International civic and citizenship education study : assessment framework

Abstract

The International Civic and Citizenship Study (ICCS) is the third lEA project investigating the role of schooling in preparing young people for their roles as citizens in society. The first study in this area began in 1971. The second Civic Education Study was undertaken in 1999. Almost 10 years on, global change has again prompted a new survey of civic and citizenship education. Amongst other considerations, the growing impact of the processes of globalization, external threats to civic societies and their freedoms, and the limited interest and involvement of young generations in public and political life. [p. 5, ed]

Full text

1
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
International Civic
and Citizenship
Education Study
Assessment Framework
Wolfram Schulz
Julian Fraillon
John Ainley
Bruno Losito
David Kerr

2ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework

1
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
International Civic and
Citizenship Education Study
Assessment Framework
Wolfram Schulz
Julian Fraillon
John Ainley
Bruno Losito
David Kerr

2ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement,
known as IEA, is an independent, international consortium of national research
institutions and governmental research agencies, with headquarters in Amsterdam.
Its primary purpose is to conduct large-scale comparative studies of educational
achievement with the aim of gaining more in-depth understanding of the effects of
policies and practices within and across systems of education.
Copyright © 2008 International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without permission in writing from the
copyright holder.
ISBN: 978-90-9023778-7
Copies of this publication can be obtained from:
The IEA Secretariat
Herengracht 487
1017 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Telephone + 31 20 625 3625
Fax + 31 20 420 7136
Email: Department@IEA.nl
Website: www.iea.nl

3
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Contents
Preface 5
Overview 7
Purpose of the study 7
Background to the study 7
Research questions, design, and instrumentation 9
Characteristics and structure of the ICCS assessment framework 11
Civic and Citizenship Framework 12
Overview 12
Civic and citizenship content domains 16
Civic and citizenship affective-behavioral domains 22
Civic and citizenship cognitive domains 27
Mapping items to domains 28
Contextual Framework 30
Classification of contextual factors 30
Contextual levels and variables 32
Assessment Design 46
The ICCS instruments 46
The coverage of framework domains 47
Item types 47
The ICCS test booklet design 48
Reporting on the contextual scales 49
References 51
Appendix A: Institutions and Staff 56
The international study center and its partner institutions 56
The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) 56
The ICCS project advisory committee (PAC) 57
The ICCS sampling referee 57
National research coordinators 57
Appendix B: Sample Test Items 60

4ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework

5
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Preface
The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) is a
non-profit, non-governmental international co-operative association of national research
institutions and governmental research agencies from over 60 countries. Its secretariat is located
in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and it has a data processing and research center (DPC) in
Hamburg, Germany.
IEA conducts large-scale comparative studies of student achievement that have, as their
particular focus, educational policies and practices in numerous countries around the world.
The first IEA study was launched in 1958. Since then, almost 30 research studies, reporting on
a wide range of topics and subject matters, have been conducted. Together, these studies have
contributed to a deeper understanding of educational phenomena within individual countries
and within a broad international context.
The International Civic and Citizenship Study (ICCS) is the third IEA project investigating the role
of schooling in preparing young people for their roles as citizens in society. The first study in
this area—the Study of Civic Education—began in 1971. This project, which introduced civics
and civic education into the IEA research agenda, challenged some of the conceptual and
methodological constraints associated with international comparisons in this area of education.
The second Civic Education Study (CIVED), undertaken in 1999, focused on investigating school
experiences in the context of changes that occurred in the “real world” of the political and
social life of nations in the early 1990s. These changes included, on the one hand, the collapse
of communism in Central-Eastern Europe and the appearance of new democracies and, on
the other hand, a lessening of interest and participation in public life by citizens of the older
democracies.
Almost 10 years on, global change has again prompted a new survey of civic and citizenship
education. Amongst other considerations, the growing impact of the processes of globalization,
external threats to civic societies and their freedoms, and the limited interest and involvement
of young generations in public and political life have stimulated renewed reflection on the
meanings of citizenship and the roles of and approaches to civic and citizenship education.
The IEA General Assembly agreed that it was timely to address these emerging concerns and
initiated ICCS in order to collect empirical evidence that individual countries and international
organizations can use to improve policy and practice in this area.
The aim of ICCS is to report on student achievement on a test of conceptual knowledge and
understandings in civic and citizenship education. It also intends to collect and analyze data
about student dispositions and attitudes relating to civic and citizenship education. Because
ICCS builds on CIVED (1999), it will give those education systems that participated in the
earlier study an opportunity to generate indicators (trend data) of national across-time progress
in student achievement. However, ICCS also offers opportunity to pursue new targets in this
field of education. A major innovation is that ICCS will attempt, through the introduction of
regional modules, to address specific regional issues in civic and citizenship education. Three
regional modules (Asian, European, and Latin American) will provide data that will complement
the information collected relative to the core part of the study.
International studies of the scale of ICCS rely on the contributions and collaboration of many
individuals and input from many countries. This publication contains the ICCS assessment
framework, which provides the blueprint for the assessment of the outcomes of civic and
citizenship education. The publication has been a collaborative process involving numerous
individuals and groups, including the project advisory committee (PAC), national research
coordinators (NRCs) from over 30 countries, and other experts. Input from these groups
and individuals was sought in the early stages of this study, and strategies were developed to

6ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
encourage ICCS participating countries to contribute to the development of the assessment
framework, the design of the study, and the study’s instruments.
Projects of this magnitude require a significant financial commitment from IEA and its partners.
Critical core funding for ICCS has been provided by the following: the European Commission
Directorate-General for Education and Culture in the form of a grant to the European countries
participating in the project; the Inter-American Development Bank through SREDECC (the
Regional System for the Evaluation and Development of Citizenship Competencies), which
supported a number of Latin American countries; and the ICCS participating countries.
The success of this project depends on sound management practices. Three partner institutions,
in co-operation with the IEA Secretariat, the IEA DPC, and the NRCs, are responsible for the
study’s organization. They are the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), as lead
institution, the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) in the United Kingdom, and
the Laboratorio di Pedagogia sperimentale (LPS) at the Roma Tre University in Italy.
I express my sincere thanks to the study leaders: John Ainley, Julian Fraillon, and Wolfram
Schulz from ACER; David Kerr from NFER; and Bruno Losito from LPS. I also thank the
researchers from the consortium institutions: Suzanne Mellor and Naoko Tabata from ACER;
Gabriella Agrusti from LPS; and Joana Lopes from NFER.
My special thanks go to the members of the PAC for their thoughtful reviews of earlier versions
of the assessment framework. I particularly thank Judith Torney-Purta (University of Maryland),
previously the leader and chair of the steering committee for CIVED. The IEA publications and
editorial committee (PEC) suggested improvements to earlier versions of the framework, and
Paula Wagemaker edited the document.
Finally, I wish to express my appreciation for the contribution made by the NRCs. They are the
core of each IEA study because they assure its relevance to the research, policy, and educational
practice relevant to the area of investigation.
Hans Wagemaker
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IEA

7
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Overview
Purpose of the study
The purpose of the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) is to investigate, in
a range of countries, the ways in which young people are prepared and consequently ready
and able to undertake their roles as citizens. In pursuit of this purpose, the study reports on
student achievement in a test of conceptual understandings and competencies in civics and
citizenship. It also collects and analyzes, as additional outcome variables, data about student
activities, dispositions, and attitudes related to civic and citizenship education. The collection
of contextual data will help explain variation in the outcome variables. The proposal builds on
the previous IEA studies of civic education, acknowledges the need for a new study, and is a
response to the challenge of educating young people in changed contexts of democracy and
civic participation.
Background to the study
Previous IEA studies
The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) has already
carried out two international surveys of student characteristics in the domain of civic education.
The first such study (Torney, Oppenheim, & Farnen, 1975) was conducted as part of the so-
called Six Subject Study, with data collected in 1971 (for a summary, see Walker, 1976). The
second study, the IEA Civic Education Study (CIVED), was carried out in 1999. It was designed
to strengthen the empirical foundations of civic education by providing up-to-date information
about the civic knowledge, attitudes, and actions of 14-year-olds.
CIVED had a twin focus on school-based learning and on opportunities for civic participation
outside the school. CIVED concentrated on three civic-related domains: democracy/citizenship;
national identity/international relations; and social cohesion/diversity. It was argued that the
research outcomes from a study focusing on these domains would be particularly useful to
policymakers involved in designing or redesigning curricula and preparing teachers.
CIVED was successful in meeting its aims and objectives. Phase 1 produced a detailed series of
national case studies from the 24 participating countries (Torney-Purta, Schwille, & Amadeo,
1999). Phase 2 produced two data-rich international reports, the first on the results from the
mandatory standard population of 14-year-olds in 28 participating countries (Torney-Purta,
Lehmann, Oswald, & Schulz, 2001), and the second from the 16 countries that surveyed an
older, optional population of 16- to 18-year-olds (Amadeo, Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Husfeldt,
& Nikolova, 2002). CIVED’s findings have had a considerable influence on policy and
educational practice in civic and citizenship education across the world, in both participating
and non-participating countries, and have also influenced further research in this area (Kerr,
Ireland, Lopes, & Craig, with Cleaver, 2004; Mellor & Prior, 2004; Menezes, Ferreira, Carneiro,
& Cruz, 2004).
Recent changes in the world context of civics and citizenship
In the 10 years since CIVED investigated civic education, the conditions relevant to civics and
citizenship (especially governance and among-nation relations) have undergone considerable
change across the globe. The world context and thus the context in relation to both citizenship
and policy and practice in civic and citizenship education have changed.

8ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
The catalyst of major political change that swept across the world in the late 1980s and 1990s,
and which triggered CIVED, has developed further:
• Thelastdecadehasseenasignicantchangeinexternalthreatstocivilsocieties.Terrorist
attacks and the ensuing debates about the response civil societies should take have resulted
in greater importance being attached to civic and citizenship education. This shift has been
accompanied by a growing recognition of the role that civic and citizenship education can
play in response to these changes (see Ben Porath, 2006; IDEA, 2006).
• Observationinmanydevelopingcountries,andparticularlythoseintheLatinAmerican
region, indicates that people are giving greater value to democracy as a system of
government than in the past, but that increasing social and economic inequalities
are simultaneously threatening the continuation of democratic government. Studies
have highlighted the consensus in many developing countries of the importance of
strengthening and promoting citizenship education among both young people and adults
in order to make democracy more sustainable (see Cox, Jaramillo, & Reimers, 2005;
Reimers, 2007; USAID, 2002).
• Therehasbeenanotableincreaseintheimportanceofnon-governmentalgroupsfrom
civil society serving as alternative vehicles through which active citizenship can unite
citizens with common purpose. New forms of social movement participation are due to a
variety of different purposes, ranging from religious motivation to issues such as protection
of human rights or protection of the environment (see Scheufele, Nisbet, & Brossard,
2002; Wade, 2007).
• Thetrendtowardmoreprofoundculturalchangesduetothemodernizationand
globalization of societies, more universal access to new media such as the internet,
increasing consumer consumption, and transformation of societal structures (individualism)
has continued over the last decade (see Branson, 1999; Rahn, 2004).
Consequently, interest in civic and citizenship education remains, or has become, high in many
countries, especially in those with democratic forms of government, but also in those where the
establishment of democracy has yet to be achieved.
Linked to these changes is a change in views with regard to the appropriateness of traditional
views of citizenship. This development has led to a revisiting of concepts and practices
associated with the four dimensions of citizenship: rights and responsibilities, access, belonging,
and other identities (see Banks, 2004; Kymlicka, 2001; Macedo, 2000). Current debates
include discussions about concepts of national identity, how national identity can be identified,
and what might be done to confirm national identity.
Low participation in governance and social dialectic by voters, or populations, is of particular
relevance in many countries, and concerns are growing about the lack of interest and
involvement of young people and young adults in public and political life (Curtice & Seyd,
2003; Putnam, 2000). However, while young people may reject political practices, the same
does not necessarily occur with their endorsement of political values like solidarity, equity, and
tolerance. There is also some evidence that young people are becoming increasingly involved in
alternative forms of participation (Torney-Purta et al., 2001).

9
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Developments in the research of civic and citizenship education
Because of these developments, experts and educational policymakers in many countries are
reflecting on the meaning of citizenship, resulting in an increased focus on civic and citizenship
education in schools. There has been an increase in the number of countries and regions
interested and involved in progressing civic and citizenship education. Such countries have
become more proactive, and research in recent years has provided insights into:
• Thegapbetweentheintendedandtheimplementedcurriculum(Birzeaetal.,2004;
Eurydice, 2005);
• Theconceptualizationofcitizenshipinschoolswithrespecttocurriculum,schoolculture,
and the wider community (Kerr et al., 2004);
• Approachestocivicandcitizenshipeducation,withanemphasisonactiveandexperiential
teaching and learning (Potter, 2002); and
• Thosefactorsthatsupporteffectivecitizenshipeducation(Craig,Kerr,Wade,&Taylor,
2005).
This growing policy and evidence base has helped facilitate increased collaboration and sharing
of expertise within and across countries and regions. Generally, the environment for civic and
citizenship education has changed considerably since the late 1980s with respect to the scale
and complexity of the challenges facing democracy and citizenship. There is a need to update
the empirical evidence of this new environment in civic and citizenship education.
Research questions, design, and instrumentation
The key research questions for the study concern student achievement, dispositions to engage,
and attitudes related to civic and citizenship education. The variables necessary to analyze these
research questions can be located in the contextual framework.
RQ 1 What variations exist between countries, and within countries, in student achievement in conceptual
understandings and competencies in civics and citizenship?
This research question concerns the distribution of outcome variables across
participating countries (at the country level) and within these countries. Analysis to
address this research question focuses on the distribution of student achievement based
on test data and involves single- and multi-level perspectives (through the use of, for
example, models of variance decomposition).
RQ 2 What changes in civic knowledge and engagement have occurred since the last international
assessment in 1999?
This research question is mainly concerned with analyzing trends from CIVED to ICCS
and will be limited to data from countries participating in both assessments. Analysis
focuses at the level of participating countries on changes in overall civic knowledge and
indicators of civic engagement and attitudes. Country-level factors (recent curriculum
changes, reforms) can be used when interpreting possible changes across time.
RQ 3 What is the extent of interest and disposition to engage in public and political life among adolescents
and which factors within or across countries are related to it?
This research question addresses the issue of engagement versus apathy, with indicators
of civic participation compared within and across countries and related to explanatory
variables at various levels. Both characteristics and process-related variables at the levels
of school/classroom and home environment are used to explain variation in outcome
variables.

10 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
RQ 4 What are adolescents’ perceptions of the impact of recent threats to civil society and of responses to
these threats on the future development of that society?
Analysis is based on student comprehensions of the relationship between securing
societies and safeguarding civil liberties, and on student attitudes toward citizenship
rights. Factors located at the country level (recent developments, liberal traditions) might
be of particular importance for the analysis.
RQ 5 What aspects of schools and education systems are related to achievement in and attitudes to civics
and citizenship, including:
(a) general approach to civic and citizenship education, curriculum, and/or program content
structure and delivery?
The analysis requires additional data to be collected at the national level on curriculum
and programs as well as from reports from the school and teacher questionnaires.
Both background variables and factors related to the process of civic and citizenship
learning at the country level and the school/classroom level are therefore of particular
importance for the analysis.
(b) teaching practices, such as those that encourage higher order thinking and analysis in relation to
civics and citizenship?
Analysis will be based on data about student perceptions of and teacher reports on
instructional practices and will involve variables related to the learning process collected
from schools, teachers, and individual students.
(c) aspects of school organization, including opportunities to contribute to conflict resolution,
participate in governance processes, and be involved in decisionmaking?
The analysis requires data on student perceptions of school governance and reports
from school principals or teachers. It involves variables that relate to the opportunities
students have to participate within school and that are collected from students, teachers,
and schools.
RQ 6 What aspects of student personal and social background, such as gender, socioeconomic background,
and language background, are related to student achievement in and attitudes toward civic and
citizenship education?
The analysis will rely on student background variables, collected through the student
questionnaire and related to the individual students and the home environment. These
factors will be used to explain variation in outcome variables assessed in the test and the
student perceptions questionnaire.
The research questions played an important role in shaping the design of the study and its
instrumentation and in guiding the development of the assessment framework.
The student population surveyed includes students in Grade 8 (on average including students
who are approximately 14 years of age), provided that the average age of students in Grade 8 is
13.5 years or above. Where the average age of students in Grade 8 is under 13.5 years, Grade 9
is defined as the target population.1 In each sampled school, intact classrooms are selected, and
all students in a class are assessed for the ICCS survey.
The population for the ICCS teacher survey is defined as all teachers teaching regular
school subjects to the students in the target grade at each sampled school. It includes only
those teachers teaching Grade 8 during the testing period and employed at school from
the beginning of the school year. Fifteen teachers are randomly selected from each school
participating in the ICCS survey.
1 An option to include Grade 9 as an additional year level is offered to countries that participated in CIVED using their
Grade 9 population and who are assessing Grade 8 in ICCS.

11
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
An important feature of ICCS is the establishment of regional modules. Regional modules
compromise groups of countries from the same geographic region that together administer
additional instruments to assess region-specific aspects of civic and citizenship education. Three
regional modules have been implemented as part of ICCS for participating countries in the
regions of Europe, Latin America, and Asia respectively.
The following instruments are administered as part of the ICCS survey:
• An international cognitive student test consisting of items measuring students’ civic knowledge
and ability to analyze and reason.
• A student questionnaire consisting of items measuring student background variables and
student perceptions and behaviors.
• A regional student instrument, administered after the international student assessment and
possibly consisting of region-specific cognitive and questionnaire-type items. This
instrument will only be used in countries participating in a regional module.
• A teacher questionnaire, administered to selected teachers teaching any subject in the target
grade. It gathers information about teacher background variables and teachers’ perceptions of
factors related to the context of civic and citizenship education in their respective schools.
• A school questionnaire, administered to school principals of selected schools to capture
school characteristics and school-level variables related to civic and citizenship
participation.
• Anonlinenational contexts survey, completed by national center experts with regard to the
structure of the education systems, the status of civic and citizenship education in the
national curriculum, and recent developments. The data obtained from this survey assist
with the interpretation of the results from the student, school, and teacher questionnaires,
and provide a description of the context for civic and citizenship education in each
country.
The assessment framework provides a conceptual underpinning for the international
instrumentation for ICCS and has also been a point of reference for the development of
regional instruments.
Characteristics and structure of the ICCS assessment framework
Given the central role of the assessment framework in the process of instrument development, it
has been important to:
• MaintainastrongconnectiontotheconstructsusedintheIEACIVEDsurveyof1999;
• Reectcontemporaryresearchunderstandingsofmanifestationsofcivicandcitizenship
education in school students;
• Meettheneedsofparticipatingcountries;
• AddresstheresearchquestionsoutlinedintheICCSproposalfortheIEAGeneral
Assembly of 2005;
• Includeonlycontentthatcanbemeasured;
• Compilecontentdescriptorsthatareagreedtobesignicantanddiscreteandthatdescribe
the breadth of civic and citizenship education for school students; and
• Addressthecontextswithinwhichcivicandcitizenshipeducationtakesplace.
The assessment framework consists of two parts:
• Thecivic and citizenship framework outlines the aspects to be addressed when collecting the
outcome measures through the cognitive test and the student perceptions questionnaire.
• Thecontextual framework provides a mapping of context factors that might influence
outcome variables and explain their variation.

12 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Civic and Citizenship Framework
Overview
Continuities between CIVED and ICCS
Key conceptual continuities
The overall model for CIVED is represented as an octagon that gives detail to the “nested
context for young people’s thinking and action in the social environment” (Torney-Purta et al.,
2001, p. 21). The detailed CIVED model is reproduced as Figure 1.
The CIVED theoretical model places the individual student at its center, with the student
influenced by “agents” of socialization. The model is based on the assumption that students’
“learning about citizenship” is not limited to teachers explicitly instructing young people about
their rights and duties (Torney-Purta et al., 2001).
Figure 1: Model of the IEA Civic Education Study (CIVED)
The ICCS assessment framework thus reflects the pivotal assertion of the CIVED model that
the individual student exists as the central agent in their civic world, with both an influence on
and being influenced by their multiple connections with their civic communities. Consequent to
this is the assertion posited in CIVED, and further reflected by the ICCS assessment framework,
that young people learn about civics and citizenship through their interactions with their
multiple civic communities and not just through formal classroom instruction (Torney-Purta et
al., 2001).
Construct operationalization continuities
The CIVED conceptual model was operationalized to collect student outcomes data, using a
cognitive test and questionnaire instruments with a range of question types relating to civic and
C
A
R
R
I
E
R
S
O
F
G
O
A
L
S
I
N
T
O
A
C
T
I
O
N
P
U
B
L
I
C
D
I
S
C
O
U
R
S
E
A
B
O
U
T
G
O
A
L
S
A
N
D
V
A
L
U
E
S
Economic
Processes, Institutions
and Values
Educational and
Communication Media
Processes, Institutions
and Values
Heroes, Symbols, and
Narrative in National
or Local Communities
Socio-Economic Stratification and
Opportunity Structure
By Gender, Ethnic or Language Group
Immigration Status
Religious Values
and Institutions
Values related to
Social Participation
Individualism – Collectivism
Power Distance or Hierarchy
Allies and Enemies –
Country’s International Position
Political/Legal
Processes, Institutions
and Values
Peer Group:
In and out of
Class Discourse
Family:
Parents;
Siblings
Formal Community:
Political Leaders;
Climate of Optimism
Imformal Community:
Youth Organizations;
Work places
School: Teachers; Intended
Curriculum; Participation
Opportunities
INDIVIDUAL
STUDENT

13
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
citizenship content in three domains. The three domains of the CIVED conceptual model of
civics and citizenship are:
• DomainI:Democracy/Citizenship
• DomainII:NationalIdentity/InternationalRelations
• DomainIII:SocialCohesion/Diversity.
A set of the secure CIVED trend cognitive items and items from some of the attitude and
concept CIVED scales are included in the ICCS assessment instruments.
Representing civics and citizenship in the ICCS assessment framework
The ICCS assessment framework is organized around three dimensions: a content dimension
specifying the subject matter to be assessed within civics and citizenship; an affective-
behavioral dimension that describes the types of student perceptions and activities that are
measured; and a cognitive dimension that describes the thinking processes to be assessed.
The four content domains in the ICCS assessment framework are:
• ContentDomain1:Civicsocietyandsystems
• ContentDomain2:Civicprinciples
• ContentDomain3:Civicparticipation
• ContentDomain4:Civicidentities.
It is important to distinguish the different types of student perceptions and behaviors relevant
within the context of civics and citizenship. For this purpose, four affective-behavioral domains
are identified in the ICCS assessment framework:
• Affective-behavioralDomain1:Valuebeliefs
• Affective-behavioralDomain2:Attitudes
• Affective-behavioralDomain3:Behavioralintentions
• Affective-behavioralDomain4:Behaviors.
Similar to the domains within the assessment framework for TIMSS (Mullis, Martin, Ruddock,
O’Sullivan, Aroa, & Erberber, 2005), the cognitive domains in the ICCS assessment framework
define the cognitive processes assessed with test items. The two cognitive domains in the ICCS
framework are:
• CognitiveDomain1:Knowing
• CognitiveDomain2:Reasoningandanalyzing.
Mapping assessment domains to the assessment instruments
The ICCS assessment of the outcomes of civic and citizenship education comprises two
instruments:
• Astudenttestmeasuringcognitiveprocesses
• Astudentquestionnairemeasuringperceptionsandbehaviors.
The data from the cognitive test will be used to construct a scale of civic and citizenship
knowledge and understandings as described by the two cognitive domains, and representing
the substance of the four content domains.
The data from the student questionnaire will be used to articulate perceptions constructs
pertaining to the four affective-behavioral domains and relating to the substance of the four
content domains. The amount and type of assessment information accessed by each instrument
will vary across the four content domains.

14 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Data dealing with active citizenship behaviors will be used as indicators of active citizenship
and as possible explanatory variables of civic and citizenship achievement. Indicators of student
activities are also important context variables and are therefore also included in the contextual
framework.
Structures and key terms in the ICCS assessment framework
Structure of the content domains
The four content domains of the ICCS assessment framework share the following structures:
Sub-domain This refers to a substantive or contextual component of a content domain.
The sub-domains are described if they include sufficient discrete content to
warrant individual definition and articulation. This model anticipates some
overlap between the sub-domains within each domain.
Aspect This refers to specific content regarded as largely situated within a given
sub-domain.
Key concept This refers to concepts and processes common to sub-domains within a
given content domain.
In short, each content domain is divided into sub-domains, and each sub-domain consists of
one or more aspects. The key concepts can be expressed within the contexts of any of the
sub-domains. Figure 2 illustrates the structure of the content domains in the ICCS assessment
framework.
Figure 2: The structure of the ICCS assessment framework content domains
Note: KC = Key concept; Sd = Sub-domain; ASd = Aspect.
are expressead across
Key Concepts
KC1
…
…
KCn
Aspects
ASd1a
ASd1b
…
…
ASdna
ASdnb
consist of
Sd1
…
Sdn
Domains (1–4)
are
divided
into
Sub-domains

15
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Structure of the affective-behavioral domains
The four affective-behavioral domains are described in terms of the types of student perceptions
and behaviors relevant with respect to the civic and citizenship content domains.
Structure of the cognitive domains
The two cognitive domains are each defined in terms of the cognitive processes that comprise
them.
Key terms
The ICCS assessment framework uses a set of key terms. Definitions of these follow. Note that
the exact definitions of many of the terms used in the framework are the subject of ongoing
and vigorous academic dialogue. The definitions of the key and domain-specific terms in this
framework have been constructed to support consistent understandings of the framework’s
contents across the broad range of countries participating and interested in ICCS.
Community A group of people who share something in common (for example,
history, values, loyalties, a common goal). In this framework, community
membership includes membership based on externally defined criteria
relating to the function of the community (such as attending a school as
a student) and membership defined by individuals’ own belief of their
membership (such as through identification with “like-minded” people
regarding a political or social issue).2
Society A community defined by its geographical territory and within which the
population shares a common culture (which may comprise and celebrate
multiple and diverse ethnic or other communities) and way of life under
conditions of relative autonomy, independence, and self-sufficiency.
Citizenship 1. The legal status of being a citizen.
2. The fact of individuals’ participation, or lack of participation, in their
communities. The term “citizenship,” unlike the term “active citizenship,”
does not assume certain levels of participation.
Civil Refers to the sphere of society in which the shared connections between
people are at a level larger than that of the extended family but do not
include connections to the state.
Civic Refers to any community in which the shared connections between
people are at a level larger than that of the extended family (including
the state). Civic also refers to the principles, mechanisms, and processes of
decisionmaking, participation, governance, and legislative control that exist
in these communities.
2 Note that a community may still contain any level of diversity.

