An Archival Research on the Educational Equity in the Philippines
based on the Relationship of Socioeconomic Status and Academic
Achievement Regarding Philippines’ 2018 Programme of
International Students Assessment (PISA) Report
A Research presented to the Faculty of
San Pablo City Science Integrated High School
Senior High
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
for Graduation of Senior High School
Academic Track
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Strand
Mikaela Denise B. Balasoto
July 2021
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, praise and thank God for His blessings throughout this journey
to complete this research successfully.
The researcher would like to express their deep and sincere gratitude to their
research adviser, Charmaine G. Gatchalian, for providing invaluable guidance throughout
this study. Her vision, sincerity, and motivation have deeply inspired me. Also, her
friendship, empathy, and consideration helped through the process of working on this
research.
The researcher is extremely grateful to their mother and cousin, Aida M.
Balderama and Angelica B. Sumague, for providing the necessary information for them
to accomplish this partial fulfillment for graduation of senior high school.
Lastly, the researcher would like to commend themself for doing the best that they
can and not giving up despite the current situation.
2
ABSTRACT
Education systems should equip young people with the knowledge and tools they
need to face the challenges of modern society. The purpose of this study is to find whether
educational equity exists in the Philippines. This research was made in the context of the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and 2018
Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA) report of the Philippines. It is
clear in the results that socioeconomically advantaged students outperformed
socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Using a chi-square test of independence, it
is concluded that socioeconomic status and academic achievement coexist dependently.
Children should be given equal opportunities to succeed; there shouldn’t be anyone left
behind.
Keyword(s): Equity, socioeconomic status, academic achievement, advantaged
students, disadvantaged students
3
Table of Contents
TITLE PAGE …………………….…….…………………………………….………………. 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT …………………………………………………...………………. 2
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………………………………. 4
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ………………………………………………………… 5
Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study ………………………………………………….……… 6
Statement of the Problem and Research Hypothesis …………………….…. 7
Significance of the Study …………………………………………………………. 8
Scope and Limitation of the Study ……………………………………………… 9
Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………………… 9
Chapter 2 – REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Review of Related Literature …………………………………………………… 13
Review of Related Study ………………………………………………………... 15
Chapter 3 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design …………………………………………………………………. 19
Population and Sampling ………………………………………………............ 19
Data Gathering Instruments ……………………………………………………. 20
Data Gathering Procedures ……………………………………………............. 20
Statistical Treatment of Data ……………………………………………………. 21
Chapter 4 – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ……………………………………………. 22
Chapter 5 – SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................. 26
APPENDICES …........................................................................................................ 28
BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………………………... 41
4
List of Figures and Tables
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Process Flowchart …………………………………………………...... 20
Figure 2. The proportion of the socioeconomically advantaged and
disadvantaged students who participated in the 2018 PISA ………………. 23
Figure 3. The proportion of socioeconomically advantaged and
disadvantaged students that are enrolled in schools in terms of staff and
educational resources…………………………………………………………….. 23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Mean scores of the Philippines results from the 2018 PISA …... 22
5
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
The discrepancy in academic achievement between students from high and low
socioeconomic status backgrounds is well-known in the sociology of education. According
to McLaughlin and Sheridan (2016), low socioeconomic status and exposure to adversity
are linked to decreased educational success. It was also reported by Doerschuck et al.
(2016) that students who fall under the low socioeconomic status in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) strand have a lower success rate than that of
students from high socioeconomic status.
Two major international assessments, Programme for International Students
Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS),
document wide variation in socioeconomic status achievement gaps across the years of
each assessment (Broer, Bai, and Fonseca forthcoming; OECD 2018). Since the
Philippines have only participated in the last assessment back in 2018, there has been
lack of studies in the country regarding the relationship of the aforementioned areas. A
study by Chiemwelski in 2019 on sociology identified that there has been a large increase
in the gap of socioeconomic status and academic achievement in countries with
increasing school enrolments, implying that the expanding access reveals educational
inequality. That being said, Department of Education Undersecretary Nepomuceno
Malaluan reported that as of August 11, 2020, over 23 million students are enrolled in
public and private schools for the calendar year 2020 to 2021. Malaluan said that the
enrolment rate is around 83.1% of last year’s figure of 27.7 million enrolees. This means
6
that about 4 million learners have failed to enrol this school year due to the pandemic.
