics exam included seven one-step computationalproblemsand three, more - 17 -
difficult,word problms.
Since students from grades 4 and 7 were
included, raw test scores were convertedto standardizedscores, and grade-levelwas included as a control
variable in the regression
models. Setting-specificindicatorsof social class. In the Malawi study, we focused on material aspects and measures of class that are more relevantto Third World settings, moving beyond the global constructs historicallyused within industrializednations. For instance,we asked pLpils about seven differentwork tasks they might engage in after school. Four dealt with farm-relatedactivities (feeding livestock,carrying fodder or water). Other tasks wore more general, taking care of siblings or preparingmeals, for instance. We also asked pupils and their headmastersabout housing conditions, particularlywhether families lived in thatched-roofhuts or in Western structures.Students were asked whether their houses had electricityand whether their parents owned a radio. Students also identifiedtheir mother tongue. We were especiallyinterested in whether their parents spoke Chichewa, the dominant tribal language,or one of the more than 35 other tribal languagesspoken in Malawi. In addition to these situation-specific measures of class, conventional indicatorswere also used: parents' occupationand schooling levels. Analysis. Our analysisexamined the influenceof these indigenous measures of class on math and languageachievement.OLS estimateswere run for all students,then separately for students in rural and urban schools. Regressionmodels for all studentsincluded a control on whether he or she attended an urban or a rural school. In some instances,attendanceat an urban school was neaativelyrelated to achievement. Thus, while urban childrengenerally come from families - 18 -
of higher social class, the over-crowdedand under-staffednature of urban primary school may offset the (urban)advantagesof family background. A full
analysfi of this issue is beyond the
scope of the
present paper. But this effect did necessitateat least controlling on the type of school attended.
Results Table 8 reports
on definitionsand mean levels of all variables
included in the analysis. The sample includedan over-representation of families in skilled,modern-sectorjobs. Nationwide,only 32 percent of all
adults are engaged in non-farm occupationsnationwide,
and this includes householdheads that have small plots but commute" to the city to work as street vendors or in semi-skilledwage jobs. Yet a disproportionatenumber of sampled students reportedthat their fathers were employed in skilled occupations,a mean of 2.7 on the occupationalscale that ranged from white-collarprofessional (-4) to estimated that 42.7 percent of subsistencefarmer (-1). Headmasters all families came from farming householdsand that 56.2 percent lived in thatched-roofhouses. The strength of this sample is that variation is substantial.A representativesample would have yielded a distributionheavily skewed toward subsistencefarmers, constraining the normality of distributions. Nevertheless,caution is warranted in generalizingbroadly from our results. Note the mean scores on the mathematics and Chichewa exams (our dependent measures). For Chichewa, the mean was 5.5 with a standard deviation of 2.3; for mathematics,the mean was 3.8 with a standard deviation of 2.1. Below you will see that our findings are
-
19
-
more robust in explainingvariation in Chichews achievement. This may be due, in part, to the better distributionof , it
scores.
Table 9 reports alternativespecificationsfor estimatingpupil achiovementfrom our various indicatorsof social class. The first column reports a regressionof the total test score on *11 measures of class. Pupils coming from houses
with electricitydid better on the
achievment exams. The interactionof having more work tasks after school and living in a thatched-roofstructure negatively influenced achievement. Curiously,th poercentof families coming from farming backgrounds (as estimatedby the headmaster)was positively related to achievement. The direction of this effect is difficult to explain. It may indicatethat parents who own their land, compared to farmhands on estates or unskilled urban workers, provide strongerencouragement of school achievement. This variable might also be a stronger for attendanceat a rural school, which are typically display
and
smaller
a lover student:te*cherratio than urban schools. In sum, the
full model explains 21 percent moderate
proxy
derees
of the variance
in achievementwith
of freedom. Statisticallyinsignificant(p).10)
exogenous variableswere then allowed to step out of the model, to test for stability in the coefficientsheld by the significant predictors. As expected the r-squaresdropped following this procedure. Similar separately.
models were run for
The region's influence
scores
For Chichewa, family backgroundexplained a larger share
of the variance. The strong
the Chichewa and mathematics
The full model explained 27 percent of the variance.
negative wealth on Chicheva
effect
from urban-schoolattendance arises
and housing
here.
