The Effect of Socioeconomic Level on Academic Achievement: Evidence from PISA

Abstract

This research aims to examine the predictive relationship between the economic, social and cultural level index (ESCS) and academic achievement in the context of PISA 2018 Turkey sample. Research used secondary data analysis, a quantitative research method. In this regard, advanced analyzes were carried out in line with the new and different research questions on the data set obtained for the Turkish sample within the scope of PISA 2018. The sample of the research consists of 186 schools representing 12 regions and 6890 students representing these schools, which were selected in two stages by random stratified sampling from students in the 15-age group and continuing formal education in 2018. The findings revealed that the ESCS index is an important predictor of students' reading, mathematics and science scores in terms of both public and private schools. According to the findings, ESCS index explains greater variance in terms of academic achievement within the sample of private schools. The research also showed that the ICT resources index has emerged as a more effective predictor of academic success compared to the other sub-variables of ESCS such as educational resources index, parent education level and parent professional level.

Keywords

• educational inequalities
• ESCS and academic achievement
• home resources
• PISA 2018

Sosyoekonomik Düzeyin Akademik Başarı Üzerindeki Etkisi: PISA’dan Kanıtlar

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı PISA 2018 Türkiye örneklemi bağlamında ekonomik, sosyal ve kültürel düzey indeksi (ESCS) ile akademik başarı arasındaki yordayıcılık ilişkisini incelemektir. Araştırma nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden ikincil veri analizi yöntemiyle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu doğrultuda PISA 2018 uygulaması kapsamında Türkiye örneklemine ilişkin elde edilmiş veri seti üzerinden yeni ve farklı araştırma soruları bağlamında ileri analizler yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın örneklemini Türkiye’de 2018 yılında 15 yaş grubu içerisinde yer alan ve örgün eğitime devam eden öğrencilerden seçkisiz tabakalı örnekleme yoluyla iki aşamalı olarak seçilen, 12 bölgeyi temsil eden 186 okul ve bu okulları temsil eden 6890 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgularda ESCS indeksinin hem devlet okul hem de özel okullar bağlamında öğrencilerin okuma, matematik ve fen puanlarının önemli yordayıcısı olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre ESCS indeksi özel okullar bağlamında akademik başarının daha etkili bir yordayıcısıdır. ESCS alt değişkenleri açısından bilişim kaynakları indeksinin üç puan türünde de akademik başarının anlamlı bir yordayıcısı olduğu görülmüştür. Bilişim kaynakları indeksinin diğer alt değişkenler olan eğitim kaynakları indeksi, ebeveyn eğitim düzeyi ve ebeveyn mesleki düzeyine kıyasla akademik başarının açılanmasında daha etkili bir yordayıcı olarak ortaya çıkması araştırmadan elde edilen önemli bulgular arasındadır.

Keywords

• eğitim eşitsizlikleri
• ESCS ve akademik başarı
• ev kaynakları
• PISA 2018

References

1. Agasisti, T., & Longobardi, S. (2017). Equality of educational opportunities, schools’ characteristics and resilient students: An empirical study of EU-15 countries using OECD-PISA 2009 data. Social Indicators Research, 134(3), 917-953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1464-5.
2. Agasisti, T., Avvisati, F., Borgonovi, F., & Longobardi, S. (2018). Academic resilience: What schools and countries do to help disadvantaged students succeed in PISA. OECD Education Working Papers 167, OECD Publishing. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/e22490ac-en
3. Akinsanya, O. O., Ajayi, K. O., & Salomi, M. O. (2011). Relative effects of parents’ occupation, qualification and academic motivation of wards on students’ achievement in senior secondary school mathematics in Ogun State. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 3(2), 242-252. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234636069.pdf
4. Akram, M., & Ghani, M. (2013). The relationship of socioeconomic status with language learning motivation. International Journal of English and Education, 2(2), 406-413. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1084.5445&rep=rep1&type=pdf
5. Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203487563 Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Julius-McElvany, N., & Peschar, J. (2003). Learners for life: Student approaches to learning: Results from PISA 2000. OECD Publishing
6. Aslanargun, E., Bozkurt, S., & Sarıoglu, S. (2016). The impacts of socioeconomic variables on the academic success of the students. Usak University Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(3), 201-234. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/usaksosbil/issue/24734/261548
7. Avvisati, F. (2020). The measure of socioeconomic status in PISA: A review and some suggested improvements. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 8, 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00086-x
8. Barone, C. (2006). Cultural capital, ambition and the explanation of inequalities in learning outcomes: A Comparative Analysis. Sociology, 40(6), 1039–1058. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038506069843

