Abstract
The International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) investigates the preparation of young people to undertake their roles as citizens. It gathers and analyzes data from representative national samples on students’ conceptual knowledge and understanding of civics and citizenship, as well as their attitudes to, and engagement with, aspects of civics and citizenship. ICCS builds on a succession of IEA studies in this field dating back to 1971, and especially since 2009. The 2022 study has been developed to build on previous perspectives on, and monitor changes in, such enduring issues as: levels of civic knowledge and understanding; patterns of and dispositions toward civic engagement; attitudes to citizenship and equal rights; and schools as spaces for learning about citizenship. In addition, ICCS 2022 encompasses new developments such as increased globalization and migration; the implications of increasing social diversity; the roles of digital technologies in civic engagement and exchanging information; changing attitudes to traditional political systems; and the disruption to schooling associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. These developments have been reflected in a broadening of the scope of ICCS content. For the first time, ICCS 2022 provides an option for countries to gather data using a computer-based delivery platform. Data are gathered through an international student assessment, an international student questionnaire, regional questionnaires for European and Latin American countries, a teacher questionnaire, a school questionnaire, and a national contexts survey.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Keywords
- Civics and citizenship definition
- Assessment of civic knowledge and understanding
- Attitudes to civics and citizenship
- Engagement with citizenship activities
- Survey design
1.1 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) is to investigate the changing ways in which young people are prepared to undertake their roles as citizens across a wide range of countries. In pursuit of this purpose, ICCS gathers data to report on students’ conceptual knowledge and understandings of aspects related to civic and citizenship education. It further collects and analyzes data about student attitudes and engagement relevant to the area of civic and citizenship education (Schulz et al., 2008, 2016). The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) commissioned ICCS in response to widespread interest in continuing research on, and establishing regular international assessments of, civic and citizenship education.
There has been an impressive history of IEA studies of civic and citizenship education (see Schulz, 2021; Torney-Purta & Schwille, 2011). The first IEA study of civic education was conducted as part of the Six-Subject Study,Footnote 1 with data collected in 1971 (Torney et al., 1975), and the second study, the IEA Civic Education Study (CIVED), was carried out collecting data among 14-year-old students in 1999 followed by an additional survey of upper-secondary students in 2000 (see Torney-Purta et al., 2001; Amadeo et al., 2002). One decade later, IEA conducted ICCS 2009 as a baseline study for future assessments in this learning area (Schulz et al., 2008), which was then followed by its second cycle in 2016 (Schulz et al., 2016). Due to these efforts, IEA studies have provided invaluable datasets that are available for secondary analyses of issues related to civic and citizenship education across a wide range of national contexts (Knowles et al., 2018).
The results of the first implementation of ICCS in 2009 were reported in a series of IEA publications (Ainley et al., 2013; Fraillon et al., 2012; Kerr et al., 2010; Schulz et al., 2010, 2011) and have also led to numerous reports and publications within countries. The 2016 iteration of ICCS explored both the enduring and the emerging challenges to educating young people in a world where contexts of democracy and civic participation continue to change, and it reported on changes in selected outcomes and contexts between 2009 and 2016 (Losito et al., 2018; Schulz et al., 2018a, 2018b).
In recent years, there have been many developments with implications for civic and citizenship education. While notions of citizenship and identities defined by nation states continue to be challenged by globalization, migration, and the establishment of supra-regional organizations, there is also a broadening of the scope of issues which societies have to respond to. These go beyond national borders and attract worldwide prominence, opening questions about the extent to which young people are prepared to engage not only in their regional or national societies but on a global scale. Types of engagement are also changing with the pervasiveness of information flows through digital technologies and associated opportunities for new ways of participation (Brennan, 2018; Kahne et al., 2014; Theocharis & Van Deth, 2018). In addition, political systems once thought to be stable (such as long-established democracies) show signs of instability and the rise of new political movements that are often formed in response to globalization, growing economic inequalities, and increased migration (European Commission, 2016; Eurostat, 2018; UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization], 2018).
The third cycle of ICCS, with a data collection in 2022, was developed in consideration of ongoing developments and challenges in civic and citizenship education. Similar to ICCS 2016, it combines the goal of monitoring changes over time regarding students’ civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement with the aim of investigating new or broadened aspects that are relevant for this learning area in the current contexts for participating countries. In particular, ICCS 2022 extends the scope of ICCS 2016 to explore further content and themes associated with global citizenship, sustainable development, migration, changes to traditional political systems, and the use of digital technologies for civic engagement.
For the first time, ICCS 2022 also offers countries the option of assessing students using a computer-based delivery platform as an alternative to the paper-based delivery applied in previous study cycles. Like other IEA studies, ICCS is transitioning from paper-based to computer-based assessment, a form of data collection that is becoming more and more prevalent in national as well as cross-national studies. Computer-based assessment offers opportunities for measuring cognitive skills in ways that are not available for paper-based assessment by providing an interactive environment for civic-related tasks that are undertaken using digital technologies.
1.2 Study Background
Civic and citizenship education is implemented to provide young people with knowledge, understanding, and dispositions considered necessary to participate successfully as citizens in society. Young people should understand civic principles and institutions, know how to engage in civil society, be able to exercise critical judgment, and develop an understanding and appreciation of the rights and responsibilities of a citizen. Developing these attributes in young people is key to a functioning democracy, which depends on citizens as actively involved agents regarding decision-making, governance, and change. This can be seen to contrast with authoritarian and non-democratic regimes, where the role of citizens is rather one of passive obedience. Furthermore, in view of the increasing cultural diversity within many modern societies, ICCS also seeks to contribute to the understanding of how this diversity impacts on civic and citizenship education and how young people respond to this in terms of their knowledge, engagement, and attitudes. Civic competences are increasingly also regarded as part of a broader skill set required in workplaces (Gould, 2011; Torney-Purta & Wilkenfeld, 2009). As such, they are not only of interest to political and community leaders, but also of value to and valued by a growing number of employers (OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development], 2015).
There is a large body of scholarly work emphasizing the importance of political socialization processes among young people for the formation of attitudes and disposition for engagement (van Deth et al., 2007; Neundorf & Smets, 2017; Myoung & Liou, 2022). Although early work assumed strong and enduring influences on later political orientations, subsequent studies show evidence for the changeability of attitudes during socialization and characterize political orientation as a process of learning (Searing et al., 1976; Niemi & Klinger, 2012; Rekker et al., 2015; Peterson et al., 2020). Scholars have postulated that young people tend not to have already developed enduring beliefs and are therefore open to be influenced by external factors (see, for example, Sears & Levy, 2003). Research has also highlighted the features of youth political participation when compared to political engagement among adults (Weiss, 2020).
Parents and home environments have been emphasized as particularly important agents in the process of early political socialization (Bourdieu, 1996; Jennings et al., 2009; Lauglo, 2011; Reay, 1998), but there is also ample evidence about the influence of peers and media (for example, Wattenberg, 2008; Campos et al., 2017), political events (Dinas, 2013), and school education (Lee et al., 2021; Nie & Hillygus, 2001; Torney-Purta, 2002). School education has the potential of compensating for less enriching backgrounds in developing political socialization and may interact with other factors that contribute to the development of citizenship orientations (Hoskins et al., 2017; Neundorf et al., 2013, 2016). Even though the later years of adolescence and early adulthood have been regarded as formative and “impressionable” years, there is evidence that late childhood and early adolescence are also of crucial importance for developing citizenship orientations (Bartels & Jackman, 2014; van Deth et al., 2011).
There has been a long tradition in academic work on educational policy and practice to highlight the importance of education for instilling democratic values (Dewey, 1916). In this context it is noteworthy that cross-national data demonstrate that many countries nowadays include civic and citizenship education explicitly in their national curricula (Ainley et al., 2013; Cox, 2010; European Commission/EACEA [The European Education and Culture Executive Agency]/Eurydice, 2017). There is evidence from various research studies that the classroom climate plays an important role in shaping civic-related learning outcomes, while the effects of aspects of curricula are less well studied (Geboers et al., 2013).