with electricityexerted a positive The interactionof after-school
achievement. -
20 -
work tasks and residing in a thatched-roofhut again was negatively related to achievement.Models estimatingmathematics achievementwere less efficacious in explainingvariation. Table 10 reports reducedmodels, splitting the sample between students attendingurban and rural schools. In general, social class factorsmore stronglyexplain achievement in rural schools. This is especially true with regard to performanceon the Chichewa exam. Rural pupils
whose mother tongue was Chichewa, not surprisingly,did
better on the languagetest. Rural pupils from homes with electricity and radios also performed at higher levels. R-squares reached 35 percent in explainingvariation in rural pupils' performance,although th, degrees of freedom are quite low for the split sample. In sum, indicatorsof class more relevantto the Third World setting --
labor demands placed on children,basic attributesof
houses, and mother-tongue-- were more consistentlyrelated to pupil achievement than were global, Western proxies. This study does not inform us as to how these largely-materialfacets of class operate on the child to lower school achievement. However, the consistent measures of class suggest that effects of situationally-relevant researchersworking in Third World settings have inadequately specified family backgroundfactors in the past. Studies that employ only constructsof class from Western industrializedsettingsmay retsultin underestimatingthe actual achievementeffects of class.
CONCLUSIONS This paper has examined the effects of two types of social class background factors on enhancing the academicachievementof children: (a) motivationalcharacteristicsof familiesthat add to, mediate or - 21 -
substitutefor material backgroundcharacter±sties,and (b) more valid and culturallyrelevant indicatorsof social class and mAterial family backgroundcharacteristicsof children. The Thailand study provide strong evidencethat motivational variables influenceachievement. Holding constantconventional indicatorsof student backgtound (gender,parental education and occupation)we found that student educationalexpectations,attitudes, motivation and effort were positively related to student achievemsnt gain in both urban and rural settings. In both urban and rural settings, conventionalfamily backgroundcharacteristicsthat were significantlyrelated to initial levels of achievementwere unrelated to gain, except insofar as they operated through the motivational variables. The Malawi study
demonstrates
that
indicators
of family
more relevant to the Third World setting, such as labor on children,
basic
background
demands placed
attributesof houses, and mother-tongue,
were more
consistentlyrelated to pupil achievementthan were conventional indicatorsof parental eduzationand occupation. If family background is as salient in developingcountries as it is in industrializedcountries,what implicationsdoes this have for educationalpolicy makers or developmentadvocates in planning aducationprograms in the Third World? These two studies suggest at least two important avenues for action. First, education programs could be designed that specificallytake into account the family backgroundcharacteristicsof students. This might involve early interventionprograms, such as preschools; in-school interventionprograms, such as changing school hours and calendarsto better meet local patternsof child labor; or - 22 -
alternativeschool programs, such as distance education.Second, education systems could undertake to improve student motivation and parental aupport directly, through local informationalmeetings and other mechanism to promote awareness of the importanceand benefits of education. In general, these types of interventionshave been tried, with various degree of success,
in developingcountries,particularly
with respect to the education of girls (Lycette, 1986). The specifics of appropriate
interventionswill undoubtedlybe t_ermined by local
conditions,but a clearer understandingof how familiesaffect achievement in Third World settingswill better inform appropriate educationaldecisions. Finally, researchersshould more carefullymodel the influenceof family and school characteristicsof achievementin the Third World. Misspecificationof family backgroundantecedentswill lead to over-estimatesof the school's real effect, especiallywhen levels of class and school quality are colinear. Optimism about the school's potential influence in the Third World need not be dampened. But if we fail to recognize the family's early and apparentlylasting influence,we will unknowinglyfail to accommodateeducational programs to indigenousfamily and class realities.
- 23 -
1291-2 Thluiland. Owatiamlow oniaMrtiam.mmmandiStandard 1: VariableNamms. Tabim
Samie Variable
Totalb
Oescriptiona
Iban Posttestmth score YROT XROT Pretest mth scare XSEX Sex(lufemale;2Ie) Age(In amnths) XAGE YFOCCI Father'soccupatlonalstatus (11low;4hil0g) YMEDUC Mother's educatlonalattalrunt (1.10w;4h10Ih) HCALC Calculatorat hore(lbyes) SPCI81 01st,Iet Per CapitalnOr (In bhats) YHLANG Lse langme of Instructlon at hame(1 yes) YMOREEDEducatloai elaectatlos (1-low) YPARENCParentalmncouragnt (1uhlgi) YPERCEVPerceivedmathability (1uhi0g) of math(1ulo) YFUTUR Percolvedfuture importance YDESIRE Motivatlonto suceed In math(1low)
11.89 4.46 8.58 3.77 1.53 .24 171.13 4.48 2.39 .45 .38 1.95 .22 .23 13495.082547.38 .24 .52 .46 3.71 .4 2.14 4.06 .43 2.08 .42 5.60 .35
Notes: (a) For a completedescriptl')nof variables, coult
S.D.
text.