9. Bindak, R. (2018). Modeling students’ achievement in PISA research with logistic regression analysis. Journal of Econometrics and Statistic, 14(28), 57-74. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/539128
10. Bourdieu, P. (1974). The school as a conservative force: Scholastic and cultural inequalities. In J. Eggleston (Ed.), Contemporary research in the sociology of education (pp. 32-46). Methuen.
11. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood.
12. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Schooling in capitalist America revisited. Sociology of Education, 75(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090251
13. Buckingham, J. (2000). The truth about private schools in Australia. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Truth-about-Private-Schools-in-Australia-Buckingham/e039511019f6501348df285b3f27688df2c00a1a
14. Cabiness, C., Donovan, L., & Green, T. D. (2013). Integrating Wikis in the support and practice of historical analysis skills.” TechTrends, 57(6), 38-48. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11528-013-0700-y.pdf
15. Chiu, M. M. (2010). Inequality, family, school, and mathematics achievement: Country and student differences. Social Forces, 88(4), 1645-1676. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2010.0019
16. Chiu, M. M., & Chow, B. W. Y. (2010). Culture, motivation, and reading achievement: High school students in 41 countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 579-592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.03.007
17. Chiu, M. M., & Chow, B. W. Y. (2015). Classmate characteristics and student achievement in 33 countries: Classmates’ past achievement, family socioeconomic status, educational resources, and attitudes toward reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 152-169. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036897
18. Coleman, J. (1967). The concept of equality of educational opportunity. Harvard Educational Review, 38(1), 7-22. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED015157.pdf
19. Crosnoe, R., & Cooper, C. E. (2010). Economically disadvantaged children’s transitions into elementary school: Linking family processes, school contexts, and educational policy. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 258-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209351564
20. Daoud, R., Starkey, L., Eppel, E., Vo, T. D., & Sylvester, A. (2020). The educational value of internet use in the home for school children: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(4), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1783402
21. Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 294-304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.294
22. Devine, P. (2003). Secondary data analysis. In R. L. Miller & J. D. Brewer (Eds.), The A-Z of social research (pp. 285-288). Sage Publications.
23. Dronkers, J., & Robert, P. (2008). Differences in scholastic achievement of public, private government-dependent, and private independent schools. Educational Policy, 22(4), 541–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807307065
24. Early, E., Miller, S., Dunne, L., Thurston, A., & Filiz, M. (2020). The influence of socioeconomic background and gender on school attainment in the United Kingdom: A systematic review. Review of Education, 8(1), 120–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3175
25. Engzell, P., Frey, A., & Verhagen, M. D. (2021). Learning inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic. SocArxiv, Center for Open Science. https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/ve4z7.html
26. Erdem, C., & Kaya, M. (2021). Socioeconomic status and well-being as predictors of students’ academic achievement: evidence from a developing country. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 3, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2021.10
27. Erdogdu, F., & Erdogdu, E. (2015). The impact of access to ICT, student background and school/home environment on academic success of students in Turkey: An international comparative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 26-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.023
28. Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family involvement questionnaire: A multivariate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 367-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.367
29. Ferreira, F. H., & Gignoux, J. (2010). Inequality of opportunity for education: Turkey. Equity and Growth in a Globalizing World, 1-26.
30. Figlio, D. N., & Stone, J. A. (2012). (Eds.). 35th Anniversary retrospective. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
