Keywords

4.1 Framework Scope and Structure

IEA studies of civic and citizenship education have always focused on the individual student’s acquisition of knowledge, attitudes and dispositions for engagement, which is influenced by their connections with multiple civic communities. This was explicitly expressed in the theoretical model underlying the IEA CIVED study in 1999, which asserted that young people’s learning of civic and citizenship issues was not limited to instruction at school but dependent on different “agents” of socialization (Torney-Purta et al., 2001, p. 21). This conceptual view is influenced by and consistent with theories of ecological systems (Bronfenbrenner, 2004; Ettekal & Mahoney, 2017; Neal & Neal, 2013) and situated cognition (Anderson et al., 2000; Barsalou, 2016). It strongly emphasizes the importance of capturing relevant contextual information as part of this study in addition to measuring students’ cognitive and affective-behavioral learning outcomes.

While ICCS broadened the conceptual framework underpinning the IEA CIVED study in 1999 through the inclusion of further aspects (see Schulz, 2021), it maintained the conceptual view of regarding the civic learning of young people as a result of interactions with multiple civic communities, in addition to formal education (Schulz et al., 2008). The ICCS 2022 contextual framework describes the variables that are important to consider when studying learning outcomes of civic and citizenship education. ICCS assumes that the individual student is located within overlapping contexts of school and home. Both these contexts form part of the local community which, in turn, is embedded in the wider sub-national, national, and international contexts.

As in previous ICCS frameworks, the contextual framework for ICCS 2022 distinguishes the following four levels:

  • The context of the wider community comprises the broader context within which schools and home environments operate (ranging from local to global levels). Factors can be found at local, regional, and national levels. For a number of countries, the supra-national level has also become relevant as, for example, for member countries of the European Union. Given the increased importance of digital technologies for communication and engagement, virtual communities connected through the internet also form part of this context.

  • The context of schools and classrooms comprises factors related to teaching and learning, the school culture, and the general school environment.Footnote 1

  • The context of home and peer environments comprises factors related to the home background and the immediate social out-of-school environment of the student (for example, peer-group activities).

  • The context of the individual refers to the individual characteristics of the student (for example, their gender or educational aspiration).

ICCS also groups contextual variables into the following types of variables:

  • Antecedents are pre-existing variables that shape how student learning and acquisition of civic-related understandings and perceptions takes place. Note that these factors are level-specific and may be influenced by antecedents or processes at a higher level. For example, civic-related training of teachers may be affected by historical factors and/or policies implemented at the national level.

  • Processes are those variables related to civic-related learning and the acquisition of understandings, competences, and dispositions. They are constrained or enabled by antecedents and possibly influenced by variables relating to the higher levels of the multi-level structure.

Antecedents and processes are variables that have potential impact on outcomes at the level of the individual student. Learning outcomes related to civic and citizenship education at the student level also can be viewed as aggregates at higher levels (school, country) where they can affect factors related to processes. For example, having higher levels of civic understanding and engagement among students may influence the way schools and educators teach content or organize activities related to civic and citizenship education.

Figure 4.1 illustrates which contextual variables might influence the learning outcomes of civic and citizenship education. It is important to emphasize that “feedback” may occur between civic- related learning outcomes and processes in terms of a reciprocal relationship between these two types of variables. For example, students with higher levels of civic knowledge and engagement would be expected to participate more frequently in activities (at school, at home, and within the community) that, in turn, promote these outcomes.

Fig. 4.1
A process flow represents the antecedents and processes to bridge the gaps within a community. Their implementation results in cognitive affective behavioral changes. Schools, students, home and peer environment are all part of the community.

Contexts for the development of learning outcomes related to civic and citizenship education

Full size image

There is a unidirectional relationship between antecedents and processes at each level. However, higher-level processes may influence antecedents, and it is likely that, from a long-term perspective, outcomes may affect variables that are antecedents for learning processes.

This contextual framework for ICCS makes it possible to map variables for which data are collected on a three-by-four grid, with antecedents, processes, and outcomes as columns, and the levels of country/community, school/classroom, student, and home environment, as rows (Table 4.1). Although the last column for outcomes is not split into levels, it is important to recognize that, for the analysis of ICCS data, aggregates can also be used at wider community or school/classroom levels.Footnote 2

Table 4.1 Mapping of variables to contextual framework (examples)
Full size table

Table 4.1 shows examples of potential variables (or groups of variables) collected with different ICCS instruments for each cell in this grid. Variables related to the context of country/community are collected primarily through the national contexts survey and other possible data sources. Variables related to the context of schools and classrooms are collected through the school and teacher questionnaires. The student questionnaire provides information on antecedents of the individual student and the home environment as well as some process-related variables (for example, learning activities). The student test and the student perceptions questionnaire collect data on outcomes. In addition, the student background questionnaire includes questions regarding student participation in civic-related activities that will provide indicators of active citizenship related to content domain 3 (civic participation).

Some potential variables can be measured at one level pertaining to another level (such as school principals’ perceptions of the local community) and are not included in the mapping shown in Table 4.1. It is also important to note that student observations of learning practices in the classroom can be aggregated and used as classroom or school variables. Furthermore, student, school, and teacher questionnaire data might also provide civic-related information about the context of the local community.

4.2 The Context of the Wider Community

ICCS views the context of the wider community as consisting of different levels because the students, their schools, home, and peer environments are located in their local communities, which in turn are embedded within broader contexts of regional, national, and supranational contexts. Within the scope of this study, at the level of the wider community, contexts related to local and national levels are of particular relevance. However, due to increasing globalization, connectedness via digital technologies and the growing importance of supranational organizations, it is important to consider contexts beyond the nation-state within the scope of ICCS.

4.2.1 The Context of the Educational System

For an investigation of how young people in lower-secondary education develop civic-related dispositions and competences and acquire understandings with regard to their role as citizens, it is crucial to give proper consideration to the national level. Historical background, the political system, the structure of education, and the curriculum are important contextual variables that need to be considered when interpreting results from an international assessment of civic and citizenship education. Data from official statistics provide a range of relevant contextual data at the country level; regarding the structure of the education system, the nature of the political system, and the economic and social context of the society.

As in previous cycles, the national contexts survey for ICCS 2022 is designed to provide for a systematic collection of relevant data based on expertise provided by the national research centers. These data include information on the structure of national education systems, education policies, approaches to civic and citizenship education, teacher training in general and for civic and citizenship education in particular, and approaches to assessment and quality assurance regarding the area of civic and citizenship education. The survey also collects information on recent or current debates and reforms related to this learning area.

