L. Huang (2007). The
Contribution of Home Background to Student Inequality in Secondary School in
Norway in Standards in Education, pp. 331-345
In this essay, I would like to provide my
critical understanding of a journal article entitled The Contribution of Home
Background to Student Inequality in Secondary Schools in Norway written by Lihong Huang.
There are 6 questions asked dealing with the inequality in secondary schools in
Norway. Before moving to the main issue, I shall be discussing the social
structure and education system of Norway. Then finally I will come up with the
burning issue.
Education system in Norway
allows children to start school when they are six year old. Compulsory education
is ten years that includes seven years primary school and three years lower
secondary school. 98 percent of young people enter upper secondary school
education after they have finished lower secondary education (Markussen, 2003).
Upper secondary education is three years optional schooling provided by the
government to children between 16 and 19 years old. Before 2006, students would
choose from three educational paths in their upper secondary schooling, namely
(1) academic path which leads into university entrace qualifications after
three years of study, (2) merchantile path which leads to a trade or
journeyman’s certificate after four years of study, and (3) professional path
which leads to certain vocational competence such as mechanic, carpenter, or
electrician after three years of study.
In fall 2006, graduates
from lower secondary school will apply either a general education path which
leads to university entrance or professional path which leads to vocational
competence for their upper secondary education. Finally, around 35 percent of
upper secondary school graduates continue to tertiary education right away and
about 50 percent of the Norwegian young population choose tertiary education
after completion of upper secondary education at some point in their life.
Huang argued that the
specific structure of educational system in a country has implications for
social mobility of the individual who make careers in the system (Allmendinger,
1989). A flat structured society plays an important role in Norwegia as there
are some clear features of cultural fractions within the middle class and among
different occupational groups.
In contrast, social status refers to a set of
hierarchical relations that express perceived, and to some degree accepted,
social superiority, equality and inferiority among individuals, which reflect
not their personal qualities, but rather the degree of ‘social honour’
attaching to certain of their
positional or perhaps purely ascribed attributes, such as ‘birth’ or ethnicity
(Chan and Goldthorpe, 2004).
To sum up, the issue proposed by the author is that, the inequality in
secondary school in Norway was influenced by the student family background. There
is a relationship between the student home backround and student motivation and achievements. The author based
this issue on the sociocultural, psychological and environmental educations
from parents, teachers, and others.
Answering the question
number 2: The author argues that ability and social background are the key
factors affecting students’ decision to undertake higher studies. Do you agree
with him? What are the other likely factors which motivate/do not motivate
students to undertake tertiary education?
In respond to this
question, I would say that I agree with the author’s arguments. It is found in
Norway that children whose parents take completed tertiary education have
higher achievement and have much higher of participation in tertiary education. The
fact that different social strata in Norway have their own specific class
cultures determines the individual occupations. Also, different social strata
manage to pass their cultures along generations through influencing their
children’s educational career choices. Parents’ social class will be seen
through their children education and occupations. This social strata affects on
the students from immigrant families. They tend to study harder and have more
encouragement from home to aim higher in their career development (Lauglo,
1999, 2000).
Other factor which
motivates students to undertake tertiary education is the gender issues which
were known as gender segregation. This issue ensure men and women have equal
access to a higher education, equal opportunities for participation in the
labor force and in choice of occupation. Today, women and men have more or less
equal levels of education, and women’s participation in working live has
increased dramatically since 1960s.
The third question: In
this research the author derives his hypotheses from three theories. Formulate
an hypotheses and a research question based on each of these theories. What
type of statistical tools would you choose for your stated hyphoteses? For the
response of this questions, I would like to list three theories used. The first
theory is forward test anxiety theory which suggest that children strive for
approval from parents and significant others and fear for disapproval (Skinner
and Fester, 1957). The second theory is the need achievement theory that
suggests that children strive for success or avoid failure according to the
values placed on either success or failure (Atkinson and Feather, 1966). The
last theory is the theory of motivation that explains motivation to learn as a
competence acquired through children’s experience but stimulated mostly by
modelling, communication of expectations, direct instruction or socialization
by parents, teachers expectation, and significant others (Brophy, 1987).