DepEd also pointed out that their main focus is on those who have decided to push
through their education.
It is essential for the youth to master a wide range of skills and to update them
continuously because it serves as the key to a successful career and active engagement
in society. Education systems should equip young people with the knowledge and tools
they need to face the challenges of modern society.
Statement of the Problem
In reality, children are not given the equal opportunities to succeed, pursue their
interests, or develop their talents and skills. Such as the aforementioned stated “priority”
of DepEd, that was focusing solely on the students who are enrolled this academic year
2020-2021. This research aims to identify the relationship between socioeconomic status
and academic achievement in the Philippines regarding the 2018 Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) report.
Specifically, this study sought to answer what is the proportion of the Philippines’
socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged students who participated in the 2018
PISA in terms of their educational resources, performance in Mathematics, Science, and
Reading, and their overall performance. It will also answer what proportion of the students
fall under the socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged class.
7
Research Hypothesis
The following are the hypotheses in the study:
HO: There is no significant relationship between socioeconomic status and
academic achievement in the Philippines.
HA: There is a significant relationship between socioeconomic status and
academic achievement in the Philippines.
Significance of the Study
The findings of the study are considered beneficial to the country since the report
is based on the Philippines’ recorded assessment in the 2018 PISA.
This study is significant to the following:
The students, this research will provide students’ knowledge about the relationship
of socioeconomic status and academic achievement.
The teachers, this study will help in raising awareness regarding the relationship
of socioeconomic status and academic achievement. It can also help in their up skilling.
The future researchers, this study will serve as a basis and provide necessary and
summarized information for PISA-related or education-related studies.
The outcome of this study will address the gaps and quality of basic education in
the Philippines. This research will help in reforms that may provide the country a more
equitable school system.
8
Scope and Delimitation
This study focuses on the Philippines’ results in the 2018 Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA). Seven thousand two hundred and thirty-three
(7,233) 15-year-old students in 187 schools completed the assessment in 2018. It
represents 68% of the total population of 15-year-olds in the Philippines (nearly 1,400,584
15-year-old students).
This study mentioned countries relevant to the report but would not explicitly
compare the Philippines’ results to other PISA participating countries. This research is
limited to the factors that can be used to identify the relationship between socioeconomic
status and academic achievement in the Philippines (i.e. students’ expectations, a report
in school staff and resources, and performance).
Definition of Terms
These are the following terms that will be used in the research stud
9
in the PISA index of economic, social,
Advantaged students
and cultural status (ESCS), socioeconomically
advantaged students are amongst the 25% of
students with the highest values in the ESCS
index in their country or economy.
in the PISA index of economic, social, and
Disadvantaged students
cultural status (ESCS), socioeconomically
advantaged students are amongst the bottom
25% of the ESCS index within their country or
economy
this study focused on the 2 related principles of equity:
inclusion and fairness. Inclusion has an objective of
Equity
ensuring that all students (regardless of their
background) have access to high-quality education
and attain a minimum level of skills. Fairness, on the
other hand, is seeing every student’s potential by
removing the obstacles they have no control of (e.g.
unequal access to educational resources and school
environment).
Inequality
is the difference in the distributed income
among individuals.
10
in the Philippines, the lower-middleLower-middle-class
class has an
income ranging
between Php 20.962 and Php 41,924;
thus, falling between 2 and 4 times the
poverty line.
evaluates educational systems by
Programme for International
measuring 15-year-olds’ scholastic
Students Assessment (PISA)
performance on Mathematics,
Science, and reading.
refers to the shift in an individual’s
Social mobility
social status from one status to
another.
Socioeconomic status
is “the relative position for the family or an
individual on a hierarchal social structure,
based on their access to, or control over,
wealth, prestige, and power.”
a series of international assessments
Trends in International
of the Mathematics and Science
knowledge of students around the
world.
11
Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS)
Upper-middle-class
in the Philippines, the upper-middle-class
has an income ranging between Php 41,924
and Php 73,367; thus, falling between 7 and
12 times the poverty line.
Up skill
is to provide a more advanced skill
through additional education or training.