16 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Civic and citizenship content domains
The first content domain, civic society and systems, comprises the mechanisms, systems, and
organizations that underpin societies. The second domain, civic principles, refers to the shared
ethical foundations of civic societies. Civic participation deals with the nature of the processes
and practices that define and mediate the participation of citizens in their civic communities
(often referred to as active citizenship). The ICCS assessment framework recognizes the
centrality of the individual citizen through the civic identities domain. This domain refers to the
personal sense an individual has of being an agent of civic action with connections to multiple
communities. Together, these four domains describe the civic and citizenship content to be
assessed in ICCS.
Content Domain 1: Civic society and systems
Civic society and systems focuses on the formal and informal mechanisms and organizations that
underpin both the civic contracts that citizens have with their societies and the functioning of
the societies themselves. The three sub-domains of civic society and systems are:
• Citizens
• Stateinstitutions
• Civilinstitutions.
Citizens
Citizens focuses on the civic relationships between individuals and groups of citizens and their
societies. The aspects of this sub-domain relate to knowledge and understanding of:
• Citizens’andgroups’assignedanddesiredroleswithintheircivicsociety
• Citizens’andgroups’assignedanddesiredrightswithintheircivicsociety
• Citizens’andgroups’assignedanddesiredresponsibilitieswithintheircivicsociety
• Citizens’andgroups’opportunitiesandabilitiestosupporttheongoingdevelopmentoftheircivic
society.
State institutions
State institutions focuses on those institutions central to the processes and enacting of civic
governance and legislation in the common interest of the people they represent and serve.
The aspects of this sub-domain are:
• Legislatures/parliaments
• Governments
• Supranational/intergovernmentalgovernancebodies
• Judiciaries
• Lawenforcementbodies
• Nationaldefenseforces
• Bureaucracies(civilorpublicservices)
• Electoralcommissions.

17
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Civil institutions
Civil institutions focuses on those institutions that can mediate citizens’ contact with their state
institutions and allow citizens to actively pursue many of their roles in their societies.
The aspects of this sub-domain are:
• Religiousinstitutions
• Companies/corporations
• Tradeunions
• Politicalparties
• Non-governmentalorganizations(NGOs)
• Pressuregroups
• Themedia
• Schools
• Cultural/special-interestorganizations.
Key concepts
Power/authority Listed together as concepts dealing with the nature and consequences
of the right or capacity of bodies or individuals to make binding
decisions on behalf of others that these others are then required to
accept and adhere to.
Rules/law Listed together as the explicit and implicit prescriptions for behavior.
Rules are those prescriptions that are not required to be, and are
therefore not, enforced by a sovereign body. Laws are considered to
be those prescriptions enforced by a sovereign body.
Constitution The fundamental rules or laws of principle governing the politics of a
nation or sub-national body.
Governance The act and the processes of administering public policy and affairs.
Decisionmaking The formal and informal processes by which decisions are made
within and among civil and state institutions.
Negotiation The processes that underpin and are evident in negotiation, and the
use and necessity of negotiation as a means of decisionmaking.
Accountability The requirement for representatives to answer to those they represent
about the representatives’ conduct of their duties and use of their
powers. Accountability includes the assumption that representatives
are able to accept responsibility for their failures and to take action to
rectify them.
Democracy The ICCS assessment framework accepts the broadest definition
of democracy “as rule by the people.” This definition refers both
to democracy as a system of governance and to the principles of
freedom, equity, and social cohesion3 that underpin democratic
systems and guarantee respect for and promotion of human rights.
Both representative democratic systems (such as national parliaments)
and direct democratic systems (such as those in some local-community
or school organizations) can be examined as democratic systems under
the definition of democracy used in this framework.
3 See Civic and Citizenship Content Domain 2, page 19.

18 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Sovereignty The claim of each individual state/nation to have the ultimate power
in making political decisions relevant to that state/nation and the
recognition that this power underpins the operation and viability of
international organizations, agreements, and treaties.
Nation-building The process of developing among the people of a nation some form
of a unified sense of national identity, with the aim of fostering
long-term harmony and stability. Within the parameters of the ICCS
assessment framework, nation-building is assumed to be a dynamic
ongoing process in all nations rather than a process associated only
with newly independent nations.
Statelessness The circumstances of people who do not have any legal bond of
nationality or citizenship with any state. Included in this concept are
the causes and consequences of statelessness.
Franchise/voting Listed together, these concepts refer to the rights, responsibilities, and
expectations of people to vote in formal and informal settings. These
concepts also refer, more broadly, to issues associated with voting and
voting processes, such as compulsory and voluntary voting and secret
ballots.
The economy Systems governing the production, distribution, and consumption of
goods and services within states, including industrial regulation, trade,
taxation, and social welfare.
The welfare state The role of a government in providing for the social and economic
security of its people through support such as health care, pensions,
and social welfare payments and benefits.
Treaties Binding agreements under international law entered into by eligible
bodies such as states and international organizations.
Sustainable Development that meets the needs of the present without
development compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs. Factors that can be considered in terms of sustainable
development include environmental protection, economic
development, social equality, and social justice.
Globalization The increasing international movement of commodities, money,
information, and people; and the development of technology,
organizations, legal systems, and infrastructures to allow this
movement. The ICCS assessment framework acknowledges that
a high level of international debate surrounds the definition,
perceptions, and even the existence of globalization. Globalization has
been included in the framework as a key concept for consideration
by students. The definition is not a statement of belief about the
existence or merits of globalization.

19
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Content Domain 2: Civic principles
Civic principles focuses on the shared ethical foundations of civic societies. The framework
regards support, protection, and promotion of these principles as civic responsibilities and as
frequently occurring motivations for civic participation by individuals and groups. The three
sub-domains of civic principles are:
• Equity
• Freedom
• Socialcohesion.
Equity
Equity focuses on the principle that all people have the right to fair and just treatment and that
protecting and promoting this equity is essential to achieving peace, harmony, and productivity
within and among communities. The principle of equity is derived from the notion of
equality—that all people are born equal in terms of dignity and rights.
Freedom
Freedom focuses on the concept that all people should have freedom of belief, freedom of
speech, freedom from fear, and freedom from want as articulated in the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948). Societies have a responsibility
to actively protect the freedom of their members and to support the protection of freedom in all
communities, including those that are not their own.
Social cohesion
Social cohesion focuses on the sense of belonging, connectedness, and common vision that exists
amongst the individuals and communities within a society. When social cohesion is strong,
there is active appreciation and celebration of the diversity of individuals and communities
that comprise a society. It is acknowledged (in regard to this sub-domain) that manifestations
of social cohesion vary between societies, that there may be tensions within societies between
social cohesion and diversity of views and actions, and that the resolution of these tensions is
an ongoing area of debate within many societies.
Key concepts
Concern for the The concept that the ultimate goal of civic and community action is to
common good promote conditions that advantage all members of the community.
Human rights A form of inalienable moral entitlement that, for the purpose of the ICCS
assessment framework, is framed by the contents of the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948).
Empathy Intellectually or emotionally taking the role or perspective of others.
Respect The concept that all people are to be valued because they are human.
Social justice The distribution of advantage and disadvantage within communities.
Inclusiveness The concept that communities have a responsibility to act in ways that
support all their members to feel valued as members of those communities.
Equality The notion that all people are born equal in terms of dignity and rights
regardless of their personal characteristics (such as gender, race, religion).

20 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Content Domain 3: Civic participation
Civic participation refers to the manifestations of individuals’ actions in their communities. Civic
participation can operate at any level of community and in any community context. The level
of participation can range from awareness through engagement to influence. The three sub-
domains of civic participation are:
• Decisionmaking
• Inuencing
• Communityparticipation.
Decisionmaking
Decisionmaking focuses on active participation that directly results in the implementation of
policy or practice regarding the individual’s community or a group within that community. The
aspects of this sub-domain are:
• Engaginginorganizationalgovernance
• Voting.
Influencing
Influencing focuses on actions aimed at informing and affecting any or all of the policies,
practices, and attitudes of others or groups of others in the individual’s community. The aspects
of this sub-domain are:
• Engaginginpublicdebate
• Engagingindemonstrationsofpublicsupportorprotest
• Engaginginpolicydevelopment
• Developingproposalsforactionoradvocacy
• Selectivepurchasingofproductsaccordingtoethicalbeliefsaboutthewaytheywereproduced(ethical
consumption/ethical consumerism)
• Corruption.
Community participation
Community participation focuses on participation, with a primary focus on enhancing one’s
connections with a community, for the ultimate benefit of that community. The aspects of this
sub-domain are:
• Volunteering
• Participatinginreligious,cultural,andsportingorganizations
• Keepingoneselfinformed.
Key concepts
Civic involvement The concept that civic communities benefit from the active involvement
of their citizens and that therefore there is an onus on civic communities
to facilitate the right of active citizenship and an onus on citizens to
participate actively in their civic communities.
Civic self-efficacy Individuals’ own judgments of their capacity to complete courses of
action that will influence their civic communities.