Allow me to formulate a
hyphothesis based on these theories. I would derive the hypotheses from the
null hyphotheses, that is, there is no relationship between the student home
social backround and the student achievements.
In addition, I would like to propose the Correlation Coefficient as the
statistical tool. Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficient, also known as r, R, or Pearson's r, a measure of
the strength of the linear relationship between two variables that is defined
in terms of the (sample) covariance of the variables divided by their (sample)
standard deviations.
The question number 4
about the figures 14.1 page 337 will be explained as follows: Figure 14.1 is an
analytical model based in theories and previous research. The model contains
four latent clusters. Two separate variables – family social status and family
economic status are hypothesized to constitute student home socio-economic
status. The hyphothesized links between student family social status, family
economic status with student motivation and student achievement are tested in
the model, using LISREL techniques. The arrow directed from student motivation
to student achievement in a hypothesis that students who aim high in their
educational plans eventually do better in their studies.
The answers of questions
number 5 are as follow: Table 14.1 explains about the students’ parents. Among
them, only 12 percent of the fathers and 10 percent of the mothers report lower
secondary school as their highest level of education while 36 percent of
fathers and 35 percent of mothers have educational attainment equal to and
above tertiary level. As table 14.1 shows, parental educational attainments
from the dataset are not significantly different from the national total.
Concerning family financial situation, 6.5 percent of the students claim to be
poor while 67 percent of them say that their family’s financial situation is
rather good and 22 percent of them feel that their family is in a better
financial situation than the average family in their neighborhood.
Table 14.2 summarizes
correlations between student-family social background, student educational
motivation and student achievement. First, father’s and mother’s education
levels correlate almost equally with student motivation and achievement.
Second, all correlations are positive, which means that parents with high
educational attainment tend to have children with high educational motivation
and high achievement as well. Third, all the correlations are rather moderate
but statistically significant. The positive correlation in Table 14.2 provide
us some explanations of students planning of education and their school
achievement. It implies that students have higher educational goals if their
parents have higher educational attainment. The same implication also applies
to student achievement in theree subjects. Nevertheless, these relationships
need more careful exploration, achieved by testing the linear structural mode
in the following.
Table 14.3 presents the
statistical result of a linear structural model linking student home
socio-economic status, student motivation and student achievement. It shows
that home social status, measured by father’s and mother’s educational
attainments have a very strong positive and direct effect on student motivation
and a strong total effect on student achievement. Home economic status seems to
have very little effect on either student motivation or student achievement.
Student motivation has a strong and positive effect on student achievement.
For the last question, I
would like to explain about the likely factors for better academic performance
of children from more educated parents and immigrant families. Norway is one of
the few countries in the world that have achieved social equality to some
extent. As long as there is segregation in the society, occupational or
cultural, the education system will be there to maintain and reproduce it.
There are two blocks here,
for more educated parents, it is believed that they would influence their
children to get tertiary education to secure their social status. The other
block is from the immigrant families that tend to study harder in order to
reach a better career development. Those two blocks are the reason why is that
the tertiary education choosing should be based on the children interests for
better academic performance.
This study showed that
student motivation and student achievement are also influenced by the other
factors, for example: cultural capital of the family as well as its social and
economic capitals, student school experience, school learning environment,
teacher attitude and treatment towards different students, etc.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chan, T.W., Birkelund, G.
E., Aas, A. K., Wiborg, O. (2010). Social Status in Norway. University of Oslo.
Huang, L. (2007). Standards in Educations: The Contribution of Home Background to Student Inequality in Secondary Schools in Norway, 331-345.Kilden. (2006). Gender in Norway: Policy Areas.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar