台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫

1. 台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫 Taiwan Education Panel Survey (TEPS) Ping-Yin Kuan National Chengchi University 11/16/2004

2. Main Features • A national longitudinal survey project collecting data from students of junior high cohort and senior high cohort from 2001 to 2007. It also collects data from parents, teachers, and school administrators. • To gain a systematic understanding of the main factors affecting students’ learning. • To provide an important resource for both academic research and policy formulation.

3. Project Background • Lack of good data sets to inform educational reform policies. • Past educational researches tended to be cross-sectional, limited in sample sizes, based on adult population, limited in model specifications, gave inconsistent findings, and did not address basic but critical questions. • Needs international comparisons.

4. Funding Agencies • Ministry of Education • National Science Council • Academia Sinica

5. Principal Investigators: Ly-Yun Chang and Tony Tam (Academia Sinica) Co-investigators and research fellows are recruited from various academic institutions in Taiwan. Yes, there are UWM graduates in the team. Research Team

6. Theoretical Concern Learning Effects,Behavioral and Psychological Consequencesof Schooling Institutions Policy Concern Educational Opportunity School Quality Project Concerns

7. Theoretical Framework • Y = f (A, O, E) Ability (A) Opportunity (O) Effort (E) Effects Analytical Ability (Y1) Behavior (Y2) Health (Y3)

8. Research Possibility (1)

9. Research Possibility (2)

10. Senior High K10-K12 University K13-K16 Graduate K17+ 3-Year College K13-K15 Vocational K10-K12 Elementary K1-K6 Junior High K7-K9 2-Year College K13-K14 5- Year College K10-K14 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Educational System in Taiwan

11. Basic Research Design • Samples: -- Junior high sample (1st year students) -- Senior high/vocational high sample (2nd year students) -- Junior college (2nd year students) • Multiple perspectives (student, parent, and teacher) on selected student, parent, teacher, and school attributes. • Longitudinal study and inter-cohort comparisons with comparable sampling designs.

12. Project Timetable

13. Concerns - Causal Analysis - Multi-level Analysis - Attrition in Follow- ups Design - Stratified by urban/rural, public/private, and school types - Sample school programs first, then classes, and then students. In principle, 4 classes and 15 students in each class were sampled. - Oversample certain populations Sampling Design

14. Sample Size (2001/2003)

15. Data Collection • Ability tests: For students only. • Questionnaires: Completed by students, parents, teachers and school administrators.

16. Questionnaire Design

17. Ability Tests • Measurement of overall analytical ability or problem solving ability that would reflect a student’s learning achievement and growth. • Tests emphasize the ability to solve problems through analysis and deduction rather than through rote learning. • Test modules include general deductive reasoning, science, mathematics, and languages. • Test results are estimated ability scores based on Item Response Theory.

18. Some Preliminary Research Findings Two basic issues: • What is the role of the family in the making of educational inequality? • What is the relationship between academic achievement and adolescents’ mental health?

19. The First Issue:Empirical Questions (1): Effects of Parental SES? • How does parental socioeconomic status, measured in terms of income and education, matter for the cognitive achievement of students? (How does financial constraint compare to parental education?) • How do parental SES effects vary across grades? • How different are parental SES effects in Taiwan and the U.S.?

20. Measurement Strategies • Constraint: Different countries have different classifications to begin with.Compromise: To facilitate cross-national comparisons,adopt the same number of categorical income and parental education for Taiwan and the U.S. • Categorical measures of family background to allow for potentially nonlinear effects.

21. TEPS -- 2001 (Fall) 7th Graders (Junior High Cohort) 11th Graders (Senior High Cohort) -- 2003 (Spring) 12th Graders (Senior High Cohort, 1st Follow-Up) NELS:88 -- 1988 (Base year) 8th Graders -- 1990 (1st Follow-Up) 10th Graders -- 1992 (2nd Follow-Up) 12th Graders Data

22. CROSS-SECTION ANALYSIS:IRT Score

26. Figure 3C. Net Family Income Effects: K7, K11, & K12 in TEPS ％ R-sq K11 vs K7 = 0.95 K11 vs K12 = 0.97 K12 vs K7 = 0.89

27. Figure 3D. Net Parental Education Effects: K7, K11, & K12 in TEPS ％ R-sq K11 vs K7 = 0.92 K11 vs K12 = 0.998 K12 vs K7 = 0.91

31. Summary of Findings • What appears to be strong family income effect in Taiwan, despite the emphasis by recent critics of Taiwanese education, is largely spurious (of parental education). • Parental education effects are remarkably stable across high school grades. • The qualitative and quantitative results are surprisingly similar across two strikingly dissimilar societies.

32. The First Issue:Empirical Questions (2): Effects of Family Structure? • How do types of family structure affect the cognitive achievement of students? -- Strong evidence has emerged that single-parent and stepparent families have adverse effects on children’s educational achievement. -- Some studies in the U.S. also found that children of single-parent families with cohabitating grandparent(s) performed quite similarly to those of intact families.