(b) MlninAsample size for total sampleis 3747. size for rual saipleIs 1893. (c) MIninAsample Is 2054. sizefor urbansample (d) MinInusample
-
24 -
RuralC Mean
S.O.
4.32 0.52 3.57 7.38 .25 1.54 4.31 172.15 .40 2.25 .33 1.80 .21 .20 9208.07 1247.U .47 .25 .50 3.59 .47 2.11 4.08 .42 2.08 .43 .37 5.53
Urband
Mean
S.D.
13.09 4.50 3.85 9.71 .24 1.52 170.20 4.53 .48 2.52 .41 2.09 .38 .23 17363.0 1839.15 .56 .24 3.82 .42 2.16 .46 4.04 .44 2.05 .42 .34 5.61
Table 2: The effect of student background characteristicson Grade 8 protest and posttestmathematics achievement Thailand, 1981-82 Independent variables
Protest
Poattest
Poattest
Posttest
Pretest score
--
--
.82*** (59.04)
80*** (54.05) .32 (1.45) .14 (.61) .00 (.89) .03 (.24) .26 (1.70) .25 (1.00) 12** (3.55) 1.08 (1.67) -.09* (2.01)
Sex (2 - boy)
-.17 (.68) Age .26 (1.01) Age squared .00 (1.38) Father's occupation .69*** (4.82) Mothers education .89*** (5.30) Calculator at home .46 (1.63) Districtper capita ircome (1000 bh) .28*** (7.11) Lang. of inst. at home 1.57* (2.18) Dist. PCI x Lang of inst. -.13* (2.48)
.18 (.62) .36 (1.14) -.00 (1.59) .59*** (3.41) *97*** (4.79) .62 (1.84) *35*** (7.36) 2.33** (2.70) -.00** (3.10)
Constant
-12.57
-14.87
4.71
4.05
.07
.07
.48
.49
Adjusted R-squared N
3642
3627
3801
3625
***p < .001, **p < .01, * p < .05. Note: Unstandardizedregressioncoefficients;t-statisticsin parentheses.
- 25
-
on Table 3t The effect of studentbackgroundcharacteristic* perceivedparentalsupport,perceivedability,attitudes studentexpectations, and effort in Thailand,1981-82 Independent variables Sex (2 - boy) Age Age squared Father's occupation Mothers education Calculator at home District PCI (1000 bh) Lang. of inst. at home Dist. PCI x Lang of inst. Constant
YMOREED
.27*** -.14*** (4.35) (8.54) -.02 -.00 (.66) (.08) .00 -.00 (.84) (.34) .12*** -.06** (6.66) (3.30) .12*** -.07** (5.91) (3.30) .00 .05 (.10) (1.31) .01* .01 (1.44) (2.07) .00 -.16 (.01) (1.77) .00 .00 (.01) (1.95)
YFUTURE
-.10** (3.19) .03 (.88) -.00 (.8_) .00 (.24) -.03 (1.50) -.02 (.48) -.00 (1.94) -.21* (2.39) .00* (2.50)
-.09** (2.99) .02 (.55) -.00 (.66) .04* (2.39) .02 (1.14) .03 (.84) -.00 (1.26) -.07 (.85) .00 (.42)
YDESIRE
YMWHKL
-.21*** (8.78) .03 (1.36) -.00 (1.51) .05** (3.28) .06*** (3.68) .01 (.21) .01 (1.37) .03 (.39) -.00 (1.46)
.04 (.31) .00 (.03) -.00 (.15) -.09 (1.20) .23* (2.54) .13 (.85) .02 (.85) -.52 (1.35) .00 (.83)
3.72
3.24
1.83
.89
2.99
4.61
.06
.04
.00
.01
.04
.00
Adjusted R-squared N
YPERCEV
PARENC
3628
3597
3599
3582
3617
***p < .001, ** p < .01, * p