Traditionally, concepts underlying civic and citizenship education have typically been associated with the notion of nation states. The establishment of supranational organizations (such as the EU [European Union]), increased migration across borders, and pressure from globalization have challenged traditional notions of civic and citizenship education and prompted the development of cross-national concepts such as “global citizenship” (Brodie, 2004; Pashby et al., 2020; Reid et al., 2010; Schattle, 2012; Veugelers, 2011). One interpretation of this development has been linked to a consideration of the implications of increasing diversity, and multiculturalism, for citizenship and identity (Modood & Meer, 2013; Morrell, 2008). However, other research has indicated that the notion of a nation state, sometimes even including nationalistic perspectives, continue to prevail in curricula for civic and citizenship education (Fozdar & Martin, 2020; Kennedy, 2012; Osler, 2011).
Conover (1995) conceptualizes citizenship as consisting of three elements: (1) formal and informal aspects of citizenship as membership of a political community, (2) a “sense of citizenship” which is made up of citizenship identity and an understanding of what is involved in citizenship, and (3) citizenship practices involved in political participation and civic engagement. In ICCS we have adopted a view that is broadly consistent with this long-established definition because it facilitates an extension of the notion of citizenship beyond the level of nation states.
The concept of social cohesion is also important in civic and citizenship education. Social cohesion is a complex notion that broadly refers to the extent and strength of links and connections between individuals, groups, organizations, and communities. Although the concept has been criticized for its lack of clarity (Green & Janmaat, 2011), it is a useful reference point for a comparative study such as ICCS (Reichert et al., 2021; Veerman et al., 2021). In the context of ICCS, we apply a broad definition of social cohesion as “a state of affairs concerning both the vertical and the horizontal interactions among members of society as characterized by a set of attitudes and norms that includes trust, a sense of belonging, and the willingness to participate and help, as well as their behavioral manifestations” (Chan et al., 2006, p. 289f.).
1.3 Recent Developments and Persisting Challenges
Since ICCS 2016, there have been changes regarding the global context for civic and citizenship education, with implications for this learning area. Additionally, certain challenges in the study of civic and citizenship education continue to persist. The following topics and results from ICCS 2016 are important to consider and relevant to a study of civic and citizenship education (Schulz, 2018; Schulz et al., 2018b):
-
Monitoring civic learning in relation to changing contexts for civic and citizenship education: ICCS 2016 results indicated increases in civic knowledge since 2009 in about half of the participating countries, even though considerable variation remained within and across countries.
-
Reviewing patterns of, and dispositions toward, civic engagement: ICCS 2016 results suggested changes in patterns since 2009 with respect to; the use of media information, increases in discussions about political and social issues, and expected civic participation in some countries; however, students with greater knowledge and understanding of the area in in both ICCS 2009 and 2016 were less inclined to consider future active political participation (using conventional channels) than those with less knowledge and understanding.
-
Gathering data on student attitudes towards citizenship and equal rights: Results from ICCS 2016 indicated strong support for equal rights as seen in the previous cycle, as well as some increases in tolerance; however, interpretations of positive and negative situations for democracy were not always consistent across countries.
-
Providing a more comprehensive coverage of information about the school as a place for learning: ICCS 2016 results provided further insights into the role of schools as a place for the learning of civic and citizenship issues and for experiencing a democratic environment where students can practice their rights and responsibilities as young citizens; however, the results also indicated that more information is needed regarding the responsiveness of schools to student needs, their support of students’ sense of belonging to the school community, and their provision of support for engagement with cognitive aspects of civic learning.
For ICCS 2022, the following global developments that have become particularly relevant over recent years are considered:
-
Increased globalization and migration, as well as the changing causes for migration (in particular growing numbers of refugees escaping war zones or political oppression) that challenge notions of citizenship tied to nation states. There is a need to consider these global developments in the context of the contents and goals of civic and citizenship education, including recent movements that reject globalization and demand a return to nationally defined priorities (Bauman, 2016; Reimers, 2013; UNESCO, 2015).
-
Growing awareness of the implications of increasing diversity for civic and citizenship education, with an emphasis on how schools consider and acknowledge diversity in societies regarding characteristics such as ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability (Banks, 2001; Osler, 2012; Sincer et al., 2019). Increasing awareness of environmental issues and concerns about the consequences of climate change for the future of this planet, which has led to the phenomenon of international youth movements, such as Fridays for Future (De Moor et al., 2020; Marquardt, 2020), and there has also been a formal recognition of the global significance of Education for Sustainable Development as well as Global Citizenship Education through their inclusion in the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, specifically in form of the Sustainable Development Goal Target 4.7 (SDG: 4.7) (Council of the European Union, 2021; United Nations, 2015, p. 17; UNESCO, 2020, 2021).
-
The growing importance of information exchange and engagement through digital media that have had important implications for how citizens inform and express themselves about current events and how they interact using alternative channels of engagement (Anduiza et al., 2012; Bachen et al., 2008). Furthermore, there are questions connected to this issue regarding the risks associated with this development such as the treatment of private information, increases in threatening and aggressive communication (“hate speech”), and concerns that young people lack the ability to distinguish reliable from misleading information (Howard & Hussain, 2011; Kaufman, 2020; McGrew et al., 2017).
-
Political developments in many countries that have led to a weakening of traditional political systems and even threatened the stability of long-standing democracies. These developments may be related to alienation of groups in society, often related to economic inequalities, and raise questions about the future engagement of young people (Boogards, 2017; Hobolt et al., 2016; Inglehart & Norris, 2016).
-
In early 2020, civil societies across the globe were challenged by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic that led to restrictions on freedom of movement and democratic participation. The advent of national emergencies has raised questions about aspects of democratic processes including the acceptance of restrictions on individual freedom and the appropriateness of delegating more power to an executive during times of crises (Marzocchi, 2020; Landman & Di Gennaro Splendore, 2020) as well as about the capacity of democracies to handle such situations (Frey et al., 2020).
1.4 Broadening the Scope of ICCS Content
To consider recent developments and persisting challenges within the global context, we identified content focus areas for the third cycle of ICCS. It is important to acknowledge that certain new or refined aspects measured in ICCS 2022 may have relevance for more than one of the focus areas (for example, perceptions of diversity) and that relevant content for each of these areas was already included in earlier ICCS surveys.
The focus areas are:
-
Sustainability
-
Engagement through digital technologies
-
Diversity
-
Young people’s views of the political system
One further area was also identified as deserving more explicit recognition given that it is an overarching area related to aspects already present in ICCS or to the focus areas listed above:
-
Global citizenship
In the following section, we provide brief descriptions of each of these five focus areas for ICCS 2022.
1.4.1 Sustainability
Education for sustainable development (ESD), frequently treated in conjunction with Global Citizenship Education (GCED, has become an important area of interest in view of many pre- existing and newly emerging demographic, environmental, economic, and social challenges (see, for example, Bromley et al., 2016; Bourn et al., 2017; Wals & Benavot, 2017). While some scholars have noted that there is a lack of conceptual agreement across research and practice of ESD (see, for example, Kopnina & Meijers, 2014), there is evidence of increasing efforts to incorporate content related to this area in national curricula (Benavot, 2014). At the international level, there have been initiatives to promote ESD through the formulation of learning objectives (UNESCO, 2017, 2020, 2021) and to assess the extent of ESD-related topics across national curricula (UNESCO International Bureau for Education, 2016). Cross-national research has highlighted the complexities of implementing ESD content in secondary education (Taylor et al., 2019) and it has shown embedding this learning area in initial teacher education as an emerging area of activity that continues to lack systematic approaches with solid conceptual underpinning (Evans et al., 2017).
In particular, the potential impact of climate change has increasingly raised serious concerns about the sustainability of human development. This issue has been identified as a public concern in opinion surveys across the globe, even though there have also been differences in perception across countries (Pew Research Center, 2019). Consequently, there have been calls to strengthen ESD in national school curricula to provide young people with better knowledge about, and better understanding of, the causes and consequences of climate change (Mochizuki & Bryan, 2015).
The ICCS 2016 assessment framework (Schulz et al., 2016) included environmental sustainability in civic and citizenship education as one of three areas identified for inclusion to broaden the scope of the second ICCS cycle (together with social interaction at school and use of new social media for civic engagement). This helped establish ICCS as a data source for ESD (and GCED) indicators (Sandoval-Hernández et al., 2019). For ICCS 2022, we incorporate the broader notion of sustainability that includes content associated with environmental, social, and economic sustainability, with the aim of increasing the emphasis on ESD and the amount of ESD-related content compared to previous cycles of ICCS.