21
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Co-operation/ The concept that communities benefit most when their members act
collaboration together in pursuing the common goals of the community. (This
definition allows for disagreement within communities about the best
way to achieve their goals.)
Negotiation/ The concept that peaceful resolution of differences is essential to
resolution community wellbeing and that negotiation is the best way to attempt to
reach resolutions.
Engagement The concept that citizens need to concern themselves with issues and
information in their communities in order to participate effectively.
Content Domain 4: Civic identities
Civic identities includes the individual’s civic roles and perceptions of these roles. As was the
case with the CIVED model, ICCS assumes that individuals both influence and are influenced
by the relationships they have with family, peers, and civic communities. Thus, an individual’s
civic identity explicitly links to a range of personal and civic interrelationships. This framework
asserts and assumes that individuals have multiple articulated identities rather than a single-
faceted civic identity.
Civic identities comprises two sub-domains:
• Civicself-image
• Civicconnectedness.
Civic self-image
Civic self-image refers to individuals’ experiences of their place in each of their civic
communities. Civic self-image focuses on individuals’ civic and citizenship values and roles,
individuals’ understanding of and attitudes toward these values and roles, and individuals’
management of these values and roles whether they are in harmony or in conflict within each
of these people.
Civic connectedness
Civic connectedness refers to the individual’s sense of connection to their different civic
communities and to the different civic roles the individual plays within each community.
Civic connectedness also includes the individual’s beliefs about and tolerance of the levels of
diversity (of civic ideas and actions) within and across their communities, and their recognition
and understanding of the effects of the range of civic and citizenship values and belief systems
of their different communities on the members of those communities.
Key concepts
Civic self-concept Individuals’ views of themselves as citizens in their civic
communities. This view includes individuals’ sense of the
communities to which they belong and their capacity to identify the
nature and parameters of their civic roles in their communities.
Multiplicity Individuals’ sense of the range of different roles and potentials they
have within and across their different communities. Included in this
concept is the understanding that an individual’s roles and potentials
are ever changing and that these depend on the context of each
separate community connection.

22 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Diversity Individuals’ sense and level of acceptance of the range of people and
viewpoints that exist within and across their communities.
Cultures/location Individuals’ sense of the value and place of the cultures they
associate with their communities in their own civic lives and the
civic lives of the other members of their communities.
Patriotism Love for or devotion to one’s country (or countries), which can lead
to a willingness to act in support of one’s country (or countries).
Nationalism The politicization of patriotism into principles or programs based on
the premise that national identity holds precedence over other social
and political principles.
Civic and citizenship Individuals’ central ethical and moral beliefs about their civic
values communities and their roles as citizens within their communities.
Civic and citizenship affective-behavioral domains
The items measuring the affective-behavioral domains do not require correct or incorrect
responses. They are typically measured through use of a Likert-type item format in the student
questionnaire.
Affective-behavioral Domain 1: Value beliefs
Value beliefs can be defined as beliefs about the worth of concepts, institutions, people, and/
or ideas. Value beliefs are different from attitudes insofar as they are more constant over time,
deeply rooted, and representative of broader and more fundamental beliefs. Value beliefs help
individuals resolve contradictions, and they form the basis of how we see ourselves and others.
Value systems are sets of value beliefs that individuals adopt and that, in turn, influence both
attitudes and behavior.4
Value beliefs relevant in the context of civics and citizenship include beliefs about fundamental
concepts or ideas (freedom, equity, social cohesion). Two types of value beliefs are measured in
ICCS:
• Students’beliefsindemocraticvalues
• Students’beliefsincitizenshipvalues.
Students’ beliefs in democratic values
This construct refers to student beliefs about democracy and relates mainly to Content
Domain 2 (civic principles). In the IEA CIVED survey, students were asked to rate a number of
characteristics of society as either “good or bad for democracy.” Contrary to expectations, the
results did not show similar patterns of conceptual dimensions along which students rate these
items. However, several items represented a factor related to a “rule of law” model of democracy
that was consistent across countries (see Torney-Purta et al., 2001). Instead of asking about
positive or negative consequences for democracy, the ICCS assessment framework includes a set
of nine items that seek out the extent of student agreement as to what a society should be like.
The items, adapted from a subset of those included in CIVED, reflect students’ endorsement of
basic democratic values. In addition, three items reflect students’ beliefs about what should be
done in response to groups that pose threats to national security.
4 Rokeach (1973, p. 5) gives the following definitions: “A value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-
state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence.
A value system is an enduring organization of beliefs concerning desirable modes of conduct or end-states of existence
along a continuum of relative importance.”

23
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Students’ beliefs in citizenship values
This construct refers to student beliefs regarding “good citizenship” and relates mainly to
Content Domain 1 (civic society and systems). Items asking about the importance of certain
behaviors for “good citizenship” were included in the first IEA study on civic education in
1971 (Torney et al., 1975). In CIVED, a set of 15 items asked students to rate the importance
of certain behaviors relative to being a good citizen (see Torney-Purta et al., 2001, p. 77f ). Two
sub-scales on conventional and social-movement-related citizenship were reported (see Schulz,
2004). Kennedy (2006) distinguishes active (conventional and social-movement-related) from
passive citizenship elements (national identity, patriotism, and loyalty). ICCS includes 12 items
on good citizenship behavior, most of which are similar to those used in CIVED.
Affective-behavioral Domain 2: Attitudes
Attitudes can be defined as states of mind or feelings about ideas, persons, objects, events,
situations, and/or relationships. In contrast to value beliefs, attitudes are narrower in nature,
can change over time, and are less deeply rooted. It is also possible for individuals to harbor
contradictory attitudes at the same time.
The different types of attitudes relevant with respect to civics and citizenship include:
• Students’self-cognitionsrelatedtocivicsandcitizenship
• Students’attitudestowardrightsandresponsibilities
• Students’attitudestowardinstitutions.
Students’ self-cognitions related to civics and citizenship
Interest in political events and social issues: This construct reflects students’ motivation relative
to politics and relates to Content Domain 4 (civic identities). The first IEA Civic Education
Study in 1971 included measures of interest in public affairs television, which turned out to
be a positive predictor for civic knowledge and participation (Torney et al., 1975). An item
on political interest was used in the CIVED survey (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). Similar to
earlier findings, CIVED results also showed interest in politics as a positive predictor of civic
knowledge and likelihood to vote (Amadeo et al., 2002). ICCS uses a list of items covering
students’ interest in a broader range of six different political and social issues. An additional
item, optional for European countries and referring to interest in European politics, is also
included.
Self-concept regarding political participation (political internal efficacy): This construct refers to
students’ self-concept regarding political involvement and relates to Content Domain 3 (civic
participation). The broader concept of political efficacy has played a prominent role in studies
on political behavior and political socialization. Political efficacy is the “feeling that political
and social change is possible and that the individual citizen can play a part in bringing about
this change” (Campbell, Gurin, & Miller, 1954, p. 187). Analyses of items typically used to
measure political efficacy reveal a two-dimensional structure of political efficacy, where internal
efficacy can be defined as individuals’ confidence in their ability to understand politics and to act
politically, whereas external efficacy constitutes individuals’ beliefs in the responsiveness of the
political system (see Balch, 1974; Converse, 1972).
The CIVED survey used three items measuring internal political efficacy, which was positively
associated with indicators of civic engagement (see Schulz, 2005). In ICCS, the three CIVED
items are complemented with three additional items.
Citizenship self-efficacy: This construct reflects students’ self-confidence in active citizenship
behavior and relates primarily to Content Domain 3 (civic participation). Individuals’
“judgements of their capabilities to organise and execute courses of action required to attain