The structure of the education system

Despite a number of global trends in education that have increasingly led to many common features in policies and structures across countries (Benavot et al., 1991; Frank & Meyer, 2021; Wiseman & Baker, 2005), differences between education systems continue to have a considerable effect on the outcomes of education (Baker & LeTendre, 2005; Woessmann, 2016).

To capture such basic differences at the national level, the ICCS 2022 national contexts survey collects system-level data on the structure of school education (study programs, public/private school management, types of lower-secondary education institutions), the autonomy of educational providers with regard to different aspects, and the length of compulsory schooling. Further, it also gathers information about changes in the structure since the previous ICCS cycle in 2016.

Education policies and developments regarding civic and citizenship education

Previous reviews of educational policies regarding civic and citizenship education have indicated the presence of a wide range of objectives related to the area (Birzea et al., 2004; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012, 2017; Lee et al., 2004; Torney-Purta et al., 1999). Despite this presence, results from previous cycles of ICCS (Ainley et al., 2013; Schulz et al., 2010, 2018b) showed the priority assigned to civic and citizenship education was frequently reported as low across participating countries. While civic goals tended to be reported as important in principle, there were substantial differences in the approaches toward the delivery of curricular content across countries. Findings from the two previous cycles of the study also highlighted the fact that explicit civic and citizenship education in many countries tends to commence after students reach the age of 14.

It is important to acknowledge that between study cycles there may be educational reforms in countries, typically designed to improve educational provision and outcomes or better reflect government priorities, and that such changes potentially also affect aspects of civic and citizenship education. Many of these educational reforms tend to be implemented in response to the challenges of learning and living in modern societies, as well as changes in political systems (Ainley et al., 2013; Cox et al., 2005).

The ICCS 2022 national contexts survey collects data on the definition of, and the priority given to, civic and citizenship education in the educational policy and its provision in each participating country at the time of the data collection. National centers provide information about the official definition of civic and citizenship education, its formal implementation in lower-secondary education, and its main goals. National centers are also asked about the potential influence of historical, cultural, political, and other contexts on the character of, and approach to, civic and citizenship education, whether there have been major national or international studies about this learning area since 2005, and whether there have been any substantial changes since the previous survey from 2016.

In view of the recent educational disruptions across countries due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the national contexts survey also gathers data about the extent to which teaching and learning, in general, and regarding civic and citizenship education, was affected, and whether there has been formal support for the development of digital resources in this learning area. Furthermore, the national contexts survey collects information about the effects of the 2022 Ukraine crisis on civic and citizenship participation in ICCS 2022 countries.

Civic and citizenship education and school curriculum approaches

Countries take different approaches to the implementation of civic and citizenship education in their curricula and the ways it is implemented tend to vary considerably across countries (Ainley et al., 2013; Cox et al., 2005; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017). Some educational systems have included civic and citizenship education in their curricula as a compulsory or optional (stand-alone) subject, whereas others include it through integration into other subjects. Alternative approaches to civic and citizenship education, typically chosen in addition to learning based on subject matter, are the implementations of civic-related cross-curricular themes or the adoption of a whole school approach, where all aspects of schooling are considered to be contributing to this learning area. Previous cycles of ICCS showed that in many education systems and/or schools, combinations of different approaches are implemented at the same time (Ainley et al., 2013; Schulz et al., 2018b).

With regard to school curriculum approaches for civic and citizenship education, a Eurydice report from 2012 (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012) distinguished between (i) promotion through steering documents such a national curricula or other recommendations/regulations, (ii) support for school-based programs and projects, and (iii) the establishment of political structures (such as school parliaments). In this context it is also important to review the extent to which schools in different countries provide support for civic and citizenship education through school culture or ethos, democratic school governance, and the establishment of links with the wider community (Birzea et al., 2004; Council of Europe, 2018; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012). Results from ICCS 2009 showed that many countries include recommendations for the establishment of democratic school practices in their educational policies (see Ainley et al., 2013).

The national contexts survey in ICCS 2022 gathers data on the inclusion of civic and citizenship education (as a separate subject, or integrated into different subjects, or as cross-curricular approach) in the formal curriculum at different stages of schooling and in distinct study programs. The survey also captures the names of specific curriculum subjects and whether these are compulsory or optional at each educational level (primary, lower and upper secondary). Furthermore, the national contexts survey collects data regarding the aims of the national or official curricula for civic and citizenship education related to specific contexts such as whole school and school curriculum approaches, student participation or parental involvement, and links to the wider community.

Because ICCS surveys students in a specific target grade in lower secondary programs (typically Grade 8), the national contexts survey gathers more detailed information about the curricular context for civic and citizenship education for this particular grade. In addition, national centers report on the specification of topics, objectives, and processes when implementing the school curriculum, as well as the amount of instructional time given to civic and citizenship education. The national context survey for ICCS 2022 includes content reflecting changes to the framework including questions about global citizenship values, the presence of policies for intercultural education, addressing diversity at school, inclusive education, the promotion of democratic ideals in schools, and the use of digital technologies to encourage civic engagement. This is further reflected in additional questions related to curricula contents on the new or further developed focus areas for ICCS 2022.

Teachers and civic and citizenship education

The teacher survey undertaken as part of the CIVED survey showed a great deal of diversity in the subject-matter background, professional development, and work experience of those teachers involved in civic and citizenship education (Losito & Mintrop, 2001). In relation to teacher training in this field, research showed a rather limited and inconsistent approach to in-service training and professional development (Birzea et al., 2004; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2005). The results of previous national contexts surveys showed that, while in most participating countries, pre-service and in-service training was provided, in most cases, this provision was typically reported as non-mandatory (Schulz et al., 2010, 2018b). In some countries, data from previous cycles of ICCS have contributed to improving teacher education in terms of pre- and in-service training (Malak-Minkiewicz & Torney-Purta, 2021).

To assess the variety of different approaches to teacher education in the field at the level of education systems, the national contexts survey in ICCS 2022 collects data about the general requirements for becoming a teacher and about licensing or certification procedures for teachers. More specifically, the survey gathers data about the characteristics of teachers of civic and citizenship education in terms of their subject area, the extent to which civic and citizenship education is part of pre-service or initial teacher education, and the availability of in-service or continuing professional development education, as well as the type of providers available for continuing education and professional development. Furthermore, the ICCS 2022 national contexts survey gauges whether different civic-related topics and skills are specified as goals for initial teacher education programs.

