1 / 10

Study Motivation

Study Motivation. Immigrant paradox very well-established: (i.e., Fuligni & Yoshikawa, 2004; Glick & White, 2003; Kao, 1999; Pong & Hao , 2007; Portes & Rumbaut , 2001; Rosenbaum & Rochford , 2008; Suárez -Orozco & Suárez -Orozco, 1995)

aletta
Download Presentation

Study Motivation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Study Motivation • Immigrant paradox very well-established: (i.e., Fuligni & Yoshikawa, 2004; Glick & White, 2003; Kao, 1999; Pong & Hao, 2007; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Rosenbaum & Rochford, 2008; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 1995) • Focus on adolescence, given larger achievement gap • Yet, some ‘puzzle pieces’ that might contribute to the immigrant paradox have not been examined… • Is the immigrant paradox simply a measurement problem? • How ‘real’ are identified differences across generations? • Does generational status moderate the mediated relations among key inputs to achievement?

  2. CFA Note: model tested for 1st vs. 2nd vs. 3rd gens. separately; Gender is statistically controlled

  3. Data Source • NYCASES: New York City Social and Academic Engagement Study (PI: S. Sirin) • NYCASES surveyed 517 high school students (55.7% female, n = 288; M age = 15.7, S.D. = 1.05) • This study examined 10th graders • Diverse in terms of race/ethnicity: • (European American = 3.1%, n = 16; Black = 19.6%, n = 98; Asian = 16%, n = 80; Latino = 43.3%, n = 217; and Multiracial = 18%, n = 90). • Nearly evenly split by generational status: • 1st generation = 33.1%, n = 169 • 2nd generation = 34.4%, n = 176 • 3rd generation = 29.7%, n = 152 • This split ideal for this study of gen differences! • Achievement measure: transcript-based 1-100 cumulative measure of composite academic achievement, constructed for NYCASES

  4. RQ#1 : ‘Apples to apples’ or ‘apples to oranges’? RQ#1: Unknown if measurement differences explain IP? • Good model fit, loadings & reliability estimates for each measure (Beh SE: Compliance, Beh SE: Effort, Supportive School Relations) • Measurement invariance (‘apples to apples’) established across generations • Therefore, measurement error does not explain the immigrant paradox • Key inputs to achievement are invariant (not biased) across generations & can be measured the same way w/ same meaning • Establishes ‘apples to apples’ comparisons for RQs 2 & 3, as know the measures function equally across groups

  5. RQ#2: Latent mean comparisons RQ#2 : Do 1st vs. 2nd vs. 3rd gen youth have different levels of ‘academic inputs?’ A to RQ2: Yes! Latent means are more precise, particularly after establishing MI

  6. RQ#3: Do the mediated processes to achievement differ by gen? RQ#3: Does gen status moderate mediated relations among inputs to achievement? • Preview of figure in next slide • Generally, students who perceived more school support more likely to exert effort and comply with school rules -> better achievement. • Supportive school relations played a larger role in fostering effort for 1st generation & compliance for 2nd and 3rd generation • Effort engenders achievement more than compliance (for all groups) • SSR differential “downstream’ (mediated) impacts on achievement across generations, in way that reinforces immigrant paradox

  7. * Denotes statistical significance Mediated Relations by Gen. SSR -> Effort -> Achievement (1st β = .24*; 2nd β = .16*; 3rd β = .13*) SSR -> Compliance -> Achievement (3rd β = .08*)

  8. Differential Impacts of Key Inputs • General support for importance of school support for achievement • Key finding: SSR fosters effort for 1st gen vs. compliance for 2nd & 3rd gen • SSR elicits differential responses (across generations) that differentially shape achievement • The same amount of SSR provides more ‘bang for buck’ [in terms of achievement] for 1st gen. than for 2nd and 3rd gen youth • ‘Key inputs’ to achievement more powerful for 1st gen -> contributes to IP • SSR not a ‘silver bullet’ across generations • Policies/practices targeting SSR may yield less achievement gains for 2nd & 3rd gen youth • Unresolved question: If SSR not the critical input, how can we foster effort & achievement among 2nd & 3rd gen youth?

  9. Limitations & Future Directions • Did not control for SES (yet earlier evidence suggests IP is not solely SES) • National as well as racial/ethnic differences not controlled, important given impact of pre- & post-migratory conditions & racial/ethnic differences in the IP (Crosnoe & López-Turley, 2011; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2008) • Cross-sectional analyses of NYCASES data

More Related