1.4.2 Civic Engagement Through Digital Technologies
Over the last two decades, young people have increasingly interacted via digital communication and social media. Digital technologies provide new possibilities for mobilization, organization, and interaction of wider audiences (Brennan, 2018), and in particular of young people, including the formation of digital communities introducing types of behaviors that are unique to the online environment (Cho, 2020). The use of social media and the internet is widely regarded as having profound effects on civic engagement among youth, and research suggests that new social media can be effective in enhancing civic participation while also having potential negative consequences for society (Kahne & Bowyer, 2019; Kahne et al., 2012; Middaugh et al., 2016; Rainie et al., 2012).
In these new media, content is often created interactively rather than through one-way communication as evident in traditional media, and these developments may have implications for civic and citizenship education (Kahne et al., 2016). There have also been calls to arrange better support to facilitate the use of such technologies among communities (Wenger et al., 2009). In response to these developments, a concept of “digital citizenship” has emerged, which refers to membership in a community defined by their use of information and communication technology (ICT) to engage in society, politics, and government (see, for example, Frau-Meigs et al., 2017; eTwinning, 2016; Mossberger et al., 2008; Christensen et al., 2021).
Engagement through digital technologies can be regarded as a relatively new form of civic participation that facilitates obtaining information and engaging with others. However, it is important to recognize that the collective use of digital tools may also have severe impacts on safe, effective, and responsible participation (Choi, 2016). Negative consequences of increasing civic engagement with digital technologies include its exploitation by extremist groups (e.g., by making it easier to disseminate “hate speech”) (Tynes et al., 2015) or the potential impact of inaccurate online information (see, for example, Heflin, 2015). Furthermore, the possibility of limiting people’s information intake to web-based communication from like-minded sources may also contribute to the polarization of opinions (Spohr, 2017).
ICCS 2016 identified the use of social media for civic engagement as one of the areas in which to broaden the scope of the study, and its student questionnaire included a (limited) set of new items focused on the use of these media for civic engagement. While results from ICCS 2016 (Schulz et al., 2018b) showed that the use of social media for civic engagement remained limited (albeit with substantial variation across participating countries), it is likely that the use of social media for civic engagement may increase further over time given this form of media’s general pervasiveness. A recent example of the crucial role of social media in promoting youth activism at a global level is the School Strike 4 Climate movement, where the Twitter platform was used extensively as a forum for mobilization (Boulianne et al., 2020). ICCS 2022 continues to monitor young people’s civic engagement through digital technologies, including their participation via social media.
1.4.3 Diversity
The increasing diversity of student populations is a global educational trend and affects schools and other educational institutions by posing obstacles (see examples regarding the effects on civic and citizenship education in some countries in Malak-Minkiewicz & Torney-Purta, 2021), but also providing opportunities for building multicultural and inclusive schools (Banks, 2020; Banks & McGee Banks, 2009; Griffith et al., 2016). In today’s globalized world, recent economic, demographic, and technological changes have made international migration more wide-spread so that it affects nearly all countries (Sandoval-Hernández et al., 2018; OECD, 2012; United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2017). Working with cultural diversity is frequently seen as an opportunity as well as a challenge (Hattam, 2018), and civic and citizenship education provides a potential tool for the integration of diverse groups into society (Banks, 2017, 2021). Some researchers have argued for viewing diversity as a resource for enriching school education through the promotion of knowledge and respect for other cultures (Council of Europe, 2018; Schachner, 2014, 2019; Schachner et al., 2016).
It is important to emphasize that the concept of diversity embraces a wide range of socially ascribed or perceived differences, such as by sex, age, ethnic/social origin, language, religion, nationality, economic condition, or special learning needs (Daniels & Garner, 1999). These differences could represent a reason for, exclusion from or limitation to, educational opportunities and lead to social exclusion in adulthood. According to the United Nations (2016) “social exclusion is a multidimensional phenomenon not limited to material deprivation; poverty is an important dimension of exclusion, albeit only one dimension. Accordingly, social inclusion processes involve more than improving access to economic resources” (p. 17). The philosophy and practice of inclusion has recently received growing attention in terms of equal opportunities for education in many countries, however, there are also still wide-spread debates about how to define inclusive schools.
The ICCS 2016 assessment framework already addressed issues related to migration and its effects on debates about civic and citizenship education. Students’ attitudes concerning migration issues were included in three of the four content domains related to the affective-behavioral domain attitudes, in particular regarding students’ attitudes toward civic society and systems, civic principles, and civic identities (Schulz et al., 2016). However, in view of recent developments, ICCS 2022 assesses a broader range of aspects including how schools and civic and citizenship education accommodate increasing diversity.
1.4.4 Young People’s Views of the Political System in Their Country
Over the past decade there have been growing concerns regarding a worldwide “democratic recession” (Diamond, 2015, 2021). These have arisen in response to an observable increase across many countries in authoritarian government practices as well as new political movements that have undermined support for traditional political parties, and, in some cases have challenged the stability of democratic systems (Boogards, 2017; Mair, 2002). For civic and citizenship education these recent developments raise the question to what extent tendencies toward alienation and an understanding of and preference for populist solutions to government are shared by young people (Gidron & Hall, 2020; Henn & Weinstein, 2006), and whether education has the potential of promoting democratic principles to counteract prospects of growing alienation among young citizens (Estellés & Castellví, 2020; Sant, 2019). Furthermore, as a response to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have also been new recent challenges to democratic government in the form of restrictions of individual freedom and citizen participation (Marzocchi, 2020).
Young people’s views of the political system were addressed in ICCS 2009 and 2016, both in the international and regional student questionnaires. While results from these two surveys showed considerable support for democratic government and equal opportunities across countries, this was less consistent for issues related to media diversity, individual freedom within the context of national security considerations, or (in some countries) regarding nepotism in politics, corruption, and authoritarian government. New aspects for measurement in ICCS 2022 are related to attitudes toward government and the political system as well as perceptions of potential threats to democracy. Furthermore, the study also addresses beliefs about the extent to which democratic governments should be able to impose restrictions on individual freedom during national emergencies, such as the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.4.5 Global Citizenship
Global Citizenship Education has received considerable attention in debates about the needs for identifying global education targets in view of an increasing cross-national interconnectedness and the globalization of political, social, economic, and environmental issues (Veugelers, 2011). However, definitions of this area have often been inconsistent (Oxley & Morris, 2013; Pashby et al., 2020). UNESCO describes global citizenship as, “a sense of belonging to a broader community and common humanity. It emphasizes political, economic, social and cultural interdependency and interconnectedness between the local, the national and the global” (UNESCO, 2015, p. 14).
Many aspects of the conceptual content associated with GCED have been included in IEA studies relating to civic and citizenship education for over 40 years (see Torney et al., 1975; Torney-Purta et al., 2001; Schulz et al., 2008, 2016). However, these aspects were included in previous IEA studies because they were regarded as within the existing scope of civic and citizenship education programs across countries, rather than emerging from a new area with its own theoretical or educational focus. As such, content and concepts associated with this area in earlier IEA studies of civic and citizenship education were not explicitly linked to GCED perspectives and were not grouped or explicitly described as belonging primarily to either area. For ICCS 2022, GCED-related content is more explicitly recognized within this assessment framework with a view to increasing the emphasis given to this overarching area, and this study continues to be the only international study dedicated to providing empirical data on youth attitudes toward and engagement with global issues.
1.5 Computer-Based Delivery
Many international comparative studies, as well as national large-scale assessments, have moved to or are currently transitioning to computer-based forms of assessment (Beller, 2013; Sibberns, 2020). For the first time in the context of ICCS, this cycle offers the option of a computer-based delivery of the study’s student survey, and about two thirds of participating countries chose this new delivery mode. In this context, it is important to note that online delivery of teacher and school questionnaires has already been available across all cycles of ICCS since its inception in 2009. The number of countries and respondents within countries making use of online delivery of the teacher and school questionnaires has increased across the ICCS cycles, and online delivery is expected to also become the standard mode of data collection for these contextual instruments in future ICCS cycles.