Assessment and quality assurance in civic and citizenship education

Comparisons of assessment and quality assurance for civic and citizenship education are difficult and complex due to the diversity of approaches to teaching this subject area across countries. Research in Europe shows that, in most countries, compared to other subject areas, monitoring and quality assurance in civic and citizenship education are often unconnected and carried out on a small scale (Birzea et al., 2004). However, over the last decade, some countries have started to implement nationwide assessments of civic and citizenship education (Ainley et al., 2013; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017; Malak-Minkiewicz & Torney-Purta, 2021).

The national contexts survey includes questions about the extent and methods for assessment in the area of civic and citizenship education at the country’s target grade, and how parents are informed about current aims and approaches regarding this field of learning.

4.3 The Contexts of Schools and Classrooms

As in previous survey cycles, ICCS 2022 views students’ learning outcomes in the field of civic and citizenship education not only as a result of teaching and learning processes but also as a result of their daily experiences at school (Council of Europe, 2018; European Commission/EACEA/ Eurydice, 2017; Scheerens, 2009, 2011). School experiences and their impact on learning outcomes are of particular importance in the context of civic and citizenship education, as they develop learning outcomes that are not confined to the area of cognitive achievement but also include attitudes and dispositions for engagement.

The possibility of establishing and experiencing relationships and behaviors based on openness, mutual respect, and respect for diversity, as well as the possibility of giving and asserting personal opinions, allow students to practice a democratic lifestyle, to begin exercising their own autonomy, and to develop a sense of self-efficacy (seeMosher et al., 1994; Pasek et al., 2008). Three key areas need to be considered for making the schools a democratic learning environment: teaching and learning, school governance and culture, and cooperation with the community. Creating a democratic learning environment in this way is referred to as the whole school approach, which aims to integrate democratic values into teaching and learning practices, decision-making processes and school governance, and the general school atmosphere (Council of Europe, 2018).

In view of the importance of school and classroom contexts for civic and citizenship education, ICCS 2022 administers the following types of questions to school principals, teachers, and students:

  • Questions that measure principals’ perceptions of school contexts and characteristics (school questionnaire)

  • Questions about the background of teachers (age, gender, and their teaching of subject areas in general, and at the target grade) as well as a wide range of perceptions of school and classroom contexts (teacher questionnaire)

  • Questions about students’ perceptions of school and classroom contexts (student questionnaire)

As in ICCS 2016, several questions included in the school and teacher questionnaires are similar, with the aim of collecting data on the same issues from the perspective of teachers and school principals. In ICCS 2022, one question included in the student questionnaire was also included in the teacher questionnaire (teachers’ perceptions of good citizenship).

4.3.1 The Relations Between Schools and Their Local Communities

There is evidence that students from non-urban school contexts often perform at lower achievement levels than those from urban schools (see, for example, Istrate et al., 2006; Webster & Fisher, 2000; Williams, 2005), although studies also observed variations in student achievement within urban contexts (Ramlackhan & Wang, 2021; Shores et al., 2020). Data on school location (urbanization) were used in multi-level analyses carried out in ICCS 2009 and in a few countries, urbanization was associated with student knowledge (see Schulz et al., 2010). In Latin American countries, there were significant differences in civic knowledge between rural and urban schools, however, these were largely due to differences in socioeconomic background of individual students and their schools (Schulz et al., 2011). As in previous ICCS surveys, the ICCS 2022 school questionnaire includes a question about the size of the community in which the school is located.

Schools and homes of students are located in communities that vary in their economic, cultural, and social resources, and in their organizational features. Inclusive communities that value community relations and facilitate active citizen engagement, especially if they are well resourced, may offer civic and citizenship opportunities for partnerships and involvement to schools and individuals. Social and cultural stimuli arising from the local community, as well as the availability of cultural and social resources, may influence young people’s civic and citizenship knowledge, dispositions, and competences in relation to their roles as citizens (Jennings et al., 2009). The ICCS 2022 school questionnaire includes a question asking about principals’ reports on collaboration between the school and their local community.

Differences in the quantity and quality of resources for citizenship learning available in the local area may have a dual effect. On the one hand, they may favor the organization of community-oriented projects and student participation in projects, which require the development of activities involving the community, both of which can contribute to developing skills and competences related to civic and citizenship education. On the other hand, community participation in the life of the school and in its various levels can be a factor for greater openness and democratization of the school itself. Furthermore, the level of resources may influence the provision of local support to schools, which in turn may impact the possibilities for school improvement (Reezigt & Creemers, 2005; Verhelst et al., 2020). In several countries participating in ICCS 2009 differences regarding the availability of resources in the local community were associated with students’ civic knowledge (see Schulz et al., 2010). As in previous cycles, ICCS 2022 continues to measure the availability of resources in the local community in the school questionnaire.

As part of the community within which it is located, the school may be affected by issues and problems existing at the community level. Issues of social tension within the local community may influence students’ social relationships and the quality of their social lives and everyday experiences, both outside and inside the school (L’Homme & Jerez Henríquez, 2010). In addition to that, students’ actual opportunities to volunteer or participate in civic-related activities in the communities may be influenced by cultural, economic, political, and social factors at the local community level within which schools are located. A safe social environment is likely to enhance students’ activities and participation in the local community. Conversely, issues creating social tensions and conflicts in the local community may discourage students’ involvement in civic activities. In ICCS 2009 and 2016, principals were asked about their perceptions of social tensions in the community, and the results showed a negative association between higher levels of perceived social tension and students’ civic knowledge (Schulz et al., 2010). The ICCS 2022 school questionnaire continues to collect data on these aspects.

Research has illustrated the importance of students’ activities in the community and their reflection on them for the construction and the development of knowledge and skills for active citizenship (Annette, 2008; Henderson et al., 2013). Schools’ interactions with their local communities, and the links that have been established with other civic-related and political institutions, also have the potential of influencing student perceptions of their relationship with the wider community and of the different roles they may play in it (Annette, 2000, 2008; Potter, 2002; Torney-Purta & Barber, 2004). ICCS 2009 and 2016 showed that most of the students in almost all the participating countries had at least some opportunities to participate in such activities (Schulz et al., 2010, 2018b). ICCS 2022 continues to collect data reflecting principals’ perceptions of the opportunities’ students have to participate in activities carried out by the school in cooperation with external groups or organizations.

