Taiwan Education Panel Survey (TEPS)

Ping-Yin KuanNational Chengchi University11/16/2004

Main FeaturesA national longitudinal survey project collecting data from students of junior high cohort and senior high cohort from 2001 to 2007. It also collects data from parents, teachers, and school administrators.To gain a systematic understanding of the main factors affecting students learning. To provide an important resource for both academic research and policy formulation.

Project BackgroundLack of good data sets to inform educational reform policies.Past educational researches tended to be cross-sectional, limited in sample sizes, based on adult population, limited in model specifications, gave inconsistent findings, and did not address basic but critical questions.Needs international comparisons.

Funding AgenciesMinistry of EducationNational Science CouncilAcademia Sinica

Research TeamPrincipal Investigators:

Ly-Yun Chang and Tony Tam(Academia Sinica)Co-investigators and research fellows are recruited from various academic institutions in Taiwan. Yes, there are UWM graduates in the team.

Project ConcernsTheoretical Concern Learning Effects, Behavioral and Psychological Consequences of Schooling InstitutionsPolicy Concern Educational Opportunity

School Quality

Theoretical FrameworkY = f (A, O, E)

Ability (A)Opportunity (O)Effort (E) Effects Analytical Ability (Y1) Behavior (Y2) Health (Y3)

Research Possibility (1)

Y1

Y3

Learning Effects

Learning Effects

Learning Effects

Mental Health

Mental Health

Mental Health

Time 2

Time 1

Time 3

Research Possibility (2)

Y1

E

Learning Effects

Learning Effects

Learning Effects

Effort

Effort

Effort

Time 2

Time 1

Time 3

Educational System in Taiwan

Basic Research DesignSamples: -- Junior high sample (1st year students)-- Senior high/vocational high sample (2nd year students)-- Junior college (2nd year students)Multiple perspectives (student, parent, and teacher) on selected student, parent, teacher, and school attributes.Longitudinal study and inter-cohort comparisons with comparable sampling designs.

Project Timetable

Nov. 1999 to Dec. 2000

Year

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

1st

2nd

1st

Semester

2nd

1st

2nd

1st

2nd

1st

2nd

1st

2nd

1st

2nd

1st

2nd

1st

Preparatory operations

Junior high sample

Data collection

Junior high

Fist year

(7th grade)

Data cleaning, compilation and follow-up planning

Data collection

Junior high

Third

year

(9th grade)

Data cleaning, compilation and follow-up planning

Data collection

Senior high Second year

(11th grade)

Data cleaning, compilation and follow-up planning

Data collection

Senior high

Third

year

(12th grade)

Data cleaning and compil-

ation

Senior high sample

Data collection

Senior high Second year

(11th grade)

Data cleaning, compilation and follow-up planning

Data collection

Senior high

Third year

(12th grade)

Data cleaning and compilation

Junior college sample

Data collection

Junior college Second year

Data cleaning, compilation and follow-up planning

Data collection

Junior college Third year

Data cleaning and compilation

Sampling DesignConcerns- Causal Analysis- Multi-level Analysis- Attrition in Follow- upsDesign- Stratified by urban/rural, public/private, and school types- Sample school programs first, then classes, and then students. In principle, 4 classes and 15 students in each class were sampled.- Oversample certain populations

Sample Size (2001/2003)

Total

Program Types

Junior High

Senior High

Senior Vocational

Junior College

Total number of schools/programs sampled

546

338

Regular

Comprehensive

62

27

163

49

Actual number of schools/programs for which data were available

539/

535

333/

333

159/

158

48/

46

62/

64

26/

26

Actual number of classes for which data were available

2,303/

3,213

1,244/

1,930

573/

733

130/

156

260/

283

96/

111

Actual number of students for whom data were available

39,336/

37,133

20,004/

18,903

8,719/

8,264

2,062/

1,947

4,066/

3,842

4,485/

4,177

Actual number of teachers for whom data were available

6,601/

6,558

3,580/

3,845

2,728/

2,486

312/

245

Data CollectionAbility tests: For students only.Questionnaires: Completed by students, parents, teachers and school administrators.

Questionnaire Design

Students

Parents

Teachers

Schools

I.Daily Schedule at School

II.Home Environment

III.School Environment

IV.Extracurricular Activities and Peers

V.Personal Backgrounds, Educational Aspiration, Self-Evaluation

VI. Civic Orientation

I.Family Characteristics

II.About the Student

III. Students Life During the Primary School and Junior High School Years

IV. Relationship Between the Family and the Current School

V.Expectations of the Student

VI. Civic Orientation

I.Questions to be Answered by All Teachers

II.Questions to be Answered by the Homeroom Teacher

III.Questions to be Answered by Class Teachers (Chinese, English, and Math)

VI. Civic Orientation

I.Questions to be Answered by the Principal

II.Questions to be Answered by the Director of Academic Affairs

III.Student Affairs

IV.School Funding and Equipment

V.Personnel Matters

Ability TestsMeasurement of overall analytical ability or problem solving ability that would reflect a students learning achievement and growth.Tests emphasize the ability to solve problems through analysis and deduction rather than through rote learning.Test modules include general deductive reasoning, science, mathematics, and languages.Test results are estimated ability scores based on Item Response Theory.

