School Dropout: Relationships between Teacher Perceptions of Risk Factors and their Recommendations for Pedagogical Action

Author(s):

Valérie Angelucci(presenting / submitting)Léonie Liechti(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

05. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

05 SES 02, School Dropout: Local Community and Teacher Perceptions of Risk Factors, and Multi-Actor Perspectives on School Failure

Paper Session

Time:

2014-09-02

15:15-16:45

Room:

B017 Anfiteatro

Chair:

Mark Hadfield

Contribution

Identified as a problem with important economical, social and health-related consequences, school dropout has fostered concern in an increasing number of policymakers and researchers (Blaya, 2012; Esterle-Hedibel, 2006; Janosz, 2000). The average European school dropout rate amounts to 12.8% and the European Union aims at decreasing it to 10% by the year 2020 (Eurostat, 2013). In order to achieve this goal and avoid risks related to inequalities and school failure, several laws have been implemented throughout Europe (Blaya, 2010; Thibert, 2013). Switzerland is no exception; although substantially different from that of its neighbors, the situation remains a concern.

This study is based on two major perspectives in school dropout research: investigations with emphasis on the dropout process and its determinants; as well as studies focusing on typologies of students at risk of dropping out of school.

To date, researchers have described dropout as a multifactorial process, triggered and maintained by a combination of individual, family-related, social and school factors (Bautier, 2003; Glasman & Oeuvrad, 2011; Janosz & Leblanc, 2005). Part of our survey examines teacher representations of school dropout risk factors based on Gilles, Tièche Christinat and Delévaux’s (2012) classification of school dropout risk factors. Those authors distinguish what they call external determinants of dropout (related to the student, family and environment) from factors that are school-related (internal determinants). If Janosz (2000) has demonstrated the influence of risk factors related to school, others researchers have revealed that teachers minimize the importance of those risk factors, to the detriment of individual, family-related or social factors (Angelucci, Chapuis, de Chambrier, Liechti, & Tièche Christinat, 2013; Bourgeois, 1983; Parent, Duquette, & Carrier, 1993).

Another study has shown the relevance of a differential approach to prevent school dropout (Janosz & al., 2000). From this latter work, different typologies of school dropout have emerged, suggesting that students at risk of dropout are characterized by highly distinct profiles, building an extremely heterogeneous group (Fortin, Marcotte, Potvin, Royer, & Joly, 2005; Janosz, 2000; Kronick & Hargis, 1990). Another section of our research is based on the typology developed and validated by Janosz (2000), involving three dimensions of students’ school experience: 1) misbehavior; 2) attitudes toward school and 3) academic performances. The students’ difficulties related to these three dimensions vary in nature and intensity, and four types of students at risk of dropout have been identified: quiet, disengaged, low-achiever and maladjusted. The following research questions have oriented the development of our exploratory study:

1) Is it possible to identify profiles of teacher perceptions of school dropout risk factors?

2) Are the identified profiles related to teachers’ personal and socio-professional characteristics?

3) Do pedagogical actions recommended by teachers differ according to their risk factor perception profiles?

In a first step, this paper presents a typology of teacher perceptions of dropout risk factors and its relations with teachers’ characteristics. In a second, differences in pedagogical action recommended by teachers on the basis of their analysis of fictitious cases will be examined in terms of the previously identified typologies.

Method

The data presented in this paper are derived from a larger study funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation aiming at the prevention of school dropout and focusing on the continuity of the academic trajectory of at risk students. General education teachers in elementary and secondary schools (N=700; 19% men; mean age=42; SD=10.07) completed an online survey in 2012 (Switzerland). Years of teaching experience vary from 0 to 40 (mode=12) and average is 18.27 (SD=10.3). The questionnaire developed for this study consists of three parts. First, teachers were asked to inform about their personal (age, gender) and socio-professional data (training, years of experience,…). Second, two fictitious dropout cases were presented. Cases were in accordance with the teacher’s current level of teaching. The first profile describes the situation of a student exhibiting features of the “quiet” dropout type and the second presents characteristics of the “maladjusted” dropout type (Janosz, 2000). After reading the description of each profile, participants reported their level of agreement on a six-level Likert scale (from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”) for each of the 11 actions suggested to improve the student’s situation. Third, 31 dropout risk factors were presented and teachers were asked to estimate the importance they attribute to each risk factor on a six-level Likert scale. We first conducted a principal component analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization on the 31 risk factor items. The analysis yielded six components (total variance explained: 53%) that were then grouped in three dimensions of risk factors, according in part to Gilles and colleagues (2012). The first dimension is named school external determinants, and contains the following components 1) student’s personal behavioral and emotional characteristics, 2) parental educational commitment, 3) socio-cultural capital. The second dimension, internal school determinants, includes two components 4) pedagogical and structural constraints, 5) school management. The third hybrid dimension, contains the 6th component: difficult school experiences. Cronbach's alpha are satisfactory except for the component related to school management. Hierarchical clusters analyses will be conducted to answer the first question (profiles of teacher perceptions) on the basis of the above-mentioned dimensions. To respond to the second question, non-parametric statistical difference tests will be used to evaluate whether teachers’ cluster membership is related to their personal and social-professional characteristics. Finally, for the third question, T-tests or One-Way ANOVAs will allow the evaluation of differences in teachers’ pedagogical action recommendations according to their risk factor perception profiles (cluster membership).