33. The First Issue:Empirical Questions (2) • How about co-residing grandparent(s) in an intact family? Will they bring similar positive educational advantage to their grandchildren? -- In Taiwan, not only nuclear intact families are still the dominant family type, but the multigenerational intact families composed by two biological parents, unmarried children, and at least a grandparent still consist about 11% of households in Taiwan (2000 census).

34. Why Does Family Structure Matter to Children’s Achievement? • Economic resources: Non-intact families are often trapped in poverty or have greater economic burden. • Socialization resources: Non-intact families are less able or less likely to provide a good environment for children in terms of educational involvement and educational aspiration. • Network resources: Non-intact families have fewer network ties for obtaining information and other types of support related to children’s learning.

35. What might a grandparent bring to the family? The case in Taiwan • Economic resources? Even though the rate of cohabitating with older parents is declining, non-cohabiting adult children still feels obligated to support their parents financially. • Socialization resources? Co-residing grandparents may provide more psychological support for the grandchildren, convey parents’ expectation, give advice to the grandchildren, and constantly monitor the grandchildren’s activities at home.

36. What might a grandparent bring to the family? The case in Taiwan (cont’d) • Network resources? The presence of grandparents may give additional linkage to relatives, communities, and schools and, hence, contribute to grandchildren’s learning.

37. Data and Method • DATA: Two cohorts of TEPS– 7th Graders (N = 12,442) and 11th Graders (N = 12,320) • Measures --Dependent Variables: IRT Ability Score --Independent Variables: • 5 types of family structure – (1) Nuclear intact (reference) (65%; 67%) (2) Multigenerational intact (17%; 18% ) (3) Multigenerational single-parent (3 %; 2%) (4) Single-parent (8% ) (5) All other types of non-intact (15%; 13%)

38. Data and Method (cont’d) --Indep. Var.: • Indicators of 3 types of resources: Economic: Monthly family income Socialization: Attend school events; talk about school; talk about inner thoughts; checking homework; educational expectation Network: visit relatives; know other parents • Control variables: Sex, sib size; ethnicity; parents’ educational level

39. Data and Method (cont’d) • Method: OLS regression • Model 1: Types of family structure (gross effects) • Model 2: Model 1 + control variables • Model 3: Model 2 + monthly family income • Model 4: Model 3 + indicators of socialization resources • Model 5: Model 4 + indicators of network resources

40. R2 of 5 Regression Models for Two Cohorts

41. Effects of Types of Family Structure in 5 Regression Models

42. Summary of Findings • The impact of family structure is mediated by 3 types of resources. The mediating variables related to economic resources and parental involvement, however, have larger effects for the older cohorts than for the younger cohorts. • The addition of a grandparent is beneficial to children’s educational achievement. This positive contribution, however, depends on the type of family structure. • The effects of family structure types are all smaller for the older cohort.

43. The Second Issue:Empirical Questions • Would high academic achievement and expectation induce poorer mental health? -- Previous research found a weak positive relationship. • Does high family SES induce poorer mental health? -- High SES parents tend to have higher academic expectation and be more involved in the children’s education, which in turn make their children perform better academically. -- Previousstudies have found positive relationship between SES and mental health. But some studies also found high SES or high achieving students have more distress. This relationship may be due to the higher achievement pressure of the high family SES.

44. Empirical Questions (cont’d) • How do different parenting styles and parental involvement strategies affect adolescent’s mental health then? -- Authoritative parenting style (responsive but firm control) has been found to be positive to children’s academic achievement and adjustment in general. -- Psychological control, on the other hand, has been found to be related to adolescents’ poor psychological and behavioral outcomes. But no report is on its effect on academic achievement. -- Specific parental involvement strategies in education include all three parenting dimensions: support, behavioral control, and psychological control (such as high parental expectation).

46. Data and Method • Data: 11th graders (N = 11,515) • Measures -- Dependent Variable: 14 items selected from The Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R) that measured frequencies of depressive, anxious, aggressive, and psychosomatic symptoms and suicidal ideation. A factor score was derived from the 14 items by using the confirmatory factor analysis modeling.

47. Data and Method (cont’d) -- Independent Variables: 1. Academic achievement: IRT ability score. 2. Family SES: Parents’ educational level and monthly income. 2. Authoritative parenting: items related to parents’ acceptance, non-punitive behavior, and listening to inner thoughts. 3. Parental involvement in education: a. Involvement related to support/warmth and behavioral control including ‘helping with school work’, ‘checking school work’, and ‘supervision after school’. b. Involvement related to psychological control including ‘talks about future schooling plans’ and ‘talks focused on academics’.

48. Data and Method (cont’d) -- Control Variables: 1. Student’s sex 2. Stressful family events experienced: Parents’ divorce, separation, or death; parents very ill; parents with psychological illness; alcoholic parents; sudden economic fall of the family. • Method: OLS regression • Model 1: Control + Family SES • Model 2: Control + SES + IRT score + (IRT score)2 • Model 3: Control + Parenting behavior and educational involvement • Model 4: Full model