12
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
The literatures and studies reviewed in this section focuses on
socioeconomic status and academic achievement in the context of the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the 2018
Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA).
Review of Related Literature
Programme for International Students Assessment
The Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA) 2018 does
not only focus on the main subjects (i.e. reading, mathematics, and science) but
also on minor areas such as the students’ global competence. The assessment
also included the youth’s financial literacy, but is optional for countries and
economies.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2019
stated that “the PISA is a triennial survey of 15-year-old students around the world
that assesses the extent to which they have acquired key knowledge and skills
essential for full participation in social and economic life.” PISA has an innovative
concept of “literacy”. According to them, it refers to the students’ capacity in
applying their knowledge to effectively analyse, reason, communicate, identify,
interpret, and solve problems in a variety of situations.
13
Philippines’ Socioeconomic Status
The latest Family Income and Expenditure Survey by the Philippine
Statistics Authority (PSA) in 2018 shows that the average socioeconomic status in
the country belongs to the low-income-class (58.4%), 40% of the population exists
under the middle-class status, and only 1.4% fall in the high-income-class.
According to the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), the
government’s socioeconomic policy noted that the low-income-class has a bigger
share of population due to their tendency to have larger families.
PISA Index of Economic, Social, and Cultural Status
In PISA, the students’ socioeconomic status is estimated via the PISA index
of economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS). OECD (forthcoming) claimed that:
It is derived from several variables related to students’ family background
that are grouped into 3 components: parents’ education, parents’
occupation, and a summarized number of home possessions that can be
taken as proxies for material wealth or cultural capital (e.g. possession of a
car, access to internet, and availability of educational resources at home).
The results are then measured compositely and combined into a single
score.
14
The 2018 report of PISA revealed that a student is considered as
socioeconomically advantaged if they are amongst the 25% of the students with
the highest values in the ESCS index in their country; socioeconomically
disadvantaged students on the other hand, are amongst the bottom 25% within
their country. However, those who fall under the middle 50% in the ESCS index
are classified as having an AVERAGE socioeconomic status.
Review of Related Studies
Socioeconomic Status
“Socioeconomic status is a broad concept that aims to reflect the financial,
social, cultural, and human-capital resources available to students,” (Cowan et al.,
2012). In PISA, socioeconomic status is a measure of students’ access to family
resources and their social position. Basically, it’s a combination of certain factors
such as education, income, occupation, and wealth.
Socioeconomic status is broken into three levels: high, middle, and low
socioeconomic status to describe which places a family or an individual may fall
into.
Upper class falls under the high socioeconomic statuses that are composed
of people who are usually the wealthiest of class society (Bartels, 2016). This
class is “generally distinguished by immense wealth which is passed from
generation to generation,” (Akhbar-Williams, 2010).
Middle class is in the middle of a social hierarchy. These are the people who
fall between the upper class and working class. They may have a higher proportion
15
of graduates and have more income available for consumption and may have their
own property.
Working class describes a person who falls under the low socioeconomic
status. They tend to have a low paying job and has reduced education
requirements, some are even unemployed.
Academic Achievement
Academic achievement indicates the extent to which a student has
achieved their learning goals. It can also refer to an individual’s educational
benchmarks such as their educational attainment. It is measured in many ways
(e.g. assessments in certain subject areas, completion of numbers of years of
schooling, or entrance to universities) but has no general agreement on how it is
best evaluated, or which aspects are important.
Academic achievement plays a huge role in an individual’s studies (Colmar,
Connor, Liem, & Martin, 2019). It has been said that the focus of academic
achievement is on the complexities of the emotional and social lives of a person
(Eakman, Henry, Kinney, & Schierl, 2019). Measuring students’ academic
achievement helps in providing key information about their mastery of standards.
16
Predictors of Academic Achievement
Mentality
According to Hell and Chamorro-Premuzic’s (2011) study, an individual’s
academic performance is linked to their differences in intelligence and personality.
The meta-analysis suggested that mental curiosity has an impact on the academic
achievement of a person.
Resources
Schools with the highest number of children from low socioeconomic status
backgrounds have fewer library resources (Dickinson, Gavigan, & Pribesh, 2011).