The teacher questionnaires from previous cycles also included a question on student participation in civic-related activities in the local community, which was similar to the question included in the school questionnaire about principals’ view of students’ opportunities to engage in the community. Results were generally consistent with those associated with principals’ answers (Schulz et al., 2010, 2018b). Comparisons between the principals’ and teachers’ reports provided a broader picture of what schools actually do in terms of community-related activities from two different perspectives and viewpoints. The ICCS 2022 teacher questionnaire uses a similar question as in the previous surveys, which asks teachers whether they had participated with their students in activities in cooperation with external groups or organizations.

4.3.2 The School as a Learning Environment

Students’, teachers’ and parents’ participation in the school life and governance

Students’ experience with civic learning at school not only depends on the teaching and learning developed at a classroom level, but also on the possibilities they have to experience schools and classrooms as a “democratic learning environment”. Relevant factors include participation at the school level, the school and classroom climate, and the quality of the relationships within the school, between teachers and students as well as among students (Bäckman & Trafford, 2007; Council of Europe, 2018; Huddleston, 2007; Korkmaz & Erden, 2014; Thapa et al., 2013; Trafford, 2003). Results from ICCS 2016 showed substantial differences between countries in the extent to which students participated in school elections and to which they had opportunities to participate in school-decision making (Schulz et al., 2018b). ICCS 2022 asks principals to provide information about students’ participation in school governance, students’ opportunities to contribute to decision-making processes at school (e.g., opportunities to express views on matters of concern or attend meetings), and, as in previous cycles, students’ participation in school elections. Furthermore, it gathers teachers’ perceptions of students’ participation in decision-making processes at classroom level.

Teachers’ participation in school governance can be regarded as an important part of democratic governance processes at school and as a factor that potentially contributes to the characterization of the school as a democratic learning environment (Bäckman & Trafford, 2007; Council of Europe, 2018). Both the ICCS 2009 and 2016 teacher questionnaires comprised questions asking teachers about their participation in school governance. The ICCS 2022 teacher questionnaire measures teachers’ willingness to take on responsibilities besides teaching, as well as their reflections on the extent to which they were willing to cooperate with other teachers to cooperate in conflict resolution within the school, and to engage in guidance and counselling activities.

Empowering teachers to participate in decision-making at schools may contribute to active citizenship behavior within schools (Bogler & Somech, 2005). Since ICCS 2009, the school questionnaire included a question concerned with principals’ perceptions of teacher participation in school governance. As in previous cycles, the ICCS 2022 school questionnaire collects information about principals’ perceptions of teacher participation in the school governance.

Parental involvement and empowerment have been reported as positive factors in their contribution to students’ academic achievement at school in general (Griffith, 1996). ICCS 2016 results showed that while there were high levels of parental involvement in communication processes, much lower levels were recorded for parental participation in decision-making processes (Schulz et al., 2018b). The ICCS 2022 school questionnaire asks principals about parents’ participation in decision-making processes. Furthermore, the instrument contains a question about the schools’ provision of types of information for parents or guardians.

School and classroom climate

School climate is widely regarded as an important factor in explaining student learning outcomes (Bryk et al., 2009; Wang & Degol, 2015). Scheerens and Bosker (1997) viewed school climate as a synonym for a school culture that is reflected in a range of variables related to student engagement, student absenteeism, student conduct and behavior, staff motivation, and relationships among students and between students and teachers within schools. More recent conceptualizations characterize school climate as encompassing four aspects: (1) academic climate and the prioritizing of successful learning, (2) interpersonal relationships within the school and with parents, (3) physical and emotional safety, and (4) organizational effectiveness (Powell et al., 2015; Wang & Degol, 2015).

The school climate and the quality of the relations within the school (student–teacher relations and student–student relations) may influence student academic achievement (Bear et al., 2014), their sense of belonging to the school community (Knowles & McCafferty-Wright, 2015). The importance of a positive school climate for engaging students in civic-related learning experiences has also been emphasized in research about civic learning (see, for example, Homana et al., 2006). Both ICCS 2009 and 2016 included items measuring students’ perceptions of school climate. Results from ICCS 2016 showed perceptions of positive student–teacher relations with students’ civic knowledge and support for gender equality and equal rights for all ethnic/racial groups in society (Schulz & Ainley, 2018; Schulz et al., 2018b). ICCS 2022 continues to gather data on students’ perceptions of aspects related to their school climate including students’ perceptions of student–teacher relations and student interaction at school. Furthermore, the ICCS 2022 teacher survey includes a question measuring teachers’ perceptions of issues of social tension at school.

Classroom climate is a general concept, where definitions focus mainly on the level of cooperation in teaching and learning activities, fairness of grading, and social support. Democratic classroom climate focuses mainly on the implementation of democratic and liberal values in the classroom (Ehman, 1980; Hahn, 1999). A democratic classroom climate may help students to understand the advantages of democratic values and practices and may have a positive effect on their active assimilation (Perliger et al., 2006). Some studies have pointed out that, while teachers’ or principals’ perceptions of the classroom climate often tend to be unrelated to the students’ intentions of future engagement, students’ views of classroom climate are of critical importance (Hooghe & Quintelier, 2013). Several studies have further shown that a positive school climate may encourage students to share their opinions and is important for the academic and civic development of students (Mager & Nowak, 2012).

Research findings have emphasized the importance of school and classroom contexts when investigating student engagement (see, for example, Reichert et al., 2018). According to Barber et al. (2015), students who perceive a favorable classroom climate are more likely to be interested in politics, to trust civic institutions, to feel politically efficacious, and to aim to participate in legal forms of political behavior.

The first IEA civic education study in 1971 measured the classroom climate among students and found evidence for an association with civic learning outcomes including civic knowledge (Torney et al., 1975). The CIVED survey also included a set of items measuring students’ perceptions of what happened in their civic education classes. Six items were used to measure an index of open climate for classroom discussion (see Schulz, 2004) that had earlier been identified as a positive predictor of civic knowledge, and students’ expectations to vote as an adult (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). The ICCS 2009 and 2016 surveys used a similar instrument that measured students’ perceptions of what happens in their classrooms during discussions of political and social issues. Results of multivariate analyses confirmed the association of this construct with civic-related learning outcomes (Lin, 2014; Schulz et al., 2010, 2018b). The ICCS 2022 student questionnaire includes identical questions from previous surveys that are designed to measure students’ perceptions of openness in classroom discussions.