24 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391) are deemed to have a strong
influence on individual choices, efforts, perseverance, and emotions related to the tasks. The
concept of self-efficacy constitutes an important element of Bandura’s (1993) social cognitive
theory xabout the learning process, which advocates that learners direct their own learning.
The distinction between self-concept regarding political participation (political internal efficacy)
and citizenship self-efficacy is as follows: whereas internal political efficacy considers global
statements regarding students’ general capacity to act politically, citizenship self-efficacy
considers students’ self-confidence to undertake specific tasks in the area of civic participation.
ICCS includes seven items reflecting different participation activities.
Students’ attitudes toward rights and responsibilities
The following constructs reflect students’ attitudes toward rights and responsibilities and are
relevant with regard to civics and citizenship.
Attitudes toward gender rights: This construct reflects student beliefs about rights for different
gender groups in society. It relates to Content Domain 2 (civic principles). The first IEA Civic
Education Study in 1971 included four items measuring support for women’s political rights.
The CIVED survey used a set of six items to capture students’ attitudes toward women’s
political rights (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). ICCS includes seven items on gender rights, some
of them identical with or similar to those used in CIVED.
Attitudes toward the rights of ethnic/racial groups: This construct reflects students’ beliefs about
rights for different ethnic/racial groups in society. It relates primarily to Content Domain
2 (civic principles) and is measured with five items. Four of these items were present in the
CIVED survey but the results were not included in the international report (Schulz, 2004).
Attitudes toward the rights of immigrants: This construct reflects students’ beliefs about rights
for immigrants and it relates to Content Domain 2 (civic principles). CIVED measured this
construct with eight items, five of which were included in a scale reflecting attitudes toward
immigrants (Schulz, 2004; Torney-Purta et al., 2001). ICCS includes a slightly modified
version of the same five items used for scaling, together with one additional item.
Students’ attitudes toward institutions
The following constructs reflect students’ attitudes toward institutions and are deemed
important for civic and citizenship education.
Trust in institutions: This construct reflects students’ feelings of trust in a variety of state and civic
institutions in society, and relates mainly to Content Domain 1 (civic society and systems). The
first IEA Civic Education Study (1971) included one item on trust in government (Torney et al.,
1975). CIVED used a set of 12 items covering political/civic institutions, media, the United
Nations, schools, and people in general. ICCS uses a similar range of 11 core items in modified
format together with three optional items on European institutions and state/provincial
institutions.
Confidence in student participation at school: This construct reflects students’ beliefs regarding
the usefulness of becoming actively involved at school. Adolescents are generally not able to
vote or stand for office in “adult politics,” but they experiment as students to determine what
degree of power they have to influence the ways schools are run (Bandura, 1997, p. 491).
CIVED included seven items asking about students’ perceptions of their influence at school.
Four of these questions focused on general confidence in school participation (Torney-Purta
et al., 2001). ICCS uses a set of four (partly modified) CIVED items and one additional item
reflecting student attitudes toward student participation at school. The construct relates to
Content Domain 3 (civic participation).

25
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Attitudes toward one’s nation: This construct reflects students’ attitudes toward abstract concepts
of nation. One can distinguish different forms of national attachment (symbolic, constructive,
uncritical patriotism, nationalism). These are different from feelings of national identity (Huddy
& Khatib, 2007).
The CIVED survey included 12 items reflecting students’ attitudes toward their respective
countries. Four of these items were used to measure “positive attitudes toward one’s nation”
(Torney-Purta et al., 2001). ICCS uses a set of eight items (four of them from CIVED) to
measure students’ attitudes toward the country they live in and to cover students’ symbolic
patriotism and uncritical patriotism. Two of these items relate to the concept of national
pride (Huddy & Khatib, 2007) but avoid the use of the term “pride” and focus instead on
students’ perceptions of satisfaction with different aspects (political system and respect for the
environment) of their respective countries. The construct relates mainly to Content Domain 4
(civic identities).
Attitudes toward religion: Religion is sometimes viewed as an important catalyst of civic
participation (see Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). ICCS uses a set of six items to assess
students’ attitudes toward religion. This construct relates mainly to Content Domain 4 (civic
identities). The set of items forms part of an international option on religious denomination,
practices, and attitudes toward religion.
Affective-behavioral Domain 3: Behavioral intentions
Behavioralintentionsrefers to student expectations of future civic action. This affective-behavioral
domain, assessed in the student perceptions questionnaire, contains items that ask students
about their intentions toward civic action in the near future or when they are adults. Given the
age group surveyed in ICCS and the limitations for 14-year-olds to participate as active citizens,
behavioral intentions are of particular importance when collecting data about active citizenship.
One important aspect of measuring behavioral intentions in the area of civics and citizenship
is political participation. This aspect can be defined as “activity that has the intent or effect
of influencing government action—either directly by affecting the making or implementation
of public policy or indirectly by influencing the selection of people who make those policies”
(Verba et al., 1995, p. 38).
During the 1970s and 1980s, protest behavior as a form of participation became more
prominent in Western democracies (Barnes et al., 1997). Scholars have distinguished
“conventional” (voting, running for office) from “unconventional” (social movement) activities
(grassroots campaigns, protest activities). They have also distinguished, among the latter, legal
from illegal forms of behavior (Kaase, 1990).
Verba et al. (1995) identify the following three factors as predictors of political participation:
(a) resources that enable individuals to participate (time, knowledge); (b) psychological
engagement (interest, efficacy); and (c) “recruitment networks,” which help to bring individuals
into politics (these networks include social movements, church groups, and political parties).
The CIVED survey included 12 items measuring expected participation (voting, active,
conventional, unconventional, protest). ICCS has developed a broader set of items that cover a
wider range of behavioral intentions related to the following constructs or sets of constructs:
• Preparednesstoparticipateinformsofcivicprotest
• Behavioralintentionsregardingfuturepoliticalparticipationasadults
• Behavioralintentionsregardingfutureparticipationincitizenshipactivities.

26 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Preparedness to participate in forms of civic protest
This set of nine items reflects students’ beliefs about future involvement in protest activities (for
example, collecting petitions, participating in protest marches, blocking traffic). It relates to
Content Domain 3 (civic participation). The items relate to two different dimensions of protest
behavior—legal and illegal.
Behavioral intentions regarding future political participation as adults
This set of seven core and two optional items reflects two different constructs (voting-related
participation, political activities) that were measured in CIVED. The set of items reflects
students’ beliefs about future political participation as an adult (for example, voting in elections,
active campaigning, joining a party, becoming a candidate) and relates mainly to Content
Domain 3 (civic participation).
Behavioral intentions regarding future participation in citizenship activities
This construct was also included in the CIVED student questionnaire, and it relates mainly
to Content Domain 3 (civic participation). It reflects students’ beliefs about their future
participation in citizenship activities (for example, volunteer work, opinion leadership, writing
letters to newspapers), and is measured with a set of five items in the ICCS assessment.
Affective-behavioral Domain 4: Behaviors
Civic-related behavior is limited for 14-year-old students, and many activities for citizens are
not available at this age. However, several civic-related behaviors can occur among 14-year-
olds, and the aim is to capture these through the student questionnaire.
The IEA CIVED survey used a wide range of participation forms both inside and outside of
school. Reported student participation in a school council or in a student parliament turned
out to be a positive predictor of civic knowledge and engagement (Torney-Purta et al., 2001;
Amadeo et al., 2002). Participation in political youth organizations had a positive effect on
feelings of political efficacy (Schulz, 2005). From their analysis of NAEP data, Niemi and Junn
(1998) found that participation in role-playing elections or mock trials related positively to
civic knowledge.
The ICCS student questionnaire collects data on students’ involvement in
• Civic-relatedactivitiesinthecommunity
• Civic-relatedactivitiesatschool.
Involvement in civic-related activities in the community
Students are asked about current or past participation in organizations such as human-rights
groups, religious associations, and/or youth clubs. The underlying construct relates mainly to
Content Domain 3 (civic participation) but is also a relevant contextual variable, as described in
the contextual framework.
Involvement in civic-related activities at school
The ICCS student questionnaire includes questions about a wide range of civic-related
participation at school (for example, in school councils/parliaments, in student debates). The
underlying construct relates primarily to Content Domain 3 (civic participation) and is also
relevant as a contextual variable, as described in the contextual framework.

27
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Civic and citizenship cognitive domains
To respond correctly to the ICCS cognitive test items, students need to know the core set
of civic and citizenship content being assessed. Students also need to be able to apply more
complex cognitive processing to their civic and citizenship knowledge and to relate their
knowledge and understandings to real-world civic action.
The two ICCS cognitive domains comprise the cognitive processes that students are expected
to demonstrate in the ICCS cognitive test. The data derived from the test items constructed
to represent the processes in the cognitive domains will be used to construct a global scale
of civic and citizenship knowledge and understandings of the four content domains. The
first cognitive domain, knowing, outlines the types of civic and citizenship information that
students are required to demonstrate knowledge of. The second domain, reasoning and analyzing,
details the cognitive processes that students require to reach conclusions. These processes are
broader than the contents of any single piece of knowledge, and include the processes involved
in understanding complex sets of factors influencing civic actions and in planning for and
evaluating strategic solutions and outcomes.
Cognitive Domain 1: Knowing
Knowing refers to the learned civic and citizenship information that students use when engaging
in the more complex cognitive tasks that help them make sense of their civic worlds. Students
are expected to recall or recognize definitions, descriptions, and the key properties of civic and
citizenship concepts and content, and to illustrate these with examples. Because ICCS is an
international study, the concrete and abstract concepts students are expected to know in the
core cognitive assessment are those that can be generalized across societies. There is scope in
the regional modules (where applicable) to target regionally specific knowledge.
Processes
Define Identify statements that define civic and citizenship concepts and content.
Describe Identify statements that describe the key characteristics of civic and
citizenship concepts and content.
Illustrate with Identify examples that support or clarify statements about civic and
examples citizenship concepts and content.
Cognitive Domain 2: Reasoning and analyzing
Reasoning and analyzing refers to the ways in which students use civic and citizenship information
to reach conclusions that are broader than the contents of any single concept. Reasoning
extends from the direct application of knowledge and understanding to reach conclusions
about familiar concrete situations through to the selection and assimilation of knowledge and
understanding of multiple concepts. These outcomes are then used to reach conclusions about
complex, multifaceted, unfamiliar, and abstract situations.