One important argument for moving to computer-based delivery is that information about political and social issues is increasingly presented through electronic media, and that there is a growing potential for civic engagement via social media and other web-based tools. Here, computer-based delivery offers an opportunity to provide digital assessment content that reflects how a growing proportion of students experience content related to civic and citizenship issues. While most parts of the students’ cognitive assessment are delivered using the same format across both computer and paper modes, computer-based assessment also includes modules that measure students’ knowledge through the provision of computer-enhanced item material. These computer-enhanced modules place students in simulated participatory real-world scenarios using the online context. As part of each scenario, students complete dynamic interactive tasks that include some form of feedback to their responses. The interactivity of the tasks, the opportunity for dynamic feedback and the narratives that place the students as participants in civic action within a digital environment are what differentiate the computer enhanced modules from items that are completed both on paper and computer.
Like other international studies, ICCS 2022 faces the challenge of ensuring comparability of results from computer-based and paper-based administration of its instruments. This is important both in terms of comparing country results across the two modes present in the study, as well as with results from the previous (paper-based) assessment. While experience has shown that there is a potential for mode effects, results also show that there is considerable consistency regarding the measurement of constructs (see, for example, Fishbein et al., 2018).
1.6 Research Questions
The key research questions for ICCS 2022 concern students’ civic knowledge, their dispositions to engage, and their attitudes related to civic and citizenship issues as well as contexts in this learning area. Each of the following general research questions (RQs) relate to a subset of specific research questions that will be addressed in ICCS 2022.
-
RQ1
How is civic and citizenship education implemented in participating countries? This research question is concerned with the national contexts for civic and citizenship education and includes the following specific research questions:
-
(a)
What are the aims and principles of civic and citizenship education in each participating country? Analyses will focus on information from the national contexts survey and published sources about the background and intentions behind civic and citizenship curricula in participating countries.
-
(b)
Which curricular approaches do participating countries choose to provide in civic and citizenship education? Analyses will focus on different types of civic and citizenship education implemented in participating countries and will be based on national contexts survey data, published sources, teacher survey and school survey data.
-
(c)
What changes and/or developments in this learning area can be observed since the 2009 and 2016 cycles? Analyses will only include data from countries participating in the corresponding ICCS surveys from 2016 or 2009 and focus on reforms and changes in the national contexts for civic and citizenship education.
-
(d)
How do education systems, schools, and educators perceive the role of civic and citizenship education across participating countries? Analyses will address how teachers and school principals perceive, and how national curricula and policies state, the role that schools and teachers should play in preparing young people for citizenship.
-
(a)
-
RQ2
What is the extent and variation of students’ civic knowledge within and across participating countries? Analyses to address this research question primarily focus on student test data and encompass the following specific research questions:
-
(a)
Are variations in civic knowledge associated with student characteristics and background variables? Analyses will investigate the influence of student gender, socioeconomic indicators, and other background variables on civic knowledge.
-
(b)
What contextual factors explain variation in students’ civic knowledge? Analyses will study the relationship between contextual variables at different levels with variation in students’ civic knowledge.
-
(c)
What changes in civic knowledge have occurred since the previous survey cycles? Analyses will be limited to those countries participating in the corresponding ICCS surveys and require comparable measures of civic knowledge over time.
-
(a)
-
RQ3
What is the extent of students’ engagement in different spheres of society and which factors within or across countries are related to it? This research question is related to indicators of student engagement and encompasses the following specific research questions:
-
(a)
What beliefs do students hold regarding their own capacity to engage and the value of civic participation? Analyses will focus on student perceptions of civic engagement.
-
(b)
What is the extent and variation of students’ civic participation in and out of school? Analyses will focus on student reports on their past and current involvement in civic-related activities, as well as their communication about civic-related issues (including engagement with new electronic media).
-
(c)
Which expectations do students have regarding civic and political participation in the future? Analyses will address students’ behavioral intentions regarding different forms of civic or political participation.
-
(d)
What changes in the extent and forms of student engagement can be observed since the previous ICCS cycles? Analyses will include data from those countries participating in the corresponding ICCS surveys and engagement indicators included in both studies.
-
(a)
-
RQ4
What beliefs do students in participating countries hold regarding important civic issues in modern society and what are the factors influencing their variation? This research question is related to different student affective measures and encompasses the following specific research questions:
-
(a)
What are students’ beliefs regarding the importance of different principles underlying a democratic society? Analyses will focus on students’ value beliefs regarding democracy and citizenship, as well as issues related to concerns about global citizenship and sustainable development on a world-wide scale.
-
(b)
What attitudes do students hold toward civic institutions and society? Analyses will address the way students perceive society in general, its rules and institutions.
-
(c)
What are students’ perceptions of social cohesion and diversity in the societies they live in? Analyses will be related to students’ acceptance of equal rights and opportunities for all social groups, acceptance of diversity, and peaceful coexistence.
-
(d)
What changes in student beliefs can be observed since previous ICCS cycles? Analyses will include only data from those countries participating in the corresponding ICCS surveys and affective measures included in both studies.
-
(a)
-
RQ5
How is schooling in participating countries organized with regard to civic and citizenship education and what is its association with students’ learning outcomes? This research question is related to the ways schools (within their community context) provide spaces for civic and citizenship education, and encompasses the following specific research questions:
-
(a)
To what extent do schools in participating countries have participatory processes in place that facilitate civic engagement? Analyses will be based on student, teacher, and school survey indicators regarding the school climate for participation at school and civic engagement.
-
(b)
To what extent do schools and communities interact to foster students’ civic engagement and learning? Analyses will include student, teacher, and school survey data related to the schools’ interactions with the wider community (from local communities to interaction via web-based media) as well as opportunities for students’ active civic involvement.
-
(c)
To what extent do schools offer programs or activities related to civic learning and experiences (including activities related to global awareness, environmental sustainability, peaceful coexistence, engagement at local, national and global levels, and responsible use of social media)? Analyses will include student, teacher, and school survey data.
-
(a)
1.7 General Study Design
Consistent with previous ICCS cycles (Weber, 2018; Zuehlke, 2011), the student population to be surveyed consists of students in their eighth year of schooling (including students who are approximately 14 years of age). Typically, ICCS 2022 assesses Grade 8 students, provided that the average age of students at this year level is 13.5 years or above. In countries where the average age of students in Grade 8 is less than 13.5 years, Grade 9 is defined as the target population. In each sampled school, intact classrooms are selected, and all students in a class are assessed for the ICCS 2022 survey. Assessing this grade is in line with practice in other IEA studies that survey lower-secondary students across different learning areas.
The definition of the target population of teachers is also the same as in the previous ICCS cycles. ICCS 2022 surveys all teachers teaching regular school subjects to students in the target grade at each sampled school but is limited to those teachers teaching the target grade during the testing period and employed at the school since the beginning of the school year. At each participating school, 15 teachers are randomly selected, and, in schools with fewer than 20 teachers, all of them are surveyed. As in previous implementations of ICCS, there is also an international option to ask teachers of civic-related subjects at the target grade additional questions on civic teaching and learning.
An important unique feature of ICCS is the administration of additional regional instruments. ICCS 2009 included regional instruments for countries in Asia, Europe, and Latin America (Agrusti et al., 2018; Fraillon et al., 2012; Kerr et al., 2010, 2011; Schulz et al., 2011), while ICCS 2016 administered student questionnaires for European and Latin American participants (Agrusti et al., 2018; Losito et al., 2018; Schulz et al., 2018a). ICCS 2022 once again includes regional instruments for countries in Europe and Latin America that are developed to assess region-specific aspects of civic and citizenship education. The content of the regional instruments focuses on topics that are not covered in the international survey material and of particular relevance in the countries of the particular geographic region.
The following instruments are administered as part of the ICCS 2022 survey:
-
An international student test consisting of items measuring students’ civic knowledge and ability to analyze and reason. The instrument is either administered on paper or using the computer-based delivery platform.
-
An international student questionnaire consisting of items measuring student background variables and student perceptions. The instrument is either administered on paper or using the computer-based delivery platform.