The ICCS 2009 teacher questionnaire included a set of items measuring teachers’ perceptions of the classroom climate and results showed positive associations with civic knowledge in a number of countries (Schulz et al., 2010). ICCS 2022 continues to collect data on these aspects.

Dealing with diversity at school

In view of the growing diversity of student populations, schools are increasingly requested to develop institutional and instructional strategies and practices that allow students from different backgrounds to develop positive attitudes toward diversity (Treviño et al., 2018). The ICCS 2022 school questionnaire collects data related to strategies and initiatives to foster students’ respect for different forms of diversity and to develop their intercultural skills.

Research has shown how school principals and teachers play a key role in guaranteeing an inclusive school for all students regardless of their ethnic or cultural background (Billot et al., 2007; Leeman, 2003; Taylor & Kaur Sidhu, 2012), and has also emphasized how teacher education is essential for preparing teachers to work with diverse students (Álvarez Valdivia & Montoto, 2018; DeJaeghere & Zhang, 2008; Mushi, 2004; Tarozzi, 2014). The ICCS 2022 teacher questionnaire includes a question asking teachers about the frequency of different activities to address diversity within classrooms. In addition, the teacher questionnaire gathers data on perceptions of the impact of having students from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds and having students from different social and economic backgrounds in classrooms on teaching activities and the learning environment.

4.3.3 Delivery of Civic and Citizenship Education at School

Literature on school improvement shows that enabling some degree of autonomy favors the success of improvement efforts (Honig & Rainey, 2012; Reezigt & Creemers, 2005; Steinberg, 2014). Research findings have highlighted that school autonomy, together with accountability measures at the national level, may support effective teaching and learning (Cheng et al., 2016; OECD, 2020). Studies also pointed out that, apart from the existence of regulations to foster school autonomy at the national level, its effects also depend on the ways in which it is implemented by individual schools, and in particular school principals, within school contexts (Agasisti et al., 2013; Neeleman, 2019). The level of autonomy provided to schools may influence the way civic and citizenship education is delivered at the school level (in terms of curriculum planning, choice of textbooks and teaching materials, or assessment procedures and tools). The existence of national legislation, regulations, and standards concerning the results that students should achieve, does not necessarily imply that schools deliver similar programs and approaches to teaching (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2007, 2012), and the time allocated to citizenship education, teacher qualifications, and the support principals provide to civic and citizenship education within schools may vary (Keating & Kerr, 2013; Keating et al., 2010; Malak-Minkiewicz & Torney-Purta, 2021). As in previous cycles, the ICCS 2022 school questionnaire continues to include items measuring principals’ reports on school autonomy for the delivery of civic and citizenship education.

Many studies have shown that curricular approaches to the teaching of civic and citizenship education vary considerably across countries. Civic and citizenship education is taught as a separate subject, is integrated in subjects related to human and social sciences or taught in all school subjects and is intended as a cross-curricular area (Ainley et al., 2013; Birzea et al., 2004; Council of Europe, 2018; Cox et al., 2005; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2005). ICCS 2009 and 2016 results illustrated that these different approaches may coexist within the same schools (Schulz et al., 2010, 2018b). Principals from schools surveyed in ICCS 2009 and in ICCS 2016 also provided interesting information on how they rated the most important aims of civic and citizenship education. Results showed notable differences across participating countries, however, school principals tended to regard the most relevant aims of civic and citizenship education to be those related to the development of knowledge and skills (Schulz et al., 2010, 2018b). A similar question was also included in the teacher questionnaire and the results were very similar to those from the survey of school principals (Schulz et al., 2010, 2018b).

As in previous survey cycles, the ICCS 2022 school questionnaire includes a set of items asking principals about how civic and citizenship education is delivered at their schools and about their perceptions of the importance of aims for civic and citizenship education. This question about the importance of different aims for civic and citizenship education is also included in the ICCS 2022 teacher questionnaire.

The ICCS 2009 teacher questionnaire included two set of items related to the way civic and citizenship education is delivered at the school level. ICCS 2009 also included two questions asking teachers about their perceptions of the importance of the aims of civic and citizenship education, and about how specific responsibilities for civic and citizenship education are assigned within the school. As in previous survey cycles, the ICCS 2022 teacher questionnaire includes a set of items measuring teachers’ perceptions of the delivery of civic and citizenship education at school.

Secondary analyses of ICCS 2009 data, have shown how different profiles of teachers’ beliefs are associated with teacher background and national contexts, and that only a small proportion of teachers believe that it is important to encourage students to participate in political or civic activities (Reichert & Torney-Purta, 2019). ICCS 2022 asks teachers to rate the importance of different behaviors to become good adult citizens, using identical items as those used to measure students’ perceptions of good citizenship behaviors in the student questionnaire.

CIVED 1999 asked students to report how much they had learned about civic issues at school. Students’ answers to how much they had learned about the importance of voting at school were used as a (positive) predictor to explain variation in expected participation in elections (Torney- Purta et al., 2001). The ICCS 2016 student questionnaire included a question asking students to assess how much they have learned in school about seven different political or social issues, and results showed associations with their civic interest, educational aspirations, and civic knowledge (Schulz et al., 2018b). ICCS 2022 continues to gather data on students’ perceptions of civic learning with slightly modified item sets.

The European student questionnaire in ICCS 2009 and 2016 asked students about their opportunities to learn about Europe at school, and results showed that majorities of students across participating countries reported learning about a wide range of issues (Kerr et al., 2010; Losito et al., 2018). The same question is included in the European student questionnaire in ICCS 2022.

Global citizenship education (GCED) which aims at developing the learner’s competence as a community member and a global citizen, is increasingly viewed as an important aspect of citizenship education (Davies, 2006; Guo, 2014). GCED is intended to be interdisciplinary and holistic, and therefore should be represented throughout the curriculum. In view of this aim, it is argued that it needs to involve the whole school community rather than just being a teacher- driven activity (UNESCO, 2015). ICCS 2022 collects data from principals about school activities related to global citizenship.

Increasingly, school activities related to environmental sustainability are viewed as an important part of citizenship education (Huckle, 2008). The concept of “sustainable schools” (Henderson & Tilbury, 2004) refers to initiatives to establish learning environments that respect the principles of sustainable development and aim to enable students to experience these principles directly. Adopting school-level measures to make schools more climate-friendly is noteworthy as an initiative within the context of UNESCO’s activities to promote education for sustainable development (Gibb, 2016). The ICCS 2016 school questionnaire asked principals about the initiatives undertaken by the schools in order to become more environmentally friendly (Principals’ reports on environment-friendly practices at school). The ICCS 2022 school questionnaire includes a modified version of this question with an increased focus on education for sustainable development.

