Page 279 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 279
ool; watching a TV debate on a controversial topic; writing a letter to the 279
editor detailing their attitude on a disputed topic; giving a talk in front of a
classroom on a social or political issue. This means that political self-efficiency
regarding the issues that are out in the open has been perceived as weaker by
the lowest achieving students than their higher-achieving counterparts, who
are also more convinced of their own civic efficiency.
No statistically significant differences were discovered about the expected
participation of students in legal protests in the future (such as writing a letter
to the editor; wearing a badge or T-shirt expressing a certain opinion; getting
in touch with an elected representative; taking part in a peaceful protest/gath-
ering; collecting signatures for petitions; deciding to boycott certain prod-
ucts). However, students with the highest proficiency level are more convinced
of joining legal protests in the future. The picture is diametrically opposite re-
garding the attitudes on taking part in illegal future protests (i.e. spraying pro-
test slogans on walls; stopping traffic; occupying a public building). Here, sta-
tistically significant differences between all groups of students can be found.
The lowest achieving students are the most certain that they will take part
in illegal protests in the future (this is also the issue in which their average
score hovers most above the national average score). The highest achieving
students are meanwhile the least convinced. The median value of the scale
falls in concert with the increase of civic achievement levels. This means that
students with lower knowledge are more certain to take part in illegal protests
in the future. Maybe such an attitude is the consequence of an unfavourable
learning environment for those students, who are at the same time aware that
they have less civic knowledge than their peers. It should also be kept in mind
that this is a group that is less tolerant towards those who are different. In re-
gard to the expected participation of students at elections (after they grow up)
it needs to be stressed that the lowest achieving students in the area of civ-
ic knowledge are less sure that they will vote on a local or national level and
will obtain information about the candidates before the election, as is the be-
lief of their peers with a second or third proficiency level of civic knowledge.
The highest certainty in respect of their political participation at elections has
been expressed by the students with the highest achievement, with the great-
est apathy being expressed by their lower achieving counterparts. Similar and
statistically significant differences between the three groups have also been
found regarding the expected participation of students in political activities
after they grow up. It is interesting to note that the lowest achieving students
are more certain that they will take part in political activities after they grow
up (helping a candidate/political party during a campaign, membership in a
political party and a trade union, standing at local elections). The lower their
achievement, the higher their certainty that they will take part in such activi-
ties in the future. Differences between the groups in future informal political
facilitating civic knowledge – a path towards active citizenship
editor detailing their attitude on a disputed topic; giving a talk in front of a
classroom on a social or political issue. This means that political self-efficiency
regarding the issues that are out in the open has been perceived as weaker by
the lowest achieving students than their higher-achieving counterparts, who
are also more convinced of their own civic efficiency.
No statistically significant differences were discovered about the expected
participation of students in legal protests in the future (such as writing a letter
to the editor; wearing a badge or T-shirt expressing a certain opinion; getting
in touch with an elected representative; taking part in a peaceful protest/gath-
ering; collecting signatures for petitions; deciding to boycott certain prod-
ucts). However, students with the highest proficiency level are more convinced
of joining legal protests in the future. The picture is diametrically opposite re-
garding the attitudes on taking part in illegal future protests (i.e. spraying pro-
test slogans on walls; stopping traffic; occupying a public building). Here, sta-
tistically significant differences between all groups of students can be found.
The lowest achieving students are the most certain that they will take part
in illegal protests in the future (this is also the issue in which their average
score hovers most above the national average score). The highest achieving
students are meanwhile the least convinced. The median value of the scale
falls in concert with the increase of civic achievement levels. This means that
students with lower knowledge are more certain to take part in illegal protests
in the future. Maybe such an attitude is the consequence of an unfavourable
learning environment for those students, who are at the same time aware that
they have less civic knowledge than their peers. It should also be kept in mind
that this is a group that is less tolerant towards those who are different. In re-
gard to the expected participation of students at elections (after they grow up)
it needs to be stressed that the lowest achieving students in the area of civ-
ic knowledge are less sure that they will vote on a local or national level and
will obtain information about the candidates before the election, as is the be-
lief of their peers with a second or third proficiency level of civic knowledge.
The highest certainty in respect of their political participation at elections has
been expressed by the students with the highest achievement, with the great-
est apathy being expressed by their lower achieving counterparts. Similar and
statistically significant differences between the three groups have also been
found regarding the expected participation of students in political activities
after they grow up. It is interesting to note that the lowest achieving students
are more certain that they will take part in political activities after they grow
up (helping a candidate/political party during a campaign, membership in a
political party and a trade union, standing at local elections). The lower their
achievement, the higher their certainty that they will take part in such activi-
ties in the future. Differences between the groups in future informal political
facilitating civic knowledge – a path towards active citizenship