-
Regional student instruments consisting of questionnaire-type items. These instruments are only administered in countries participating in the European and Latin American modules. The instruments are either administered on paper or using the computer-based delivery platform.
-
A teacher questionnaire, administered to selected teachers teaching any subject in the target grade. It gathers information about teacher background variables and teachers’ perceptions of factors related to the context of civic and citizenship education in their respective schools. As in previous ICCS cycles, participating national centers have the option of offering an online administration of this questionnaire.
-
A school questionnaire, administered to school principals of selected schools to capture school characteristics and school-level variables related to civic and citizenship participation. As with the teacher questionnaire, the school questionnaire may be completed online by respondents in countries participating in the option of an online delivery.
-
The national contexts survey, completed online by national center experts, is designed to gather data about the structure of the education systems, the status of civic and citizenship education in the national curricula, and recent developments in the area. The data obtained from this survey will supplement published information sources about countries and their education systems to assist with the interpretation of the results from the student, school, and teacher instruments, and in describing national contexts for civic and citizenship education.
1.8 Characteristics and Structure of the ICCS 2022 Assessment Framework
The assessment framework provides a conceptual underpinning for the international instrumentation for ICCS 2022. It needs to identify and define those aspects of cognitive and affective-behavioral content that should be considered important learning outcomes of civic and citizenship education, as well as contextual factors that are setting the context for students’ civic learning. It should be noted that within the context of this framework, the term “learning outcomes” is used in a broad way and that it is not intended to confine civic and citizenship education to school learning or any specific theoretical perspective. The way students develop civic knowledge and understanding, as well as affective-behavioral dispositions towards civic and citizenship issues, potentially depends on many factors, including those beyond the learning environment at schools (see Amnå et al., 2009; Neundorf et al., 2016; Pancer, 2015; Pancer & Pratt, 1999; Wray-Lake, 2019).
The development of young people’s knowledge and understanding of content and concepts related to civic and citizenship issues is one of the primary aims of this particular learning area. The importance of such knowledge and understanding lies also in the fact that it crucially underpins the ability of citizens to engage productively in society. Cross-national measurement of civic knowledge and understanding has been key to IEA studies relating to civic and citizenship education. The resulting data have provided important insights into the role of cognitive knowledge. The ICCS 2022 Civic Knowledge Framework (Chap. 2) describes aspects of students’ civic knowledge in terms of their content and the cognitive processes associated with it that are measured with ICCS 2022 student test items.
Civic and citizenship education provides opportunities for active participation, promotes the development of attitudes towards important aspects of civic life, and develops dispositions in young people to make positive contributions to their societies. Results from IEA studies investigating this learning area have contributed to the recognition that, as students acquire knowledge and understanding of aspects of civic and citizenship issues, it is also of crucial importance to investigate their attitudes to, and dispositions to participate in, civic life. Conversely, it should also be emphasized that as young people develop interests and inclinations toward engagement in civic life, they also learn and understand more about key aspects of civic and citizenship issues. The ICCS 2022 Civic Attitudes and Engagement Framework (Chap. 3) describes affective-behavioral constructs that are measured with student questionnaire items included in international and regional instruments.
ICCS has drawn on the conceptual model used in CIVED 1999 in its investigation of how young people are prepared for their roles as citizens through its emphasis on how individual students are influenced by different “agents of socialization” (Torney-Purta et al., 2001, p. 21). While ICCS as a study of civic and citizenship education places an emphasis on the role of schools, it assumes that learning of civic and citizenship content as well as the development of civic-related attitudes and dispositions toward engagement are a product of processes that take place in different environments and are not confined to school learning. Young people acquire knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral dispositions through interactions with a wide range of potentially significant actors and the various communities with which they are and/or feel associated. The ICCS 2022 Contextual Framework in Chap. 4 describes the variables that set civic-related cognitive and affective-behavioral learning outcomes into context, and that are measured by student, teacher and school questionnaires as well as the national contexts survey.
Compared to the conceptual frameworks for ICCS 2009 and 2016, a major change implemented in the ICCS 2022 assessment framework is that the previous civic and citizenship framework (describing both cognitive and affective-behavioral content) is now presented in two separate frameworks, the civic knowledge framework and the civic attitudes and engagement framework. This was implemented to simplify the structure of the assessment framework and make it more internally consistent. It is important to note that these changes to the structure do not affect the comparability of content and scope of ICCS 2022 with previous cycles. The civic attitudes and engagement framework further includes a sub-structure that covers similar elements as the content domains in the civic knowledge framework, so that the new framework structure continues to allow investigating the connections of civic knowledge with attitudes and engagement.
The new structure maintains a high degree of consistency across cycles, reflects contemporary research findings on civic and citizenship education among students at secondary school, is designed to address the needs and interests of participating countries, limits the framework’s scope to aspects that can be appropriately measured, encompasses relevant features that describe the breadth of contexts and outcomes of civic and citizenship education, and considers a wide range of diverse contexts for this learning area across participating countries.
The ICCS 2022 assessment framework consists of four parts that follow this introduction: the civic knowledge framework (describing aspects to be addressed when measuring students’ civic knowledge and understanding), the civic attitudes and engagement framework (describing the affective-behavioral constructs to be measured), the contextual framework (outlining the relevant context factors measured through student, teacher, school, and national contexts questionnaires necessary to understand cognitive and affective-behavioral learning outcomes), and in Chap. 5 the Assessment Design (describing the coverage of framework domains, the different item types, the assessment design, features of computer-enhanced measurement used in the international option of a computer-based delivery, and the expected cognitive, affective-behavioral and contextual indices). The framework also includes appendices with information about staff and institutions involved in ICCS 2022, key terms related to the civic knowledge framework, information on the described levels of civic knowledge, and examples of ICCS 2022 test items.
Notes
- 1.
In 1965 IEA inaugurated a cross-national survey of achievement in six subjects: science, reading comprehension, literature, English as a foreign language, French as a foreign language, and civic education.
References
Agrusti, G., Ainley, J., Losito, B., & Schulz, W. (2018). ICCS questionnaire development. In W. Schulz, R. Carstens, B. Losito, & J. Fraillon (Eds.). ICCS 2016 technical report (pp. 21–32). International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. https://www.iea.nl/publications/technical-reports/iccs-2016-technical-report
Ainley, J., Schulz, W., & Friedman, T. (Eds.) (2013). ICCS 2009 Encyclopedia. Approaches to civic and citizenship education around the world. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. https://www.iea.nl/index.php/publications/encyclopedias/iccs-2009-encyclopedia
Amadeo, J., Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Husfeldt, V., & Nikolova, R. (2002). Civic knowledge and engagement: An IEA study of upper secondary students in sixteen countries. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. https://www.iea.nl/publications/study-reports/international-reports-iea-studies/civic-knowledge-and-engagement
Amnå, E., Ekström, M., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2009). Political socialization and human agency. The development of civic engagement from adolescence to adulthood. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 111(1), 27–40. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270790092_Political_Socialization_and_Human_Agency_The_Development_of_Civic_Engagement_from_Adolescence_to_Adulthood
Anduiza, E., Jensen, M. J., & Jorba, L. (Eds.) (2012). Digital media and political engagement worldwide: A comparative study. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592715001838
Bachen, C., Raphael, C., Lynn, K., McKee, C., & Philippi, J. (2008). Civic engagement, pedagogy, and information technology on web sites for youth. Political Communication, 25(3), 290–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600802197525
Banks, J. A. (2001). Citizenship education and diversity. Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052001002
Banks, J. A. (2017). Failed citizenship and transformative civic education. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 366–377. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17726741
Banks, J. A. (2020). Diversity, transformative knowledge, and civic education. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Diversity-Transformative-Knowledge-and-Civic-Education-Selected-Essays/Banks/p/book/9780367863197
Banks, A. M. (2021). Civic education in the age of mass migration: Implications for theory and practice. Teachers College Press. https://www.tcpress.com/civic-education-in-the-age-of-mass-migration-9780807765791
Banks, J. A., & McGee Banks, C. A. (Eds.) (2009). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (7th ed.). Wiley.
Bartels, L. M., & Jackman, S. (2014). A generational model of political learning. Electoral Studies, 33(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.06.004
Bauman, Z. (2016). Strangers at our door. Polity Press.
