4.0 Article

Socioeconomic Status as a Multidimensional Predictor of Student Achievement in 77 Societies

期刊

FRONTIERS IN EDUCATION
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2021.731634

关键词

student achievement; achievement gap; socioeconomic status; human development; composite measure

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [2014-2008, 2014-2468]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that in typical societies, having books at home and parents' highest occupational status are two key factors influencing student achievement. Additionally, there are significant differences in the relationship between achievement and wealth possessions across different societies, with the most underdeveloped societies showing a strongly positive connection between achievement and wealth possessions.
We reassess the relation between students' socioeconomic status (SES) and their achievement by treating SES as multidimensional instead of unidimensional. We use data from almost 600,000 students in 77 countries participating in the 2018 PISA assessment of student achievement in math, science, and reading. The composite measure of SES that PISA uses can be broken down into six component variables that we here use as simultaneous predictors of achievement. This analysis yields several new insights. First, in the typical society, two predictors (books at home and parents' highest occupational status) clearly outperform the rest. Second, a new composite measure based only on these two components often reveals substantially larger achievement gaps than those reported by PISA. Third, the analysis revealed remarkable differences between societies in the relation between achievement and wealth possessions. In most societies, the independent effect of wealth possessions on student achievement was zero or even slightly negative-but in the least developed societies it was strongly positive. These findings have implications for how SES achievement gaps should be measured and interpreted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据