Bossaert, Doument, & Verschueren’s (2011) claimed that structured home
learning environment leads to a more structured learning when children start first
grade. Early academic achievement enhances later academic achievement.
Wealth
Long-standing research finds that “the most reliable predictor of a child’s
future success at school—in many cases, of access to well-paid and high-status
occupation—is his or her family,” (OECD, 2019). It is also stated by OECD (2019)
that less household wealth often translates into fewer educational resources; thus,
children from low-income and low-educated families usually face numerous
barriers in learning.
Children from families that have a low socioeconomic status are less likely
to have experiences where they could develop their fundamental skills in reading
17
such as phonological awareness, vocabulary, grammar, and oral language
(Beaman-Wheldall, Buckingham, & Wheldall, 2013). Thus, students from lowincome families enter high school with average literacy skills five years behind
those from high-income families (Greenberg, Kalogrides, Reardon, Shores, &
Valentino, 2013). Additionally, young adults who from low socioeconomic
backgrounds tend to accrue student loan debts (Houle, 2014).
18
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The methodology used was developed employing correlational quantitative
research in an attempt to determine the extent of a relationship between the
socioeconomic status and academic achievement of the 15-year-olds in the
Philippines. This research used the statistical data of the Programme of
International Students Assessment (PISA) through their last examination in 2018.
Archival research was conducted to obtain relevant information from the
Philippines’ results in the 2018 PISA. The approach in this study was the most
appropriate for the researcher to achieve their objective. A positivism paradigm
was used to generate the explanatory factors and outcome of the relationship,
hence, utilizing the quantitative research design.
The researcher first accessed the data needed for the study in the second
volume of OECD’s PISA 2018 report. The researcher then studied the records,
summarized the Philippines’ report, and developed hypotheses, respectively.
Population and Sampling
This study will be based on the Philippines’ 2018 PISA Report. The archives
of the Organization for Economic and Co-operation and Development (OECD) in
19
2019 were proved to be the best in providing pieces of evidence and statistics in
determining the relationship between the socioeconomic and academic
achievement of the students in the Philippines.
Seven thousand two hundred and thirty-three students in 187 schools
completed the assessment, thus, representing 1,400,584 of the 15-year-old
students in the Philippines (OECD, 2019).
Data Gathering Instrument
The data needed in this study will be gathered through the archives of the
OECD, PISA 2018 report. The data will be collected, summarized, analysed, and
submitted for interpretation and conclusion.
Process Flowchart
Data gathering
Summarizing
data
Collection of
results
Data analysis
Figure 1. Process Flowchart
20
Research Methodology
The researcher will gather the data needed in the study. The average
socioeconomic status of the participants will be determined through the OECD,
PISA 2018 Database that was compiled in 2019 and was found in the executive
summary in the 2nd volume in PISA 2018 Results. The data will be condensed to
find the average expenditure per student in the Philippines, thus, finding the
socioeconomic status of the students who participated in the assessment. Their
outlook in life also became relevant in determining their status. The results will then
be collected for further data analysis.
The students’ academic achievement will be retrieved from the scores in
their reading, mathematics, and science examinations through the snapshot of the
PISA participating countries' performance in the subjects.
Statistical Treatment of Data
The data will be analysed through Pearson chi-square of independence test
to determine the relationship between socioeconomic status and academic
achievement. Pearson chi-square of independence test is suitable for this study
because it fits the category this study is in to. It tests whether a statistically
significant relationship exists between two categorical variables.
21
Chapter 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the statistical analysis and interpretation of data that have
been gathered in the 2018 PISA results archives. This also contains the presentation of data
in tabular form along with their corresponding interpretations.
RESULTS
Socioeconomic
Mean Scores
Status
TOTAL
Mathematics
Science
Reading
248
289
213
750
105
68
127
300
353
357
340
1050
Background of
Students
Advantaged
Students
Disadvantaged
Students
TOTAL
Table 1. Mean scores of the Philippines results from the 2018 PISA
22
Figure 2. The proportion of the socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged
students who participated in the 2018 PISA
Figure 3. The proportion of socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged
students that are enrolled in schools in terms of staff and educational resources
23
DISCUSSION
The results show that the mean scores of the 15-year-olds that participated in the
PISA last 2018 in the major subjects are as follows: 353, 357, and 340, in mathematics,
science, and reading respectively. Compared to the other PISA participating countries, the
Philippines has the lowest mean scores. The students also scored lower than the OECD
average in mathematics, science, and reading.