31. Furlong, J., & Davies, C. (2012). Young people, new technologies and learning at home: Taking context seriously. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.577944
32. Gursel, S., Uysal, G., & Acar, A. (2013). Türkiye’de her dört çocuktan biri yoksul. [One in every four children is poor in Turkey]. Bahcesehir University Economic and Social Research Center. https://betam.bahcesehir.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ArastirmaNotu147.pdf
33. Harwell, M., Maeda, Y., Bishop, K., & Xie, A. (2017). The surprisingly modest relationship between SES and educational achievement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1123668
34. Hellmann, T., Schmidt, P., & Heller, S. M. (2019). Social justice in the EU and OECD: Index report 2019. Bertelsmann Stiftung. https://www.politico.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Social-Justice-Index-2019.pdf
35. İş Güzel, C., Berberoglu, G., Demirtasli, N., Arikan, S., & Tuncer, C. O. (2009). Öğretim programlarının öğrenme çıktıları açısından değerlendirilmesi. Cito Eğitim Kuram ve Uygulama, 6, 10–30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321179367_Ogretim_Programlarinin_Ogrenme_Ciktilari_Acisindan_Degerlendirilmesi
36. Johnson, G. (2010). Internet use and child development: The techno-microsystem. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 10, 32-43. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/41084
37. Johnston, M. P. (2014). Secondary data analysis: A method of which the time has come. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3(3), 619-626. http://www.qqml-journal.net/index.php/qqml/article/view/169
38. Karaagac, Z. (2019). The effects of economic, social and cultural status on transition to high school. [Doctoral dissertation]. Yıldırım Beyazıt University. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
39. Kocabas, E. Ö. (2016). Parent involvement in Education: Studies in Turkey and in the world. Turkish Psychological Counselling and Guidance Journal, 3(26), 143-153. https://turkpdrdergisi.com/index.php/pdr/article/view/323
40. Kolikant, Y. B. D. (2009). Students’ perceptions of the appropriateness and usefulness of the internet for schoolwork and the value of school. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(4), 407-429. https://doi.org/10.2190%2FEC.41.4.b
41. Korlu, Ö. (2019). Bir bakışta Eğitim: 2019’a göre Türkiye’de eğitimin durumu. [Education at a Glance: State of Education in Turkey in 2019]. Education Reform Initiative. https://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Bir-Bakışta-Eğitim-2019’a-Göre-Türkiye’de-Eğitimin-Durumu.pdf
42. Kumar, D., & Choudhury, P. K. (2021). Do private schools really produce more learning than public schools in India? Accounting for student’s school absenteeism and the time spent on homework. International Journal of Educational Development, 83, 102395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102395
43. Kuru Cetin, S., & Taskin, P. (2016). Parent involvement in education in terms of their socioeconomic status. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 66, 105-122. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1149044.pdf
44. Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and white families. American Sociological Review, 67(5), 747-776. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3088916
45. Lei, J., & Zhou, J. (2012). Digital divide: How do home internet access and parental support affect student outcomes? Education Sciences, 2(1), 45-53. https://doi.org/10.3390/educ2010045
46. Lubienski, C. A., & Lubienski, S. T. (2013). The public school advantage. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226089072.001.0001
47. Maldonado, J., & De Witte, K. (In press). The effect of school closures on standardised student rest. British Educational Research, 48(1), 49-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3754
48. Miller, G. E., Yu, T., Chen, E., & Brody, G. H. (2015). Self-control forecasts better psychosocial outcomes but faster epigenetic aging in low-SES youth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), 10325–10330. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2015/07/08/1505063112.full.pdf.
49. MoNE (Ministry of National Education). (2019). PISA 2018 Türkiye ön raporu. [PISA 2018 Turkey Preliminary Report]. Analysis and Evaluation Reports Series in Education. http://www.meb.gov.tr/10-pisa-2018-turkiye-on-raporu/duyuru/19964
50. Mooney, A., Redmond, G., & Kaambwa, B. (2023). Does socioeconomic status impact the relationship between school absence and outcomes?. The Australian Educational Researcher, 50, 901-964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00535-2
51. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2017a). Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en
52. OECD. (2009), PISA data analysis manual: SPSS, second Edition, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264056275-en
53. OECD. (2017b). Context questionnaire development. In PISA 2015 Technical Report. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2015-technical-report/PISA2015_TechRep_Final.pdf
54. OECD. (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264073234-en
55. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
56. OECD. (2020). PISA 2018 national questionnaires. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-2018-national-questionnaires.htm
57. OECD.(2021). Statistics: Child well being: Adolescent (15 years-old) with a desk and a quite place to study at home. https://stats.oecd.org//Index.aspx?QueryId=81155#
58. Ozkan, U. B. (2020). Öğrencilerde eudaimonianın ve akademik başarının yordayıcısı olarak ekonomik, sosyal ve kültürel düzey. [Economic, social and cultural level as a predictor of eudaimonia and academic success in students]. Journal of Education for Life, 34(2), 344-359. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2020342208 Pagani, L., Argentin, G., Gui, M., & Stanca, L. (2016). The impact of digital skills on educational outcomes: Evidence from performance tests. Educational Studies, 42(2), 137-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1148588
59. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice (Revised Ed.). Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Roemer (1998) Equality of opportunity. Harvard University Press.
60. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
61. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics. (6th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
62. Tabak, H. (2020). Eğitime aile katılımı: Sosyo-ekonomik özellikler etkiliyor mu?. [Family Participation in Education: Do Socioeconomic Characteristics Affect?]. OMU Journal of Education Faculty, 39(1), 104-121. https://doi.org/10.7822omuefd.652220
63. TEDMEM (Turkish Education Association). (2021). Türkiye’nin telafi eğitimi yol haritası: TEDMEM Analiz Dizisi 9.” [Turkey’s remedial education roadmap: TEDMEM analysis series 9]. Turkish Education Association Publications. https://tedmem.org/yayin/turkiyenin-telafi-egitimi-yol-haritasi
64. Tramonte, L., & Willms, J. D. (2010). Cultural capital and its effects on education outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 29(2), 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.06.003
65. Trusty, J. (1999). Effects of eighth-grade parental involvement on late adolescents’ educational expectations. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 32(4), 224-233.
66. TUIK (Turkish Statistical Institute). (2019). Hanehalkı tüketim harcaması. [Household consumption expenditure]. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Household-Consumption-Expenditures-2019-33593. UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund). (2018). UNICEF Türkiye 2018 yıllık raporu. [UNICEF Turkey 2018 annual report]. https://www.unicef.org/turkey/media/7351/file/UNICEF%20TÜRKİYE%20YILLIK%20RAPORU%20-%202018.pdf
67. UNICEF. (2019). UNICEF Türkiye 2019 yıllık raporu. [UNICEF Turkey 2019 annual report]. https://www.unicef.org/turkey/media/10451/file/UNICEF%202019%20Yıllık%20Faaliyet%20Raporu.pdf
68. Ünsal, S., & Çetin, A. (2019). Özel okul ve devlet okulunda görev yapmış sınıf öğretmenlerinin öğretim programlarını uygulamada karşılaştıkları farklılıklar. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 27(4), 1541–1551. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.3131
69. Yang, Y. (2003). Dimensions of socioeconomic status and their relationship to mathematics and science achievement at individual and collective levels. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830308609
70. Yeung, J., Linver, R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002). How money matters for young children’s development: Parental investment and family process SES. Child Development, 73(6), 1861–1879. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00511
71. Yolsal, H. (2016). Öğrencilerin sosyo-ekonomik ve kültürel statülerinin PISA 2012 başarıları üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi. [Investigation of the effects of students’ socioeconomic and cultural status on PISA 2012 achievement]. Social Sciences Research Journal, 5(3), 7-27. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/300968