Beller, M. (2013). Technologies in large-scale assessments: New directions, challenges, and opportunities. In M. von Davier, E. Gonzalez, I. Kirsch, K. Yamamoto (Eds.), The role of international large-scale assessments: Perspectives from technology, economy, and educational research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4629-9_3
Benavot, A. (2014). Education for sustainable development in primary and secondary education.
Boogards, M. (2017). Lessons from Brexit and Trump: Populism is what happens when political parties lose control. Zeitschrift Für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, 11(4), 513–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-017-0352-y
Boulianne, S., Lalancette, M., & Ilkiw, D. (2020). “School Strike 4 Climate”: Social media and the international youth protest on climate change. Media and Communication, 8(2), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2768
Bourdieu, P. (1996). On the family as a realized category. Theory, Culture and Society, 13(3), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327696013003002
Bourn, D., Hunt, F., & Bamber, P. (2017). A review of education for sustainable development and global citizenship education in teacher education. (UNESCO GEM Background Paper). UNESCO. http://gem-report-2017.unesco.org/en/background-papers/
Brennan, G. (2018). How digital media reshapes political activism: mass protests, social mobilization, and civic engagement. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 10(2), 76–81. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26802343
Brodie, J. (2004). Introduction: Globalization and citizenship beyond the national state. Citizenship Studies, 8(4), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/1362102052000316945
Bromley, P., Lerch, J., & Jimenez, J. (2016). Education for global citizenship education & sustainable development: Content in social science textbooks. Background paper for the 2016 Global Education Monitoring Report, UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12240
Campos, C., Hargreaves Heap, S., & Lopez de Leon, F. (2017). The political influence of peer groups: Experimental evidence in the classroom. Oxford Economic Papers, 69(4), 963–985. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpw065
Chan, J., To, H.-P., & Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Social Indicators Research, 75(2), 273–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-2118-1
Cho, A. (2020). Digital civic engagement by young people. Office of Global Insight and Policy, UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/globalinsight/reports/digital-civic-engagement-young-people
Choi, M. (2016). A concept analysis of digital citizenship for democratic citizenship education in the internet age. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(4), 565–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2016.1210549
Christensen, I. R., Biseth, H., & Huang, L. (2021). Developing digital citizenship and civic engagement through social media use in Nordic schools. In H. Biseth, B. Hoskins, L. Huang (Eds.), Northern lights on civic and citizenship education. IEA Research for Education (A series of in-depth analyses based on data of the international association for the evaluation of educational achievement (IEA) (Vol. 11)). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66788-7_4
Conover, P. J. (1995). Citizen identities and conceptions of the self. Journal of Political Philosophy, 3(2), 133–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.1995.tb00032.x
Council of Europe. (2018). Reference framework of competences for democratic culture. Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/reference-framework-of-competences-for-democratic-culture
Council of the European Union. (2021). Council resolution on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training towards the European education area and beyond (2021–2030). Council of Europe. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/48584/st06289-re01-en21.pdf
Cox, C. (2010). Informe de Referente Regional 2010: Oportunidades de aprendizaje escolar de la ciudadanía en América Latina: currículos comparados [Report on regional references 2010: Opportunities for learning about citizenship in Latin America. A comparison of curricula]. Regional System for the Development and Evaluation of Citizenship Competencies.
Daniels, H., & Garner, P. (Eds.). (1999). Inclusive education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203080245
De Moor, K. U., Wahlström, M., Wennerhag, M., & De Vydt, M. (Eds.) (2020). Protest for a future II: Composition, mobilization and motives of the participants in Fridays For Future climate protests on 20-27 September, 2019, in 19 cities around the world. https://gup.ub.gu.se/publication/290509
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.
Diamond, L. (2015). Facing up to democratic recession. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2015.0009
Diamond, L. (2021). Democratic regression in comparative perspective: Scope, methods, and causes. Democratization, 28(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1807517
Dinas, E. (2013). Opening ‘Openness to Change’: Political events and the increased sensitivity of young adults. Political Research Quarterly., 66(4), 868–882. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913475874
Estellés, M., & Castellví, J. (2020). The educational implications of populism, emotions and digital hate speech: A dialogue with scholars from Canada, Chile, Spain, the UK, and the US. Sustainability, 12(15), 6034. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156034
eTwinning. (2016). Growing digital citizens. eTwinning. https://www.etwinning.net/eun-files/book2016/eTwinningBook_2016.pdf
European Commission. (2016). Understanding and tackling the migration challenge: The role of research. European Commission. https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/understanding-tackling-migration-challenge-role-research_en
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2017). Citizenship Education at School in Europe—2017. Eurydice Report. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/818387
Eurostat (2018). Migration and migrant population statistics. EU citizens living in another Member State. Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=EU_citizens_living_in_another_Member_State_-_statistical_overview
Evans, N. S., Stevenson, R. B., Lasen, M., Ferreira, J. A., & Davis, J. (2017). Approaches to embedding sustainability in teacher education: A synthesis of the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.013
Fishbein, B., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. A., & Foy, P. (2018). The TIMSS 2019 item equivalence study: Examining mode effects for computer-based assessment and implications for measuring trends. Large-Scale Assessment in Education, 6, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0064-z
Fozdar, F., & Matin, C. (2020). Constructing the postnational citizen?: Civics and citizenship education in the Australian National Curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(3), 372–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2020.1727018
Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., & Ainley, J. (2012). ICCS 2009 Asian report. Civic knowledge and attitudes among lower secondary students in five Asian countries. IEA. https://www.iea.nl/publications/study-reports/international-reports-iea-studies/iccs-2009-asian-report
Frau-Meigs, D., O’Neill, B., Soriani, A., & Tome, V. (2017). Digital citizenship education: Volume 1: Overview and new perspectives. Council of Europe Publishing.
Frey, C. B., Chen, C., & Presidente, G. (2020). Democracy, culture, and contagion: Political regimes and countries’ responsiveness to Covid-19. COVID Economics: Vetted and Real-Time Papers, 18, 222–238. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:06808503-78e4-404f-804f-1f97ab2c7d7e
Geboers, E., Geijsel, F., Admiraal, W., & ten Dam, G. (2013). Review of the effects of citizenship education. Educational Research Review, 9, 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.02.001
Gidron N., & Hall, P. A. (2020). Populism as a problem of social integration. Comparative Political Studies, 53(7), 1027–1059. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019879947
Gould, J. (Ed.) (2011). Guardian of democracy: The civic mission of schools. National Conference on Citizenship. https://www.csuchico.edu/iege/_assets/documents/susi-guardian-of-democracy-the-civic-mission-of-schools.pdf
Green, A., & Janmaat, J. G. (2011). Regimes of social cohesion: Societies and the crisis of globalization.