This research uses the chi-square test of independence. Using a significance level
of 0.05, the computed statistical result is 28.95. With a degree of freedom of 2, the critical
value falls at 5.99 making the test statistics greater than the critical value. Therefore, we
reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant relationship between
socioeconomic status and academic achievement in the Philippines. Therefore,
socioeconomic status and academic achievement in the country is dependent on each other.
The results proved the researcher’s expectations in the context of educational equity
in the Philippines. Though, the 11% of disadvantaged students scored amongst the highest
performers in their countries. But it is evident in the records of the country’s 2018 PISA
results that socioeconomically advantaged students outperformed socioeconomically
disadvantaged students by a lot of points.
The socioeconomically advantaged students participating in the assessment
belonged in schools that have a high reputation, whereas socioeconomically disadvantaged
students are enrolled in schools that experience staff shortage and lack of educational
24
resources. This proves the results in the statistical analysis computation that socioeconomic
status has an effect on academic achievement.
25
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section presents the summary of the study, the conclusions drawn, and the
researcher’s recommendations.
SUMMARY
The primary objective of this study is to determine whether the Philippines has
equity in terms of its education department. This research was made in the context of
OECD and the 2018 PISA results.
The data was gathered through the 2018 PISA Results (Volume II) archives. The
researcher condensed the data needed and was then analaysed and interpreted for the
conclusion. The results show that there is a significant difference between socioeconomic
status and academic achievement in the Philippines.
CONCLUSION
At a significance level of 0.05, the computed Pearson’s chi-square independence
test is 28.95 with a critical value of 5.99. In conclusion, the test statistics is greater than the
critical value, making the researcher reject their null hypothesis. Meaning, there is a
significant difference in socioeconomic status and academic achievement in the
Philippines, hence, making it dependent on each other. It was also concluded that there is
no educational equity in the country.
26
RECOMMENDATIONS
The researcher recommends the future researchers studying about the relationship
of socioeconomic status and academic achievement in the Philippines in terms of the 2018
PISA report to include other country’s analysis for an accurate comparison. It is also
recommended for the future researchers to analyse other factors in the PISA report for more
accurate results and to see if there are other factors dependent on either socioeconomic
status or academic achievement. Performing an experiment on another grade level, such as
the senior high school, to see the comparison and to have a more updated result on the
relationship of socioeconomic status and academic achievement in the country.
27
APPENDIX A
Experimental Design Diagram
Title: The relationship of socioeconomic status and academic achievement in the
Philippines regarding the 2018 PISA report
Hypothesis: This study hypothesized that there is no significant relationship between
socioeconomic status and academic achievement in the Philippines. Thus, socioeconomic
status and academic achievement is not dependent on each other.
Independent variable: Academic achievement
Mathematics
Science
Reading
Mean score
Mean score
Mean score
Dependent variable:
Socioeconomic status
Constants:
Mean scores for each subject
Recommendations:
1. Include different country’s analysis for an accurate comparison.
2. Analyse other factors in the PISA report for accurate results.
3. Perform an experiment on other grade levels to see the comparison and have more
updated results.
28
APPENDIX B
Research Instrument
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
APPENDIX C
Statistical Analysis
Chi-square test of independence
2
𝑥 =∑
𝑥2 =
𝛼 = 0.05
(𝑂𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒)2
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
(248 − 252.14)2 (289 − 255)2 (213 − 242.86)2 (105 − 100.86)2
+
+
+
252.14
255
242.86
100.86
2
2
(68 − 102)
(127 − 97.14)
+
+
102
97.14
2
𝑥 = 28.95
𝑑. 𝑓 = (2 − 1)(3 − 1) = 2
𝑥𝛼 2 = 5.99
36
APPENDIX D
Documentation
37
APPENDIX E
Resume
38
39
40
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akhbar-Williams, T. (2010). Class structure. Encyclopedia of African
American Popular Culture, Volume 1, p. 322. doi: ISBN 978-0-313-357961.