In view of an increased recognition of the importance of raising awareness of the impact of human behavior on the environment (Kyburz-Graber, 2013; Lundholm et al., 2013), the ICCS 2016 teacher questionnaire included a question that asks about teachers’ involvement in initiatives and programs related to environmental sustainability (UNESCO, 2012a). Results from ICCS 2016 showed that the most common activities, across countries, were those related to water and energy consumption, while lower percentages were recorded for signing a petition, writing letters to a magazine/newspaper, and posting on social networks (Schulz et al., 2018b). ICCS 2022 continues to gather data reflecting teachers’ perceptions of activities related to environmental sustainability.

Research has shown widespread use of ICT in secondary education, as well as considerable differences in the equipment of schools with ICT resources (see Fraillon et al., 2014, 2019; Law et al., 2008). ICCS 2022 asks principals about training activities undertaken at school, on the use of digital technologies for civic and citizenship education, and teachers about undertaking activities with target grade students related to a critical and responsible use of digital technologies for civic and citizenship education.

4.3.4 Teaching of Civic-Related Subjects

As in previous cycles, the ICCS 2022 teacher questionnaire includes an international option with questions about civic and citizenship education at school and the teaching practices the teacher adopted in this learning area. This part of the questionnaire is only completed by teachers of subjects that national centers defined as related to civic and citizenship education by considering their national curricula for this learning area.

Studies have shown that teacher preparation is one of the most important factors influencing student achievement (see OECD, 2009, 2015). Within civic and citizenship education, the provision of teacher training constitutes an ongoing challenge for educational policies, as in many countries no specific training is provided to teachers in this area (Birzea et al., 2004; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2005). Following a classification developed by Shulman (1986, 1987), teacher knowledge may either be related to topics in the area of civic and citizenship education (content knowledge), or to teaching methods and approaches (pedagogical knowledge) of which there are a wide range of in this learning area (Munn et al., 2012). ICCS 2016 included a question on teachers’ participation in professional development activities relating to the teaching of civic and citizenship education and ICCS 2022 continues to collect data on teachers’ self-reported initial preparation and in-service training to teach civic-related topics and their attendance at training courses on teaching approaches and methods.

Results from ICCS 2009 showed that teachers of civic-related subjects tended to be most confident about teaching citizens’ rights and responsibilities, and human rights, while they were less confident in teaching topics related to the economy, business, and legal institutions (Schulz et al., 2010). Results from ICCS 2016 suggested that, on average, most teachers felt very well or reasonably well prepared to teach almost all the topics and skills they were asked about. As in ICCS 2009, the highest average percentages across countries were recorded for teaching “citizens’ rights and responsibilities” and “equal opportunities for men and women”. The lowest percentages were recorded for teaching “the global community and international organizations” and “the constitution and political systems”. The study also found evidence of large variation in these percentages across participating countries. ICCS 2022 continues to gather data on teachers’ sense of preparedness to teach civic-related topics. A question using the same teaching topics, aims to measure teachers’ reports on opportunities to learn about civic-related topics students at the target grade have at school.

It has been suggested that the delivery of civic and citizenship education should entail innovative pedagogies, engaging and interactive learning environments, and the use of different sources to develop students’ knowledge skills and attitudes related to this area of learning (Council of Europe, 2018; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017). ICCS 2016 asked teachers about their use of specific training methods during their lessons in civic-related subjects. ICCS 2022 continues to ask teachers about their civic-related teaching and learning activities in their classrooms (such as “interactive teaching,” “traditional teaching,” and discussing controversial issues) and about the use of different sources in the planning of civic and citizenship education. In addition to this, the ICCS 2022 teacher questionnaire also includes a question focused on teacher reports on classroom activities that address global issues (such as collective engagement to achieve worldwide improvements or social and economic interactions at the international level).

Assessment is a complex issue for civic and citizenship education: the wide range of learning objectives and topics included in this area and the different contexts and approaches for its delivery, imply the need to adopt different assessment methods to measure students’ knowledge, skills, the development of values and attitudes, and their active engagement in school life and in the local community (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012, 2017; Torney-Purta et al., 2015). The ICCS 2009 and 2016 teacher questionnaires included a question about the use of different assessment tools in the teaching of civic and citizenship education. ICCS 2022 continues to gather this information as part of its teacher survey.

4.4 The Home and Peer Context

There are many variables related to home and peer contexts that potentially could influence the development of young people’s knowledge, attitudes, and dispositions for engagement. Relevant factors include interactions with family and peers, educational resources in the home (including digital technologies), culture, religion, values, use of the test language at home, the relationship status the young person has within the family, parental education, income and employment levels, access to different forms of media, and the quality of school–home connections. Furthermore, it is also important to consider opportunities for civic-related activities that young people can exercise.

4.4.1 Family Background

Numerous research findings have emphasized the crucial role family background plays in the development of dispositions toward engagement and participation of young people in citizenship activities (Bengston et al., 2002; Ekman & Zetterberg, 2011; Grusec & Kuczynski, 1997; Janoski &Wilson, 1995; Lauglo, 2011; Renshon, 1975; Vollebergh et al., 2001). There is a general consensus that family background influences the political development of adolescents (Castillo et al., 2014; Sherrod et al., 2010). Higher levels of socioeconomic background can potentially provide a more stimulating environment for developing civic-related dispositions and enhance the educational attainment of adolescents. These factors, in turn, foster political involvement.

Many studies of political socialization and participation have highlighted the importance of the extent to which families and individuals can access different forms of capital. According to Bourdieu (1986), economic capital can increase other forms of capital, and it is possible to distinguish between human, cultural, and social capital. Whereas human capital refers to an individual’s skills, knowledge, and qualifications, cultural capital refers to those “widely shared, high-status cultural signals (attitudes, preferences, formal knowledge, and behaviors) used for social and cultural exclusion” (Lamont & Lareau, 1988, p. 156). Social capital is conceptualized as a societal resource that links citizens to one another so that they can achieve goals more effectively (see Stolle, 2002).