28 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Processes
Interpret information Identify statements about information presented in textual, graphical,
and/or tabular form that make sense of the information within the
context of a civic and citizenship concept.
Relate Use the key defining aspects of a civic and citizenship concept to
explain or recognize how an example illustrates a concept.
Justify Use evidence and civic and citizenship concepts to construct or
recognize a reasoned argument to support a point of view.
Integrate Identify connections between different concepts across themes and
across civic and citizenship content domains.
Generalize Identify civic and citizenship conceptual principles manifested as
specific examples and explain how these may apply in other civic
and citizenship contexts.
Evaluate Identify judgments about the advantages and disadvantages of
alternative points of view or approaches to civic and citizenship
concepts and actions.
Solve problems Identify courses of action or thought that can be used to alleviate
civic and citizenship problems expressed as conflict, tension, and/or
unresolved or contested ideas.
Hypothesize Predict and support with evidence the effects and outcomes of civic
and citizenship policies, strategies, and/or actions.
Understand civic Identify the factors that motivate individuals or groups to engage in
motivation civic action.
Understand civic Identify and explain the factors and processes that lead to change
change in the substance and structure of civic and citizenship concepts and
entities.
Mapping items to domains
The content domains relate to both cognitive and affective-behavioral domains. Any items
that measure one of the two cognitive domains can be mapped to any of the four content
domains. The same is true for items measuring any of the affective-behavioral constructs. Table
1 shows how items can be placed in different cells and mapped to either cognitive or affective-
behavioral domains as well as to content domains.
Cognitive items from both domains (knowing and reasoning and analyzing) and affective-
behavioral items from two domains (value beliefs and attitudes) were developed in the contexts
of all four content domains. Because these mappings are guided by the compatibility of each
content domain to the different affective-behavioral and cognitive domains, they do not
necessarily spread evenly across the content domains. Items developed to measure behavioral
intentions or actual behaviors are only related to Content Domain 3.

29
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Table 1: Relationship between cognitive or affective-behavioral and content domains
Content Domain 1: Content Domain 2: Content Domain 3: Content Domain 4:
Civic society Civic principles Civic participation Civic identities
and systems
Cognitive
Domains
Knowing I II III IV
Analyzing and
reasoning V VI VII VIII
Affective-
behavioral
Domains
Value beliefs A B C D
Attitudes E F G H
Behavioral I
intentions
Behaviors J
The following examples illustrate the mapping of items to domains:
• Acognitiveitemthatmeasuresstudentknowledgeabouttheroleofparliamentislocated
in cell I (Cognitive Domain: Knowing; Content Domain 1: Civic society and systems).
• Acognitiveitemmeasuringstudentabilitytoidentifytheunderlyingreasonforacivic
protest is found in cell VII (Cognitive Domain: Analyzing and reasoning; Content Domain
3: Civic participation).
• Anaffective-behavioralitemaskingaboutstudents’agreementthateveryoneshouldhave
the right to express his or her opinions freely appears in cell B (value belief related to
Content Domain 2: Civic principles).
• Anaffective-behavioralitemaskingaboutstudents’trustinparliamentislocatedincellE
(attitude related to Content Domain 1: Civic society and systems).
• Anaffective-behavioralitemaskingaboutstudents’expectationtoparticipateinapeaceful
protest march is located in cell I (behavioral intention related to Content Domain 3: Civic
participation).
• Anaffective-behavioralitemaskingaboutstudents’pastvotinginaschoolelection
appears in cell J (behavior related to Content Domain 3: Civic participation).

30 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Contextual Framework
Classification of contextual factors
A study of civic-related learning outcomes and indicators of civic engagement needs to
be set in the context of the different factors influencing them. Young people develop their
understandings about their roles as citizens in contemporary societies through a number of
activities and experiences that take place within the contexts of home, school, classrooms, and
the wider community.
It is therefore important to recognize that young people’s knowledge, competencies,
dispositions, and self-beliefs are influenced by variables that can be located at different levels
in a multi-level structure (see a similar conceptual view in Scheerens, 1990). The individual
student is located within overlapping contexts of school and home. Both contexts form part
of the local community that, in turn, is embedded in the wider sub-national, national, and
international contexts. The contextual framework for ICCS distinguishes the following levels:
• Context of the wider community: This level comprises the wider context within which schools
and home environments work. Factors can be found at local, regional, and national levels.
For some countries, the supra-national level might also be relevant as, for example, in
member countries of the European Union.
• Context of schools and classrooms: This level comprises factors related to the instruction
students receive, the school culture, and the general school environment.5
• Context of home environments: This level comprises factors related to the home background
and the social out-of-school environment of the student (for example, peer-group
activities).
• Context of the individual: This level includes the individual characteristics of the student.
Another important distinction can be made by grouping contextual factors according to those
related to either antecedents or processes:
• Antecedents are those factors that affect how student learning and acquisition of civic-
related understandings and perceptions take 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 factors related to civic-related learning and the acquisition of
understandings, competencies, and dispositions. They are constrained by antecedents and
influenced by factors relating to the higher levels of the multi-level structure.
Antecedents and processes are factors that shape the 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 process. For example, higher levels of civic understanding and engagement among
students can influence the way schools teach civic and citizenship education.
Figure 3 illustrates which contextual factors might influence the learning outcomes of civic
and citizenship education. The (double-headed) arrow between processes and outcomes signals
a reciprocal relationship. It is important to emphasize that “feedback” occurs between civic-
related learning outcomes and processes. For example, students with higher levels of civic
knowledge and engagement are those students most likely to participate in activities (at school,
at home, and within the community) that promote these outcomes.
5 Because of the sampling design for ICCS, school level and classroom level cannot be disentangled. Generally, only one
classroom is selected within each sampled school.

31
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
School/classroom
Instruction
Governance
The (single-headed) arrow between antecedents and processes describes the relationship
between these two types of factors at each level as uni-directional. However, higher-level
processes can influence antecedents, and it is likely that, from a long-term perspective, outcomes
may affect variables that are antecedents for learning processes.
Figure 3: Contexts for the development of learning outcomes related to civics and citizenship
Wider community
Educational system
History and culture
Antecedents Processes Outcomes
Wider community
Educational policies
Political events
Indicators related to
Civic society and systems
Civic principles
Civic participation
Civic identities
Student
Socialization and
learning
Home environment
Communication
Activities
School/classroom
Characteristics
Composition
Resources
Student
Characteristics
Home environment
Family background
Social group
This general 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 nation/community, school/classroom, student, and home environment as
rows. Although the last column for outcomes is not split into levels, it is important to recognize
that, for the analysis, aggregates can also be used at country and school/classroom levels.6
Table 2 maps examples of potential variables (or groups of variables) collected with different
ICCS instruments to each cell in this grid. Variables related to the context of nation/community
are collected primarily through the national context 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 background questionnaire provides information on
antecedents of the individual student and the home environment. It also provides information
about 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, which
are also used as indicators of active citizenship related to Content Domain 3 (civic participation).
Some potential variables that can be measured at one level pertaining to another level are
not included in the mapping. Student observations of learning practices in the classroom
can be aggregated and used as classroom or school variables. Student, school, and teacher
questionnaires might also provide civic-related information about the context of the local
community.
6 Note that similar conceptualizations have been used for the planning of other international studies (see, for example,
Harvey-Beavis, 2002; OECD, 2005; Travers, Garden, & Rosier, 1989; Travers & Westbury, 1989).

32 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Table 2: Mapping of variables to contextual framework (examples)
Level of ... Antecedents Processes Outcomes
National and other NCS & other sources: NCS & other sources:
communities Democratic history Intended curriculum
Structure of education Political developments
School/classroom ScQ & TQ: ScQ & TQ:
School characteristics Implemented curriculum
Resources Policies and practices
Student StQ: StQ:
Gender Learning activities
Age Practiced engagement
Home environment StQ: StQ:
Parent SES Communication
Ethnicity Peer-group activities
Language
Country of birth
Note: NCS = national context survey; ScQ = school questionnaire; TQ = teacher questionnaire; StQ = student
questionnaire; StT = student test; SES = socioeconomic status.
Contextual levels and variables
The context of the wider community
The context of the wider community consists of different levels. The first is the local
community in which are sited students’ schools and home environments. The second is the
broader realm of regional, national, and possibly supra-national contexts within which students’
schools and homes are embedded. The most relevant levels for ICCS are the national and the
community contexts.
National context survey data on the context of the education system
The ways students develop civic-related dispositions and competencies and acquire
understandings with regard to their role as citizens are strongly influenced by variables found
at the country level. Historical background, the political system, the structure of education, and
the curriculum need to be taken into account when interpreting results from an international
assessment of civic and citizenship education.
The national context survey is designed to systematically collect relevant data on the structure
of the education system, education policy and civic and citizenship education, teacher
qualifications for civic and citizenship education, and the extent of current debates and reforms
in this area. The survey also collects process data at the national level regarding assessment of
and quality assurance in civic and citizenship education and in school curriculum approaches.
Data from the national context survey are useful for comparing profiles of civic and citizenship
education in participating countries. In addition, the survey provides data on contextual
factors that help inform analysis of differences among countries in student knowledge of and
engagement in civic and citizenship education.
The structure of the education system: Although a number of global trends in education have
led to similarities in policies and structures (Benavot et al., 1991), the differences between
education systems continue to have a considerable effect on the outcomes of education (Baker
& LeTendre, 2005).
StT & StQ:
Test results
Student perceptions
Student behaviors