Albert, J.R. G., Santos, A.G. F., Vizmanos, J.F. V. (2018). Defining and
profiling the middle class. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. doi:
ISSN 2508-0865.
Bartels,
L.
(2016).
Rich
people
rule!
Retrieved
from:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160417061617/https://www.washingtonpost
.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-people-rule/
Beaman-Wheldall, R., Buckingham, J., & Wheldall, K. (2013). Why poor
children are more likely to become poor readers: The school years.
Australian
Journal
of
Education,
57,
190-213.
doi:10.1177/0004944113495500.
Bossaert, G., Doumen, S., Buyse E., & Verschueren K. (2011). Predicting
students' academic achievement after the transition to first grade: A twoyear longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology.
32(2): 47–57. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2010.12.002.
Broer, M., Bai, Y., Fonseca, F. (Forthcoming). Socioeconomic inequality
and educational outcomes: Evidence from twenty years of TIMSS (Vol. 5).
IEA Research for Education. New York: Springer International Publishing.
Chiemwelski, A.K. 2019. The global increase in the socioeconomic
achievement gap, 1964 to 2015. (2019). American Sociological Review,
84(3). doi: 10.1177/0003122419847165.
CNN Philippines. (2020). DepEd official: Close to 4 million learners did not
enrol for next school year due to COVID-19 crisis. Retrieved from:
https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/8/12/4-million-out-of-schoolyouth-covid-crisis.html.
Colmar, S., Connor, J., Liem, G., & Martin, A. J. (2019). Exploring
relationships between academic buoyancy, academic self-concept, and
academic performance: A study of mathematics and reading among primary
school
students.
Educational
Psychology,
39(8),
1068-1089.
doi:10.1080/01443410.2019.1617409.
Cowan, C., et al. (2012). Improving the measurement of socioeconomic
status for the national assessment of educational progress: A theoretical
foundation.
41
Dickinson, G., Gavigan, K., & Pribesh, S. (2011). The access gap: Poverty
and characteristics of school library media centers. The Library
Quarterly, 81(2), 143-160.
Doerschuk, P., Bahrim, C., Daniel, J., Kruger, J., Mann, J., & Martin, C.
(2016). Closing the gaps and filling the STEM pipeline: A multidisciplinary
approach. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 682-695.
doi:10.1007/s10956-016-9622-8.
Eakman, A. M., Kinney, A. R., Schierl, M. L., & Henry, K. L. (2019).
Academic performance in student service members/veterans: Effects of
instructor autonomy support, academic self-efficacy and academic
problems.
Educational
Psychology,
39(8),
1005–1026.
doi:10.1080/01443410.2019.1605048.
Greenberg, E. H., Kalogrides, D., Reardon, S. F., Shores, K. A., & Valentino,
R. A. (2013). Patterns and trends in racial academic achievement gaps
among
states,
1999-2011. Retrieved
from
https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/patterns-and-trends-racial-academicachievement-gaps-among-states-1999-2011
Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual
curiosity Is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on
Psychological Science. 6(6): 574–588. doi:10.1177/1745691611421204.
Houle, J. N. (2014). Disparities in debt: Parents’ socioeconomic resources
and young adult student loan debt. Sociology of Education, 87(1), 53-69.
doi:10.1177/0038040713512213.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What students know and can
do. Paris, France: PISA, OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/5f07c754-en.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where all students can
succeed. Paris, France: PISA, OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.
OECD. (forthcoming). PISA 2018 Technical Report. Paris, France: PISA,
OECD publishing.
McLaughlin, K. A., & Sheridan, M. A. (2016). Beyond cumulative risk: A
dimensional approach to childhood adversity. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 25, 239-245. doi: 10.1177/0963721416655883.
Organization for Economic and Co-operation Development. (2019). PISA
2018 Results: What students know and can do, PISA. OECD Publishing,
Paris. doi: 10.1787/5f07c754-en.
Willms, J., & Tramonte, L. (2015). Towards the development of contextual
questionnaires for the PISA for development study. OECD Education
Working Papers, No. 118. OECD Publishing, Paris.
doi:10.1787/5js1kv8crsjf-en.
42