1 / 20

Enhancing Sociological Theory Evaluation in Education Studies

Explore sociological theories in educational assessments, address study limitations, and apply ESEM model for data analysis. Investigate economic, cultural, and social capital through PIRLS 2006 and PISA 2009 data.

thyra
Download Presentation

Enhancing Sociological Theory Evaluation in Education Studies

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. A New Look at the Evaluation of Sociological Theories in International Large Scale Educational Assessments Daniel CaroandAndrés Sandoval-Hernandez CIES2012 Annual Conference April 25, San Juan, Puerto Rico

  2. Rationale • Two important criticisms of LSA studies are • Studies lack a solid theoretical basis • This affects the selection, operationalization and explanation of the relations between variables • e.g., extended use of SES indicators • Techniques for developing and testing theories (EFA and CFA) have several limitations, for example: • EFA lacks model fit indices • CFA is too restrictive • This study addresses these criticisms

  3. Purpose • Evaluate sociological theories of economic, cultural, and social capital postulated by Bourdieu, Bernstein, and Coleman • Investigate if theoretical models are reflected by the data of international student assessments • Demonstrate advantages of ESEM • Explore factor structure • Evaluate model fit • Test MI across countries

  4. Theoretical Framework • Economic capital (Bourdieu, 1983) • Economic capital is defined as the command individuals have over economic resources • The concept is commonly understood as exchange values, like income and assets that can be easily transformed into cash • Cultural capital (Bernstein, 1971; Bourdieu, 1983) • Cultural capital is accounted by the cultural long-lasting dispositions embedded in the human mind and body, as well as in cultural goods and educational credentials • Cultural capital can appear in three states: objectified, institutionalized, and embodied

  5. Theoretical Framework • Social capital (Coleman, 1988) • Social capital are all those aspects of the social structure that can be used by actors as resources to achieve their interests • Family social capital is represented by family relations that enhance the transmission of other structural resources (e.g. dispositions towards culture)

  6. EFA and CFA • In general, • EFA for generating theory • CFA for testing theory • CFA limitations (Marsh, 2009, 2010): • The zero cross-loading restriction • Statistically, leads to inflated interfactor correlations • Also theoretically problematic , e.g. number of books reflects both cultural capital and economic capital • Often well-defined EFA structures are not supported by CFA • In practice researchers perform exploratory CFA

  7. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) • Marsh et al. (2009, 2010) introduced ESEM, an integration of EFA and CFA • Essentially, ESEM is EFA with • Standard errors • Model fit indices • MI tests • ESEM is appropriate if model fit is better than in CFA • To our knowledge, ESEM has not been yet applied to sociological theories

  8. Data • PIRLS 2006 • 42 educational systems • 21,000 students (500*42) • 36 items from parent questionnaire • PISA 2009 • 14 countries • 7,000 students (500*14) • 66 items from student and (optional) parent questionnaire

  9. Analytical Strategy • EFA with all items • Selected items (indexes) for 3 factors • 14 in PIRLS 2006 • 12 in PISA 2009 • CFA and ESEM with selected items • Model fit • Interfactor correlations • Cross-loadings • Measurement invariance (MI) tests by country’s HDI

  10. PIRLS 2006: CFA results CFI= 0.77 TLI= 0.71 RMSEA= 0.07 0.30 0.73 0.19 Cultural Capital Economic Capital Social Capital Academic communication Parental attitudes to reading Books at home Parental education Childrens’ own room Visits to library / booksstore Literacy support activities Communication & Interaction Cultural communication Parents' reading at home Children's book Parental ocupational status Financial status Parents' reading for enjoyment

  11. PIRLS 2006: ESEM results CFI= 0.77 0.96 TLI= 0.71 0.93 RMSEA= 0.07 0.03 0.30 0.24 0.73 0.41 0.19 0.08 Cultural Capital Economic Capital Social Capital Academic communication Parental attitudes to reading Books at home Parental education Childrens’ own room Visits to library / bookshop Literacy support activities Communication & Interaction Cultural communication Parents' reading at home Children's book Parental ocupational status Financial status Parents' reading for enjoyment

  12. PIRLS 2006: CFA and ESEM factor loadings

  13. PISA 2009: CFA results CFI= 0.87 TLI= 0.83 RMSEA= 0.07 0.36 0.68 0.28 Cultural Capital Economic Capital Social Capital Academic communication Cultural possessions Parents' reading motivation Books at home Parental education Visits to library / bookstore Literacy support activities Communication & Interaction Cultural communication Home educational resources Parental ocupational status Household overcrowding

  14. PISA 2009: ESEM results CFI= 0.87 0.96 TLI= 0.83 0.93 RMSEA= 0.07 0.05 0.36 0.15 0.68 0.38 0.28 0.17 Cultural Capital Economic Capital Social Capital Academic communication Cultural possessions Parents' reading motivation Books at home Parental education Visits to library / bookstore Literacy support activities Communication & Interaction Cultural communication Home educational resources Parental ocupational status Household overcrowding

  15. PISA 2009: CFA and ESEM factor loadings

  16. Measurement Invariance Tests Two groups of countries PIRLS 2006: low/medium HDI versus high HDI PISA 2009: high HDI versus very high HDI

  17. Discussion • Evaluated theories of economic, cultural, and social capital are reasonably reflected by the data • ESEM performs better than CFA to capture these theories • Better model fit • Greater discriminant validity (lower interfactor correlations) • Cross-loadings are statistically and theoretically significant • Educational/cultural possessions and parental education for cultural and economic capital • Parent-child cultural interactions for social and cultural capital

  18. Discussion • But theoretical models seem not to hold between countries • SES measures (economic capital) are not comparable • This raises theoretical and methodological questions • Theoretical • Are other theories more appropriate? • Global or contextualized theories? • Methodological • What should be the groups of comparison? • Can ESEM manage comparisons among a large number of groups/countries?

  19. Future Steps • Theoretical • Consider competing theories, e..g., rational action theory • Reproduction theories for developing countries and rational action theory for developed countries? • Methodological • MI • Identify problematic variables for MI • Countrywise comparison matrix • Evaluate MI within regions • What to do if no MI?

  20. Questions? Thank you for your attention! :)

More Related