Some Preliminary Research FindingsTwo basic issues:What is the role of the family in the making of educational inequality?What is the relationship between academic achievement and adolescents mental health?

The First Issue: Empirical Questions (1): Effects of Parental SES?

How does parental socioeconomic status, measured in terms of income and education, matter for the cognitive achievement of students? (How does financial constraint compare to parental education?)How do parental SES effects vary across grades?How different are parental SES effects in Taiwan and the U.S.?

Measurement StrategiesConstraint: Different countries have different classifications to begin with. Compromise: To facilitate cross-national comparisons, adopt the same number of categorical income and parental education for Taiwan and the U.S.

Categorical measures of family background to allow for potentially nonlinear effects.

DataTEPS

-- 2001 (Fall)7th Graders (Junior High Cohort)

11th Graders (Senior High Cohort)

-- 2003 (Spring)12th Graders (Senior High Cohort, 1stFollow-Up)NELS:88

-- 1988 (Base year)8th Graders

-- 1990 (1st Follow-Up)10th Graders

-- 1992 (2nd Follow-Up)12th Graders

CROSS-SECTION ANALYSIS: IRT Score

Figure 3C. Net Family Income Effects: K7, K11, & K12 in TEPS R-sqK11 vs K7 = 0.95K11 vs K12 = 0.97K12 vs K7 = 0.89

Figure 3D. Net Parental Education Effects: K7, K11, & K12 in TEPS R-sqK11 vs K7 = 0.92K11 vs K12 = 0.998K12 vs K7 = 0.91

Summary of FindingsWhat appears to be strong family income effect in Taiwan, despite the emphasis by recent critics of Taiwanese education, is largely spurious (of parental education).Parental education effects are remarkably stable across high school grades.The qualitative and quantitative results are surprisingly similar across two strikingly dissimilar societies.

The First Issue: Empirical Questions (2): Effects of Family Structure?

How do types of family structure affect the cognitive achievement of students?-- Strong evidence has emerged that single-parent and stepparent families have adverse effects on childrens educational achievement. -- Some studies in the U.S. also found that children of single-parent families with cohabitating grandparent(s) performed quite similarly to those of intact families.

The First Issue: Empirical Questions (2)

How about co-residing grandparent(s) in an intact family? Will they bring similar positive educational advantage to their grandchildren? -- In Taiwan, not only nuclear intact families are still the dominant family type, but the multigenerational intact families composed by two biological parents, unmarried children, and at least a grandparent still consist about 11% of households in Taiwan (2000 census).

Why Does Family Structure Matter to Childrens Achievement?Economic resources: Non-intact families are often trapped in poverty or have greater economic burden.Socialization resources: Non-intact families are less able or less likely to provide a good environment for children in terms of educational involvement and educational aspiration.Network resources: Non-intact families have fewer network ties for obtaining information and other types of support related to childrens learning.

What might a grandparent bring to the family? The case in Taiwan Economic resources? Even though the rate of cohabitating with older parents is declining, non-cohabiting adult children still feels obligated to support their parents financially. Socialization resources? Co-residing grandparents may provide more psychological support for the grandchildren, convey parents expectation, give advice to the grandchildren, and constantly monitor the grandchildrens activities at home.

What might a grandparent bring to the family? The case in Taiwan (contd) Network resources? The presence of grandparents may give additional linkage to relatives, communities, and schools and, hence, contribute to grandchildrens learning.

Data and MethodDATA: Two cohorts of TEPS 7th Graders (N = 12,442) and 11th Graders (N = 12,320)Measures -- Dependent Variables: IRT Ability Score -- Independent Variables: 5 types of family structure (1) Nuclear intact (reference) (65%; 67%)(2) Multigenerational intact (17%; 18% )(3) Multigenerational single-parent (3 %; 2%)(4) Single-parent (8% )(5) All other types of non-intact (15%; 13%)

Data and Method (contd)

-- Indep. Var.: Indicators of 3 types of resources:Economic: Monthly family incomeSocialization: Attend school events; talk about school; talk about inner thoughts; checking homework; educational expectation Network: visit relatives; know other parentsControl variables: Sex, sib size; ethnicity; parents educational level