Griffith, R. L., Wolfeld, L., Armon, B. K., Rios, J., & Liu, O. L. (2016). Assessing intercultural competence in higher education: Existing research and future directions. ETS Research Report Series, 2016(2), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12112
Hattam, R. (2018). Diversity, Global citizenship and the culturally responsive school. In I. Davies, H. Li-Ching, D. Kiwan, C. L. Peck, A. Peterson, E. Sant, & Y. Waghid (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global citizenship education (pp. 257–275). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59733-5_17
Heflin, K. (2015). The Internet is not the antidote. Journalism History, 41(3), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00947679.2015.12059127
Henn, M., & Weinstein, M. (2006). Young people and political (in)activism: Why don’t young people vote? Policy & Politics, 34(3), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557306777695316
Hobolt, S., Anduiza, E., Carkoglu, A., Lutz, G., & Sauger, N. (2016). Democracy divided? People, politicians and the politics of populism. CSES Planning committee final report. https://cses.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CSES5_ContentSubcommittee_FinalReport.pdf
Hoskins, B., Janmaat, J. G., & Melis, G. (2017). Tackling inequalities in political socialisation: A systematic analysis of access to and mitigation effects of learning citizenship at school. Social Science Research, 68, 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.09.001
Howard, P. N., & Hussain, M. M. (2011). The upheavals in Egypt and Tunisia: The role of digital media. Journal of Democracy, 22(3), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1353/JOD.2011.0041
Inglehart, R. F., & Norris, P. (2016). Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash (July 29 2016) (HKS Working Paper No. RWP16-026). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2818659
Jennings, M. K., Stoker, L., & Bowers, J. (2009). Politics across generations: Family transmission reexamined. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 782–799. Institute of Governmental Studies. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609090719
Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2019). Can media literacy education increase digital engagement in politics? Learning, Media and Technology, 44(2), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1601108
Kahne, J., Lee, N., & Feezell, J. T. (2012). The civic and political significance of online participatory cultures among youth transitioning to adulthood. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.701109
Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., & Allen, D. (2014). Youth, new media and the rise of participatory politics. YPP research network working paper #1. Youth and participatory politics research network. https://clalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/files/ypp_workinpapers_paper01_1.pdf
Kahne, J., Hodgin, E., & Eidman-Aadahl, E. (2016). Redesigning civic education for the digital age: Participatory politics and the pursuit of democratic engagement. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2015.1132646
Kaufman, C. (2020). Civic education in a fake news era: Lessons for the methods classroom. Journal of Political Science Education, 17(2), 326–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2020.1764366
Kennedy, K. (2012). Global trends in civic and citizenship education: What are the lessons for nation states? Education Sciences, 2(3), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci2030121
Kerr, D., Sturman, L., Schulz, W., & Burge, B. (2010). ICCS 2009 European report. Civic knowledge, attitudes and engagement among lower secondary school students in twenty-four European countries. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. https://www.iea.nl/publications/study-reports/international-reports-iea-studies/iccs-2009-european-report
Kerr, D., Schulz, W., & Fraillon, J. (2011). The development of regional instruments. In W. Schulz, J. Ainley, & J. Fraillon (Eds.), ICCS 2009 technical report (pp. 45–49). International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. https://www.iea.nl/publications/technical-reports/iccs-2009-technical-report
Knowles, R., Torney-Purta, J., & Barber, C. (2018). Enhancing citizenship learning with international comparative research: Analyses of IEA civic education datasets. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 13(3), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1386/ctl.13.1.7_1
Kopnina, H., & Meijers, F. (2014). Education for sustainable development (ESD): Exploring theoretical and practical challenges. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(2), 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2012-0059
Landmann, T., & Di Gennaro Splendore, L. (2020). Pandemic democracy: Elections and COVID-19. Journal of Risk Research, 23(7–8), 1060–1066. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1765003
Lauglo, J. (2011). Political socialization in the home and young people’s educational achievement and ambition. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 32(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2011.527722
Lee, C. D., White, G., & Dong, D. (Eds.). (2021). Educating for civic reasoning and discourse. National Academy of Education. https://doi.org/10.31094/2021/2
Losito, B., Agrusti, G., Damiani, V. & Schulz W. (2018). Young people’s perceptions of Europe in a time of change IEA international civic and citizenship education study 2016 European report. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). https://www.iea.nl/publications/study-reports/international-reports-iea-studies/young-peoples-perceptions-europe-time
Mair, P. (2002). Populist democracy vs party democracy. In: Y. Mény, Y. Surel (Eds.), Democracies and the populist challenge (pp. 81–98). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403920072_5
Malak-Minkiewicz, B. & Torney-Purta, J. (Eds.) (2021). Influences of the IEA civic and citizenship education studies: Practice, policy, and research across countries and regions. Springer. https://doi-org.libproxy.viko.lt/10.1007/978-3-030-71102-3
Marquardt, J. (2020). Fridays for future’s disruptive potential: An inconvenient youth between moderate and radical ideas. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00048
Marzocchi, O. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 measures on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in the EU (European Parliament Briefing). European Parliament. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/47207
McGrew, S., Ortega, T., Breakstone, J., & Wineburg, S. (2017). The challenge that’s bigger than fake news: Civic reasoning in a social media environment, American Educator, 41(3), 4–9. https://www.aft.org/ae/fall2017/mcgrew_ortega_breakstone_wineburg
Middaugh, E., Bowyer, B., & Kahne, J. (2016). U Suk! Participatory media and youth experiences with political discourse. Youth & Society, 49(7), 902–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X16655246
Mochizuki, Y., & Bryan, A. (2015). Climate change education in the context of education for sustainable development: Rationale and principles. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 9(1), 4–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408215569109
Modood, T., & Meer, N. (2013). Contemporary citizenship and diversity in Europe: The place of multiculturalism. In R. Taras (Ed.), Challenging multiculturalism: European models of diversity (pp. 25–51). Edinburgh University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt20q22fw
Morrell, G. (2008). Multiculturalism, citizenship and identity. Information Centre about Asylum and Refugees (ICAR).
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship. The internet, society, and participation. The MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/digital-citizenship
Myoung, E., & Liou, P. Y. (2022). Adolescents’ political socialization at school, citizenship self-efficacy, and expected electoral participation. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 51, 1305–1316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01581-w
Neundorf, A., & Smets, K. (2017). Political socialization and the making of citizens. In Oxford handbooks online in political science. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935307.013.98
Neundorf, A., Smets, K., & García-Albacete, G. M.(2013). Homemade citizens: The development of political interest during adolescence and young adulthood. Acta Politica, 48(1), 92–116. https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2012.23
Neundorf, A., Niemi, R., & Smets, K. (2016). The compensation effect of civic education on political engagement: How civics classes make up for missing parental socialization. Political Behavior, 38(4), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9341-0
Nie, N. H., & Hillygus, (2001). Education and democratic citizenship. In D. Ravitch & J. P. Viteritti (Eds.), In making good citizens. education and civil society (pp. 30–57). Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npt8c.6
Niemi, R. G., & Klingler, J. D. (2012). The development of political attitudes and behaviour among young adults. Australian Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2011.643167
OECD. (2012). Free movement of workers and labour market adjustment. Recent experiences from OECD countries and the European Union. OECD Publications. https://www.oecd.org/migration/freemovementofworkersandlabourmarketadjustment.htm
OECD. (2015). Skills for social progress. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264226159-en
Osler, A. (2011). Teacher interpretations of citizenship education: National identity, cosmopolitan ideals, and political realities. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2010.503245
Osler, A. (2012) Citizenship education and diversity. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity in education (Vol. 1, pp. 353–361). Sage Publications Inc. https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/diversityineducation
Oxley, L., & Morris, P. (2013). Global citizenship: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(3), 301–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2013.798393
Peterson, J. C., Smith, K. B., & Hibbing, J. R. (2020). Do people really become more conservative as they age? The Journal of Politics, 82(2), 600–611. https://doi.org/10.1086/706889
Pancer, S. M. (2015). The psychology of citizenship and civic engagement. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199752126.001.0001
Pancer, S., & Pratt, M. (1999). Social and family determinants of community service involvement in Canadian youth. In M. Yates & J. Youniss (Eds.), Roots of civic identity (pp. 32–55). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511751820
Pashby, K., da Costa, M., Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2020). A meta-review of typologies of global citizenship education. Comparative Education, 56(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2020.1723352
Pew Research Center. (2019). Climate change still seen as the top global threat, but cyberattacks a rising concern. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/02/10/climate-change-still-seen-as-the-top-global-threat-but-cyberattacks-a-rising-concern/
Rainie, L., Smith, A., Schlozman, K., Brady, H., & Verba, S. (2012). Social media and political engagement. Pew Research Center’s Internet, & American Life Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2012/10/19/social-media-and-political-engagement/
Reay, D. (1998). Cultural reproduction: Mothers’ involvement in their children’s primary schooling. In M. Grenfell & D. James (Eds.), Bourdieu and education: Acts of practical theory (pp. 55–71). Falmer Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203209455
Reichert, F., Lange, D., & Chow, L. (2021). Educational beliefs matter for classroom instruction: A comparative analysis of teachers’ beliefs about the aims of civic education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 98, Article 103248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103248
Reid, A., Gill, J., & Sears, A. (Eds.). (2010). Globalisation, the nation-state and the citizen. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855119
Reimers, F. (2013). Education for improvement: Citizenship in the global public sphere. Harvard International Review, 35(1), 56–61.