Putnam (1993, p. 185) viewed social capital as the “key to making democracy work” and built on Coleman’s (1988) concept of social capital as being generated by the relational structure of interactions inside and outside the family, which in turn facilitate the success of an individual’s actions as well as learning outcomes.Footnote 3 Putnam (1993) regarded three components of social capital (social trust, social norms, and social networks) as a “virtuous cycle” that provides a context for an individual’s successful cooperation with others and participation in a society.

The concept of social capital has been criticized for its lack of clarity (Woolcock, 2001) given the wide range of factors it includes and the problems of establishing suitable indicators. Within the context of ICCS, however, the concept of social capital is viewed as helpful because it describes mechanisms that help to explain why some students have higher levels of civic knowledge and engagement than others. Measures of different aspects of social capital (trust, norms, and social interaction) include both attitudinal and background variables. Some variables reflecting social capital are related to the home environment, in particular interactions with parents, peers, and media. Other relevant variables are interpersonal trust and voluntary participation in civic-related organizations (Chap. 3, Civic Attitudes and Engagement Framework).

Variables related to the home environment that are antecedents of student learning and development and are measured through the student background questionnaire include: (i) parental socioeconomic status, (ii) cultural and ethnic background, (iii) parental interest in political and social issues, and (iv) family composition. As in previous cycles, ICCS 2022 collects data on process-related variables that reflect social interactions outside of school (for example, discussing political and social issues with parents and peers, as well as accessing information through media).

Socioeconomic status

Socioeconomic status (SES) is widely regarded as an important explanatory factor that influences learning outcomes in many different and complex ways (Sirin, 2005). There is a general consensus that SES is represented by income, education, and occupation (Gottfried, 1985; Hauser, 1994) and that using all three variables is better than using only one indicator (White, 1982). However, there is no consensus among researchers regarding which measures should be used in any one analysis (Entwistle & Astone, 1994; Hauser, 1994) and there have been calls for a more theory-based approach to the measurement of SES (Harwell, 2018). In international studies, the additional caveats imposed on the validity of background measures and the cross-national comparability of family background measures present ongoing challenges for researchers in this area (see Buchmann, 2002; Brese & Mirazchiyski, 2013; Caro & Cortés, 2012).

There is evidence from national studies of civic and citizenship education that student’s civic knowledge is positively associated with their socioeconomic home background (ACARA [Australian Curriculum, Assessment & Reporting Authority], 2017; Lutkus & Weiss, 2007; Niemi & Junn, 1998). Similarly, international studies of civic and citizenship education conducted by the IEA illustrated the consistent relationship between socioeconomic background and civic learning (Torney et al., 1975; Torney-Purta et al., 2001; Schulz et al., 2010, 2018b). As in previous study cycles, the student questionnaire for ICCS 2022 includes three different types of data collection to measure the students’ parental socioeconomic background:

  • Data on parental occupation are collected through open-ended student reports on mother’s and father’s jobs and coded according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-08) framework (International Labour Organisation, 2012). Subsequently, the codes will be scored using the international socioeconomic index (SEI) of occupational status, in order to obtain measures of socioeconomic status (Ganzeboom et al., 1992).

  • Data on parental education are collected through closed questions in which educational levels are defined by the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED-2011) (UNESCO, 2012b) and then adapted to the national context.

  • Data on home literacy environment are collected through a question about the number of books at home.

Cultural and ethnic background

International studies have confirmed differences based on language and immigrant status in reading (see, for example, Elley, 1992; Stanat & Christensen, 2006) and mathematics (Mullis et al., 2000). Research in Western industrialized countries has shown that students from immigrant families, especially those who have arrived recently, may tend to lack proficiency in the language of instruction and are unfamiliar with the cultural norms of the dominant culture. However, studies have also shown that these effects strongly depend on the national contexts. Research also suggests that immigrant status, ethnic background, and language can have effects on learning outcomes even after controlling other contextual variables such as socio-economic background (see, for example, Dimitrova et al., 2016; Dronkers et al., 2012; Fuligni, 1997; Kao, 2001; Lehmann, 1996; Schulz et al., 2010; Stanat & Christensen, 2006). Results from ICCS 2009 and 2016 showed that immigrant background and language use were both associated with civic- related learning outcomes, in particular, in countries with relatively large proportions of immigrant students (see Schulz et al., 2010, 2018b). ICCS 2022 continues to collect data on the cultural/ ethnic background in its student questionnaire:

  • Country of birth (mother, father, and student): This information can be used to distinguish “native,” “first-generation” (parents born abroad, but student born in country), and “immigrant” (student and parents born abroad) students.

  • Language of use at home: Students are asked which language they use mainly at home, and responses provide an indicator of the dominant use of the assessment language or another language.

  • Students’ use of multiple languages at home: Students are asked whether they use more than one language at home (optional question for countries).

  • Student self-reports on ethnicity: Students are asked whether they belong to ethnic groups that exist in society (optional question for countries).

Parental interest in political and social issues

There is evidence that parental involvement may play a role in mediating socioeconomic inequalities in its effect on promoting young people’s learning (Caro, 2018). With regard to civic learning, it has also been shown that those students whose parents engage with them in discussions about political and civic issues tend to have higher levels of civic knowledge and engagement (see, for example, Lauglo & Øia, 2008; Richardson, 2003). The ICCS 2009 survey asked students to assess the extent of their parents’ interest in political and social issues, and results showed positive associations with some learning outcomes, particularly those related to expected political engagement as adults (Schulz et al., 2010, 2015). ICCS 2016 included the same question, complemented by an item measuring the students’ own interest in political and social issues, and data showed associations with several indicators of engagement (Schulz et al., 2018b). ICCS 2022 continues to gather data about parental interest in political and social issues using the same items as in the previous cycle.

Family composition

Family structure represents an important factor of socialization that may affect learning outcomes. For example, research in the United States has shown that students from single-parent families perform less well on measures of achievement than those from two-parent households, a finding which has been interpreted as being associated with economic stress and lack of human or social capital in the household (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Seltzer, 1994). However, the effects of single-parent upbringing on learning outcomes have been generally considered as relatively small (for a review, see Ginther & Pollak, 2004; Marjoribanks, 1997).

Using a question that was an option for countries, ICCS 2009 and 2016 measured family composition by asking students about the composition of their respective household, that is, parents, guardians, siblings, relatives, and/or other persons. As in the previous surveys, the same question (with modifications) continues to be included as an international option in the ICCS 2022 student questionnaire.