Data and Method (contd)Method: OLS regressionModel 1: Types of family structure (gross effects)Model 2: Model 1 + control variablesModel 3: Model 2 + monthly family incomeModel 4: Model 3 + indicators of socialization resourcesModel 5: Model 4 + indicators of network resources

R2 of 5 Regression Models for Two Cohorts

Chart9

0.0540.009

0.2140.13

0.2220.148

0.2940.24

0.2970.242

The 7th grader

The 11th grader

Regression Models

R2

Sheet1

model-10.0540.009

model-20.2140.13

model-30.2220.148

model-40.2940.24

model-50.2970.242

Sheet1

00

00

00

00

00

The 7th grader

The 11th grader

Regression Models

R2

Sheet2

7th

model-1model-2model-3model-4model-5

multigenerational intact0.0650.0680.0670.0530.052

multigenerational with single-parent-0.244-0.237-0.182-0.137-0.121

single parent-0.411-0.34-0.29-0.216-0.213

all other types-0.685-0.53-0.51-0.407-0.395

11th

model-1model-2model-3model-4model-5

multigenerational intact0.0480.0820.0820.0730.073

multigenerational with single-parent-0.029-0.0760.0060.0290.035

single parent-0.142-0.156-0.075-0.044-0.044

all other types-0.353-0.337-0.312-0.231-0.217

Sheet2

0000

0000

0000

0000

0000

multigenerational intact

multigenerational with single-parent

single parent

all other types

Model (7th)

value b

Sheet3

0000

0000

0000

0000

0000

multigenerational intact

multigenerational with single-parent

single parent

all other types

Model (11th)

value b

Effects of Types of Family Structure in 5 Regression Models

Chart4

0.065-0.244-0.411-0.685

0.068-0.237-0.34-0.53

0.067-0.182-0.29-0.51

0.053-0.137-0.216-0.407

0.052-0.121-0.213-0.395

multigenerational intact

multigenerational with single-parent

single parent

all other types

7th Graders

b

Sheet1

0.0540.009

0.2140.13

0.2220.148

0.2940.24

0.2970.242

Sheet1

00

00

00

00

00

The 7th grader

The 10th grader

Regression Models

R square scores

Sheet2

7th

model-1model-2model-3model-4model-5

multigenerational intact0.0650.0680.0670.0530.052

multigenerational with single-parent-0.244-0.237-0.182-0.137-0.121

single parent-0.411-0.34-0.29-0.216-0.213

all other types-0.685-0.53-0.51-0.407-0.395

11th

model-1model-2model-3model-4model-5

multigenerational intact0.0480.0820.0820.0730.073

multigenerational with single-parent-0.029-0.0760.0060.0290.035

single parent-0.142-0.156-0.075-0.044-0.044

all other types-0.353-0.337-0.312-0.231-0.217

Sheet2

0000

0000

0000

0000

0000

multigenerational intact

multigenerational with single-parent

single parent

all other types

Model (7th)

value b

Sheet3

0000

0000

0000

0000

0000

multigenerational intact

multigenerational with single-parent

single parent

all other types

Model (11th)

value b

Chart5

0.048-0.029-0.142-0.353

0.082-0.076-0.156-0.337

0.0820.006-0.075-0.312

0.0730.029-0.044-0.231

0.0730.035-0.044-0.217

multigenerational intact

multigenerational with single-parent

single parent

all other types

11th Graders

b

Sheet1

0.0540.009

0.2140.13

0.2220.148

0.2940.24

0.2970.242

Sheet1

00

00

00

00

00

The 7th grader

The 10th grader

Regression Models

R square scores

Sheet2

7th

model-1model-2model-3model-4model-5

multigenerational intact0.0650.0680.0670.0530.052

multigenerational with single-parent-0.244-0.237-0.182-0.137-0.121

single parent-0.411-0.34-0.29-0.216-0.213

all other types-0.685-0.53-0.51-0.407-0.395

11th

model-1model-2model-3model-4model-5

multigenerational intact0.0480.0820.0820.0730.073

multigenerational with single-parent-0.029-0.0760.0060.0290.035

single parent-0.142-0.156-0.075-0.044-0.044

all other types-0.353-0.337-0.312-0.231-0.217

Sheet2

0000

0000

0000

0000

0000

multigenerational intact

multigenerational with single-parent

single parent

all other types

Model (7th)

value b

Sheet3

0000

0000

0000

0000

0000

multigenerational intact

multigenerational with single-parent

single parent

all other types

Model (11th)

value b

Summary of Findings

The impact of family structure is mediated by 3 types of resources. The mediating variables related to economic resources and parental involvement, however, have larger effects for the older cohorts than for the younger cohorts. The addition of a grandparent is beneficial to childrens educational achievement. This positive contribution, however, depends on the type of family structure. The effects of family structure types are all smaller for the older cohort.