Expected Outcomes

Because our research is exploratory, the number of expected clusters is difficult to predict. However, as earlier results have shown differences in teachers’ risk factor perceptions according to gender, experience, function and grade (Angelucci et al., 2013), we expect groups to vary with relation to the teachers’ personal characteristics. On a more general level, as Bouchamma (2002) argues, teacher perceptions of the causes of student failure are likely to influence their expectancies and behaviors toward them, and, in turn, their students’ behavior and achievement. In our study, teacher perceptions of the factors that may influence school dropout are analyzed in order to relate them to the courses of action they choose. With reference to the actions suggested by teachers to improve the dropout situation, preliminary analysis showed differences according to the two student profiles (“quiet” and “maladjusted”). Teachers do not suggest the same actions depending on the student’s profile: results indicate that suggestions are more self-involving in the case of a student with quiet type of dropout (teaching individualized project, differentiation of instruction) than with a student with a maladjusted dropout profile (support for the student by a school psychologist, care outside of school). With further analyses, we hope to reach a more precise and differentiated description of the relationships between perceptions of risk factors by teachers and the actions they anticipate in order to improve the dropout situation.

References

Angelucci, V., Chapuis, J., De Chambrier, A.-F., Liechti, L., & Tièche Christinat, C. (2013). Représentations des enseignants vis-à-vis des facteurs de risque du décrochage scolaire. Actes du Congrès international de l’Actualité de la Recherche en Education et en Formation, Montpellier, France, 27-31 août 2013. Bautier, E. (2003). Décrochage scolaire : Genèse et logique des parcours. VEI Enjeux, 132, 30-45. Blaya, C. (2010). Décrochages scolaires. L'école en difficulté. Bruxelles : De Boeck. Blaya, C. (2012). Le décrochage scolaire dans les pays de l’OCDE. Regards Croisés sur l’Economie, 12, 69-80. Bourgeois, J.-P. (1983). Comment les instituteurs perçoivent l’échec scolaire. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 62, 27-39. Esterle-Hedibel, M. (2006). Absentéisme, déscolarisation, décrochage scolaire, les apports des recherches récentes. Déviance et Société, 30, 41-65. Eurostat (2013). Communiqué de Presse du 11.04.2013. La lutte contre le décrochage scolaire progresse et le nombre de diplômés de l’enseignement supérieur augmente, mais les hommes sont de plus en plus à la traîne. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-324_fr.htm. Fortin, L., Marcotte, D., Potvin, P., Royer, E., & Joly, J. (2005). Typology of Students at risk of dropping out of school : description by personal, family and school factors. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(4), 363-383. Gilles, J.-L., Tièche Christinat, C., & Delévaux, O. (2012). Origines, fondements et perspectives offertes par les alliances éducatives dans la lutte contre le décrochage scolaire. In J.-L. Gilles, P. Potvin & C. Tièche Christinat (Eds.), Les alliances éducatives pour lutter contre le décrochage scolaire (pp. 3-18). Bern : Peter Lang. Glasman, D., & Oeuvrard, F. (2011). La déscolarisation. Paris : La Dispute. Janosz, M. (2000). L'abandon scolaire chez les adolescents : perspective nord-américaine. VEI Enjeux, 122, 105-127. Janosz, M., & Leblanc, M. (2005). L'abandon scolaire à l'adolescence : des déterminants communs aux trajectoires multiples. In G. Brandibas & R. Fourasté (Eds.), Les accidentés de l'école (p. 67- 97). Paris : L'Harmattan. Janosz, M., LeBlanc, M., Boulerice, B., & Tremblay, RE. (2000). Predicting diffrent types of school dropouts : a typological approach with two longitudinal samples. Journal of Education Psychology, 92(1), 171-190. Kronick, R., & Hargis, C. (1990). Who drops out and why ? And the recommended action. Springfield, IL : Charles C. Thomas. Thibert, R. (2013). Le décrochage scolaire : diversité des approches, diversité des dispositifs. Dossier d’actualité Veille et Analyses 84, 1-28. Parent, G., Duquette, R., & Carrier, J. (1993). Opinions des enseignants sur les causes du décrochage scolaire. Revue des Sciences de l'Education, 19(3), 537-553.

Author Information

Valérie Angelucci (presenting / submitting)

Haute école pédagogique du canton de Vaud

Pédagogie spécialisée

Lausanne

Léonie Liechti (presenting)

Haute Ecole Pédagogique du Canton de Vaud