4.4.2 Student Activities Out of School

Students’ discussion of political and social issues with parents and peers

Research has shown associations between the frequency of political discussions and learning outcomes (Lauglo, 2011; Richardson, 2003; Schulz, 2005). Analyses of ICCS 2009 and 2016 data also suggested associations between the frequency of participation in discussions about political and social issues, civic knowledge, as well as civic interest (Lauglo, 2016; Schulz et al., 2010, 2018b). The ICCS 2022 student questionnaire continues to collect data on the level of political communication among lower-secondary students.

Media information

One popular explanation for the waning of civil society in the United States is the negative effect of television viewing (Putnam, 2000), which, it is argued, leads to decreasing interest, sense of efficacy, trust, and participation (see also Gerbner, 1980; Robinson, 1976, Van Aelst, 2017). However, research also shows that media use (in particular, for accessing information) tends to be positively related to political participation and that there is no conclusive evidence for a negative relationship between media use and political participation or political trust (Aarts et al., 2012; Norris, 2000). More recent research indicates that use of social media has more consistent effects on political mobilization than television (see, for example, Boulianne et al., 2020). Further, there is evidence that while consumption of news from information/news websites tends to be associated with higher levels of political trust, use of social media for information is linked to lower trust levels (Ceron, 2015).

Data from the CIVED study in 1999 showed that media information obtained from television news reports is a positive predictor of civic knowledge and indicates expected participation in elections (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). ICCS 2009 results also suggested that students’ civic knowledge was positively associated with viewing television news, reading newspapers, and getting information from the internet (Schulz et al., 2010). The student questionnaire for ICCS 2016 included several items measuring the frequency of students’ use of media to obtain information about political and social issues. ICCS 2016 results showed decreases in the use of newspapers as a way of accessing information, since 2009 (Schulz et al., 2018b). ICCS 2022 includes items designed to measure students’ use of media for obtaining information about civic-related issues. Given its more active nature, students’ civic involvement through social media is described as an indicator of engagement in civic attitudes and engagement framework (Chap. 3).

Students’ use of digital devices

Given the increasing importance of ICT for civic engagement, it is also of interest to gather information about the frequency with which students use digital devices. Data derived from this type of question may be influenced by family background and home resources (see Fraillon et al., 2014, 2019). The ICCS 2022 student questionnaire includes an optional question asking about students’ frequency of using different types of digital devices (computer, tablets, and smartphones) at home.

Religious affiliation and engagement

Researchers have suggested that religious affiliation may help to foster political and social engagement (see Guo et al., 2013; Perks & Haan, 2011; Verba et al., 1995), because religious organizations provide networks focused on political recruitment and motivation. However, there is also evidence for negative effects of religious affiliation on democratic citizenship, as reflected in lower levels of political knowledge and engagement, and feelings of efficacy among strongly religious people (Porter, 2013; Scheufele et al., 2003). In the case of young people, religious affiliation and participation can be seen as part of the home environment that may influence the process of civic-related learning.

Results from ICCS 2009 and 2016 showed that students reporting more frequent attendance of religious services were more supportive of religious influence in society (Schulz et al., 2010, Schulz et al., 2018b). As part of its international option about religion, ICCS 2022 continues measuring students’ religious affiliation and students’ attendance at religious services using the same questions as in the two previous survey cycles.

4.5 Student Characteristics

Individual students’ development of civic understandings, attitudes, and dispositions can be influenced by a number of characteristics, some of which link to family background. Antecedents at this level, collected through the student questionnaire, include age, gender, and expected educational qualifications.

Students’ age

Research has found that, during adolescence, civic knowledge and (at least some forms of) engagement increase with age (Amadeo et al., 2002; Hess & Torney, 1967). However, there is also evidence that feelings of trust in the responsiveness of institutions and willingness to engage in conventional forms of active political participation decrease toward the end of secondary school (Schulz, 2005). ICCS 2009 and 2016 confirmed earlier cross-sectional research based on data from within grade sample data, which showed age to be negatively correlated with students’ civic knowledge, particularly in countries with higher rates of grade repetition, because the students in the class who are older are typically those who have repeated a grade because of previous low achievement (Schulz et al., 2010). While the study is not designed to address age effects on the development of civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement, ICCS 2022 continues to gather data about students’ age as part of the collected information on their background.

Students’ gender

The first IEA Civic Education Study in 1971 found considerable differences between male and female students regarding cognitive achievement, with male students tending to have higher civic knowledge scores (Torney et al., 1975). The IEA’s 1999 CIVED survey, however, presented a different picture: whereas in some countries males showed (slightly and not significantly) higher average scores, in other countries females were performing better (although only one country reported the difference as significant). Interestingly, greater differences in favor of males were found in the follow-up study of upper secondary students (Amadeo et al., 2002). CIVED also showed that differences between male and female students were usually larger on indicators of civic engagement: in most countries, males tended to have higher levels of political interest and expected participation. Gender differences were also important with regard to attitudes toward immigrants’ and women’s rights (Amadeo et al., 2002; Torney-Purta et al., 2001).

ICCS 2009 showed a difference in favor of female students having higher civic knowledge scores (Schulz et al., 2010), which was a change from CIVED 1999. This change might be interpreted as associated with the broadening of the assessment framework to include a greater emphasis on aspects of reasoning. Similar differences in the civic knowledge of male and female students were reported in ICCS 2016 (Schulz et al., 2018b). ICCS 2009 and 2016 also confirmed findings from CIVED 1999 that showed gender differences for indicators of civic attitudes and engagement (Fraillon et al., 2014; Kerr et al., 2010; Schulz et al., 2010, 2011, 2018b). ICCS 2022 continues to gather data about students’ gender. However, in view of possible changes in requirements for the collection of information about gender, countries will have the option of adapting this question by including a third gender category.

Students’ expected educational attainment

In the first two IEA studies of civic education, expected years of future education were important predictors of civic knowledge (Amadeo et al., 2002; Torney et al., 1975, 2001). This variable reflects individual aspirations. However, responses can also be influenced by parent or peer expectations and/or, in some education systems, by limitations brought about by students studying in programs that do not give access to university studies.

ICCS 2009 and 2016 used a similar question that asked students to indicate their expected level of education. Results from the two first ICCS cycles confirmed that this variable is positively associated with civic knowledge (Schulz et al., 2010, 2018b). The ICCS 2022 student questionnaire includes the same question as previous ICCS surveys to gather data about students’ educational aspirations.