The Second Issue: Empirical QuestionsWould high academic achievement and expectation induce poorer mental health?-- Previous research found a weak positive relationship.Does high family SES induce poorer mental health?-- High SES parents tend to have higher academic expectation and be more involved in the childrens education, which in turn make their children perform better academically.-- Previous studies have found positive relationship between SES and mental health. But some studies also found high SES or high achieving students have more distress. This relationship may be due to the higher achievement pressure of the high family SES.

Empirical Questions (contd)How do different parenting styles and parental involvement strategies affect adolescents mental health then?-- Authoritative parenting style (responsive but firm control) has been found to be positive to childrens academic achievement and adjustment in general.-- Psychological control, on the other hand, has been found to be related to adolescents poor psychological and behavioral outcomes. But no report is on its effect on academic achievement.-- Specific parental involvement strategies in education include all three parenting dimensions: support, behavioral control, and psychological control (such as high parental expectation).

Chart1

8.147.614.214.4

7.148.415.719.6

5.545.317.826

1.342.220.532.2

1.928.127.239.3

1.221.624.949.7

213.625.256.3

0.75.918.173.3

018.317.263.1

Junior Col

Tech. Col/Univ

Reg. Col/Univ

Grad. Sch

Parental Edu. Level

Parent's Edu. Expectation (%)

Parent's Edu. Expectation and Parental Edu. Level

Sheet1

Junior ColTech. Col/UnivReg. Col/UnivGrad. Sch

18.147.614.214.4

1.57.148.415.719.6

25.545.317.826

2.51.342.220.532.2

31.928.127.239.3

3.51.221.624.949.7

4213.625.256.3

4.50.75.918.173.3

5018.317.263.1

Sheet2

Sheet2

8.147.614.214.4

7.148.415.719.6

5.545.317.826

1.342.220.532.2

1.928.127.239.3

1.221.624.949.7

213.625.256.3

0.75.918.173.3

018.317.263.1

Junior Col

Tech. Col/Univ

Reg. Col/Univ

Grad. Sch

Parents' Ave. Edu. Level

Parent's Edu. Expectation (%)

Parent's Edu. Expectation and Parents' Ave. Edu. Level

Sheet3

Data and MethodData: 11th graders (N = 11,515)Measures-- Dependent Variable: 14 items selected from The Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R) that measured frequencies of depressive, anxious, aggressive, and psychosomatic symptoms and suicidal ideation. A factor score was derived from the 14 items by using the confirmatory factor analysis modeling.

Data and Method (contd)-- Independent Variables:1. Academic achievement: IRT ability score.2. Family SES: Parents educational level and monthly income.2. Authoritative parenting: items related to parents acceptance, non-punitive behavior, and listening to inner thoughts.3. Parental involvement in education:a. Involvement related to support/warmth and behavioral control including helping with school work, checking school work, and supervision after school.b. Involvement related to psychological control including talks about future schooling plans and talks focused on academics.

Data and Method (contd)-- Control Variables:1. Students sex2. Stressful family events experienced: Parents divorce, separation, or death; parents very ill; parents with psychological illness; alcoholic parents; sudden economic fall of the family.Method: OLS regressionModel 1: Control + Family SESModel 2: Control + SES + IRT score + (IRT score)2Model 3: Control + Parenting behavior and educational involvementModel 4: Full model

Summary of FindingsHigher family SES has negative effects on mental health. But the effect mostly vanishes when academic achievement is controlled.Academic achievement has negative effects on mental health. Although the quadratic term is significant, the trend is linear most of the time.

Summary of Findings (contd)Parental support and behavioral control generally have positive effects on both mental health and academic achievement.Parental acceptance (dimension of warmth and support) has effects positive on mental health and negative on academic achievement. The latter effect falls into insignificance once SES is controlled. Non-punitive parenting, however, has positive effects on either achievement or mental health.

Summary of Findings (contd)Parents talking about schooling and occupation plans (psychological control) is positively related to academic achievement, but negatively related to mental health. The effect sizes of parenting behaviors remained very much the same after academic achievement is controlled.

Access to TEPS: A Public AssetData of the 1st wave (2001) has been released for public access (http://www.teps.sinica.edu.tw). The first follow-up data (2003) will be released soon.Three levels of access:-- Public access: Online application; no school and class id; 70% of the original sample.-- Restricted access: Restricted to academic and governmental institutions; needs to sign an agreement of confidentiality; could study class effects, but not school effects.-- On-site access: Further restriction (at least a Ph.D. candidates with advisors endorsement). Nearly full access to the data.

Access to TEPS (contd)English translation of the questionnaires and various handbooks is underway.