Rekker, R., Keijser, L., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2015). Political attitudes in adolescence and emerging adulthood: Developmental changes in mean level, polarization, rank order stability, and correlates. Journal of Adolescence, 41, 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.03.011
Sandoval-Hernández, A., Isac, M. M., & Miranda, D. (Eds.) (2018). Teaching tolerance in a globalized world. IEA Research for Education (Vol. 4). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78692-6
Sandoval-Hernández, A., Isac, M. M., & Miranda, D. (2019). Measurement strategy for SDG global indicator 4.7.1 and thematic indicators 4.7.4 and 4.7.5 using international large-scale assessments in education: Proposal. (Information papers; No. GAML6/REF/9). UNESCO Institute for Statistics. http://gaml.uis.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/08/GAML6-REF-9-measurement-strategy-for-4.7.1-4.7.4-4.7.5.pdf
Sant, E. (2019). Democratic education: A theoretical review (2006–2017). Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 655–696. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319862493
Schachner, M. (2014). Contextual conditions for acculturation and school-related outcomes of early adolescent immigrants in Germany (doctoral thesis). University of Jena and Tilburg University. https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/contextual-conditions-for-acculturation-and-school-related-outcom
Schachner, M. K. (2019). From equality and inclusion to cultural pluralism—Evolution and effects of cultural diversity perspectives in schools. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2017.1326378
Schachner, M. K., Noack, P., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Eckstein, K. (2016). Cultural diversity climate and psychological adjustment at school: Equality and inclusion versus cultural pluralism. Child Development, 87(4), 1175–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12536
Schattle, H. (2012). Globalization and citizenship. Rowman & Littlefield.
Schulz, W. (2018). Civic knowledge, engagement and attitudes among lower-secondary students in 24 countries. Results from ICCS 2016. In J. A. Pineda-Alonso, N. De Alba, & E. Navarro-Medina (Eds.), Handbook of research on education for participative citizenship and global prosperity. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7110-0.CH001
Schulz, W. (2021). Reflections on the development of IEA civic and citizenship education studies. In J. Torney-Purta & B. Malak (Eds.), Contributions of IEA’s civic and citizenship studies to educational discourse: Perceptions across nations. Springer. https://springerlink.fh-diploma.de/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-030-71102-3_23.pdf
Schulz, W., Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Losito, B., & Kerr, D. (2008). International civic and citizenship education study. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39357-5
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). ICCS 2009 international report. Civic knowledge, attitudes and engagement among lower secondary school students in thirty-eight countries. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. https://www.iea.nl/publications/study-reports/international-reports-iea-studies/iccs-2009-international-report
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Friedman, T., & Lietz, P. (2011). ICCS 2009 Latin American Report: Civic knowledge and attitudes among lower secondary students in six Latin American countries. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2019-04/ICCS_2009_Latin_American_Report.pdf
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., & Agrusti, G. (2016). IEA international civic and citizenship education study 2016. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39357-5
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Cox, C., & Friedman, T. (2018a). Young people’s views of government, peaceful coexistence and diversity in five Latin American countries. IEA international civic and citizenship education study 2016 Latin American report. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95393-9
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G., Friedman, T. (2018b). Becoming citizens in a changing world. IEA international civic and citizenship education study 2016 international report. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73963-2
Searing, D., Wright, G., & Rabinowitz, G. (1976). The primacy principle: Attitude change and political socialization. British Journal of Political Science, 6(1), 83–113. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400000533
Sears, D. O., & Levy, S. (2003). Childhood and adult political development. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.). Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 60–109). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199760107.013.0003
Sibberns, H. (2020). Technology and assessment. In H. Wagemaker (Eds.), Reliability and validity of international large-scale assessment. IEA research for education (Vol. 10). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53081-5_10
Sincer, I., Severiens, S., & Volmer, M. (2019). Teaching diversity in citizenship education: Context- related teacher understandings and practices. Teacher and Teacher Education, 78, 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.015
Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382117722446
Taylor, N., Quinn, F., Jenkins, K., Miller-Brown, H., Rizk, N., Prodromou, T., Serow, P., & Taylor, S. (2019). Education for sustainability in the secondary sector—A review. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 13(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973408219846675
Theocharis, Y., & Van Deth, J. W. (2018). The continuous expansion of citizen participation: A new taxonomy. European Political Science Review, 10(1), 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773916000230
Torney, J., Oppenheim, A. N., & Farnen, R. F. (1975). Civic education in ten countries: An empirical study. Wiley.
Torney-Purta, J. (2002). The school’s role in developing civic engagement: A study of adolescents in twenty-eight countries. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0604_7
Torney-Purta, J., & Schwille, J. (2011). The international civic and citizenship education study (ICCS). In C. Papanastasiou, T. Plomp, & E. C. Papanastasiou (Eds.), IEA 1958–2008: 50 years of experiences and memories (Vol. 1, pp. 97–114). Cultural Center of the Kykkos Monastery.
Torney-Purta, J., & Wilkenfeld, B. (2009). Pathways to twenty-first century competencies through civic education classrooms: An analysis of survey results from ninth-graders. Division for Public Education.
Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in twenty- eight countries. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. https://www.iea.nl/publications/study-reports/international-reports-iea-studies/citizenship-and-education-twenty-eight
Tynes, B. M., Del Toro J., & Lozada F. T. (2015). An unwelcomed digital visitor in the classroom: The longitudinal impact of online racial discrimination on academic motivation. School Psychology Review, 44(4), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-15-0095.1
UNESCO (2015). Global citizenship education: Topics and learning objectives. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/gcedtopicsandlearningobjectives_01.pdf
UNESCO International Bureau for Education. (2016). Global monitoring of target 4.7: Themes in national curriculum frameworks. UNESCO International Bureau for Education. https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/from-crm/491245629eng.pdf
UNESCO. (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: learning objectives. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444
UNESCO. (2018). Global education monitoring report, 2019: Migration, displacement and education: building bridges, not walls. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265866
UNESCO. (2020). Education for sustainable development: A roadmap. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802
UNESCO. (2021). Berlin declaration on education for sustainable development. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/esdfor2030-berlin-declaration-en.pdf
United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2016). Leaving no one behind: the imperative of inclusive development. Report on the World Social Situation (ST/ESA/362). https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/full-report.pdf
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2017). International migration report 2017: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/404). United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/MigrationReport2017_Highlights.pdf
Van Deth, J. W., Abendschön, S., Rathke. J., & Vollmar, M. (2007). Kinder und politik: Politische einstellungen von jungen kindern im ersten grundschuljahr [Children and politics: Political orientations of young children in the first year of primary school]. VS Verlag. https://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/d7/en/publications/book/kinder-und-politik-politische-einstellungen-von-jungen-kindern-im-ersten-grundschuljahr
Van Deth, J. W., Abendschön, S., & Vollmar, M. (2011). Early political socialization. Political Psychology, 32(1), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00798.x
Veerman, G., Denessen, E., & Zhao, Z. (2021). Social cohesion in schools: A non-systematic review of its conceptualization and instruments. Cogent Education, 8(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1940633
Veugelers, W. (2011). The moral and the political in global citizenship: Appreciating differences in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3–4), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2011.605329
Wals, A. E. J., & Benavot, A. (2017). Can we meet the sustainability challenges? The role of education and lifelong learning. European Journal for Education, 52(4), 404–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12250
Wattenberg, M. P. (2008). Is voting for young people? Pearson Longman.
Weber, S. (2018). Sampling design and implementation. In W. Schulz, R. Carstens, B. Losito, & J. Fraillon (Eds.). ICCS 2016 technical report (pp. 43–51). International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. https://www.iea.nl/publications/technical-reports/iccs-2016-technical-report
Weiss, J. (2020). What Is youth political participation? Literature review on youth political participation and political attitudes. Frontiers in Political Science, 2(May), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2020.00001
Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for communities.
Wray-Lake, L. (2019). How do young people become politically engaged? Child Development Perspectives, 13(2), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12324
Zuehlke, O. (2011). Sampling design and implementation. In W. Schulz, J. Ainley, & J. Fraillon (Eds.), ICCS 2009 technical report (pp. 59–68). International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. https://www.iea.nl/index.php/publications/technical-reports/iccs-2009-technical-report
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The International Association for, Evaluation of Educational Achievement
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schulz, W. et al. (2023). Overview. In: IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2022 Assessment Framework. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20113-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20113-4_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-20112-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-20113-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)