33
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
To capture these basic differences, the national context survey collects data on length of
schooling, structure of school education (study programs, public/private management), and
autonomy of educational providers.
Education policy and civic and citizenship education: Results from the IEA CIVED survey (Torney-
Purta et al., 1999) showed that the status of and priority given to civic and citizenship
education were generally low across countries. Even though civic goals were deemed important,
their place in the curricula was often not well defined, with civic education typically integrated
into different subjects. This situation also highlighted the fact that explicit civic and citizenship
education rarely begins before students reach age 14.
The national context survey therefore collects data on the definition of, and the priority given
to, civic and citizenship education in the educational policy and provision of each country, the
place of civic and citizenship education in educational reforms, and the main aims and goals
of civic and citizenship education. The survey also asks about the inclusion of specific contexts
with regard to whole-school approaches, school curriculum approaches, links to the wider
community in the national or official definition of civic and citizenship education, and the
influence of different institutions or groups on decisions about the goals and aims of civic and
citizenship education.
Approaches to civic and citizenship education: One important aspect of the study is its investigation
of 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). Educational policies, for example, may
include recommendations with regard to the establishment of democratic school practices.
The national context survey provides country-level data on mandatory or non-mandatory
recommendations as well as pilot projects or programs concerned with school governance,
school culture, student participation, parental involvement, and school–community links. It also
asks these official sources the extent to which they see these aspects as contributing to civic and
citizenship education.
Civic and citizenship education and school curriculum approaches: Countries take different approaches
to the implementation of civic and citizenship education in their curricula (Cox et al., 2005;
Eurydice, 2005). Some education systems include civic and citizenship education in the
national curriculum as a compulsory or optional (stand-alone) subject whereas others include it
as an integral part of other subjects. An alternative approach to civic and citizenship education
is to implement it as a cross-curricular theme.
The national context survey gathers data on the inclusion of civic and citizenship education (as
a separate subject, or integrated into different subjects, or as a cross-curricular approach) in the
formal curriculum at different stages of schooling and in different study programs. The survey
also captures the names of specific curriculum subjects and whether they are compulsory or
optional in each study program.
Because the ICCS surveys students at a specific target grade in lower secondary programs
(typically Grade 8), the national context survey includes specific questions relative to this
grade. The questions concern the common or differentiated curriculum, the main goals of civic
and citizenship education at this grade, and the extent to which these goals are influenced by
different institutions and groups. The survey also gathers data on the emphasis the curriculum
places on teaching different processes (for example, knowing basic facts or understanding key
concepts) and student learning of specific topics. It furthermore asks about the use of different
methods for implementing the curriculum (for example, through instructional or pedagogical
guides) and the amount of instructional time given to civic and citizenship education and the
amount and type of information given to parents about this area of education.

34 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Teachers and civic and citizenship education: The teacher survey undertaken as part of the
CIVED survey showed considerable diversity in the subject-matter background, professional
development, and work experience of teachers involved in civic and citizenship education
(Losito & Mintrop, 2001). With regard 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; Eurydice, 2005).
To assess the variety of different approaches to teacher education in the field at the level of
education systems, the national context survey gathers general data about the requirements
for becoming a teacher and about licensing or certification procedures for teachers. More
specifically, the survey gathers data about the background of civic and citizenship teachers. It
provides information on the extent to which civic and citizenship education is part of pre-
service or initial teacher education, on the availability of in-service or continuing professional
development education for civic and citizenship education, on the providers of these activities,
and on expectations relating to how teachers learn about changes in the curriculum.
Civic and citizenship education and assessment and quality assurance: 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. In particular, research in
Europe shows that, in most countries, and compared to other subject areas, monitoring and
quality assurance in civic and citizenship education are often unconnected and carried out on a
smaller scale (Birzea et al., 2004). However, over the last decade, some countries have started to
implement nationwide assessments, such as CIVED (Torney-Purta et al., 2001).
The national context survey includes questions about the assessment of student knowledge
in civic and citizenship education at the lower secondary level, how implementation of this
subject area is evaluated, and how parents are informed about current approaches to this field of
learning.
Current debates and reforms: The last decade has witnessed numerous examples of educational
reforms in many countries, with the overall aim of improving educational provision and
outcomes, including those concerning civic and citizenship education. Many of these
educational reforms were implemented in response to the challenges of learning and living
in modern societies and because of changes in respective political systems (Cox et al., 2005;
Torney-Purta et al., 1999).
The national context survey assesses whether civic and citizenship education is a focus of
current debates in the country, the nature of such debates, and the general level of interest
in this area. It also gathers information on current revisions of the curriculum for students at
the target grade and any revisions of school approaches to civic and citizenship education. It
additionally collects information about possible educational reforms that may affect the way
this subject area is taught in schools.
Data from other sources: Data from official statistics will provide complementary context data at
the level of countries regarding the structure of the education system, the nature of the political
system, and the economic and social context of the society.

35
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
School questionnaire data on the context of the local community
The community characteristics in which schools and homes are situated 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, can offer much to schools and individuals in terms of civic and citizenship
opportunities for partnerships and involvement. The capacity and the interest of a community
to engage with its young people can have a strong bearing on young people’s civic and
citizenship knowledge, dispositions, and competencies in relation to their roles as citizens.
ICCS uses the school questionnaire to gather data on the contexts and characteristics of the
local community. Variables pertaining to the community level include urbanization (antecedent),
resources for citizenship learning in the local area (antecedent), and the existence of civic-
related activities to promote civic engagement in the context of the local community (process).
Urbanization: ICCS collects data about the size of the community in which the school is located
in order to understand if, and to what extent, the level of urbanization (measured in terms of
number of inhabitants) influences the quantity and the quality of the resources available for
both schools and students at the community level.
Resources for citizenship learning in the local area: Differences in 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 (such as environmental education
projects) and student participation in projects requiring the development of activities involving
the community, both of which can contribute to developing skills and competencies 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 of greater openness and democratization of the
school itself.
The model adopted in CIVED recognized the importance of students’ daily lives in their social,
civic, and political contexts (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). The links between the school and its
community represent an opportunity for motivating student participation in activities related to
civic and citizenship education and for offering them real opportunities for exercising the skills
and competencies necessary for a conscious democratic civic engagement.
Furthermore, the level of resources may influence the possibilities for the provision of local
support to schools. Local support can be very important for effective school improvement
(Reezigt & Creemers, 2005). National support sets the background for improvement whereas
local support can influence the efforts of schools more directly. Local support includes the wider
community of the school, the parents of school students, district officials, school administrators,
and school boards.
School interactions with their local communities, and the links that have been established with
other civic-related and political institutions, can also influence student perceptions of their
relationship with the wider community and of the different roles they may play in it.
The ICCS school questionnaire includes a set of items asking principals about cultural and
social resources existing at the local community level (such as libraries, museums, and theatres,
as well as playgrounds and sports facilities).
Existence of community activities to promote civic engagement: The characteristics of the community
in which the school operates can influence the development of effective civic and citizenship
education. The presence of associations enabling the active exercising of student civic
engagement and participation is an important factor of possible continuity or discontinuity in
the students’ experiences in this field, both inside and outside school.

36 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
The ICCS school questionnaire asks principals about the opportunities students have to
participate in citizenship-related activities at the community level.
Existence of social tensions in the community: Because the school is part of the community within
which it is located, it may be affected by issues and problems existing at the community level.
Issues of social tension within the local community can influence students’ social relationships
and the quality of their social lives and everyday experiences, both inside and outside the
school.
The ICCS school questionnaire collects data related to principals’ perceptions of those issues
and the impact these issues have on school life.
Teacher questionnaire data on the context of the local community
The teacher questionnaire collects data on teacher/student participation in civic-related
activities in the local community and teachers’ personal participation in groups or organizations
in the local community.
Teacher/student participation in civic-related activities in the local community: The teacher
questionnaire includes a set of items asking teachers about students’ and their own commitment
to constructing relationships between the school and its community. Items refer to teachers’
participation in projects envisaging co-operation between schools and communities and to
teachers’ direct participation in activities related to civic and citizenship education.
Two different constructs are investigated: teacher/student participation in civic-related activities
organized by the school in the local community and teachers’ personal participation in
citizenship activities in the local community.
Similar items are included in the school and in the student questionnaires. The teachers’ answers
on student engagement in activities related to civic and citizenship education outside the school
will be analyzed in relation to the principals’ and the students’ answers in order to compare
their reports.
The context of schools and classrooms
It is important, when conducting a study of civic and citizenship education, to take school
contexts and characteristics into account because these influence the development of young
people’s knowledge about civics and citizenship, and their dispositions and competencies in
relation to their roles as citizens. Predominant amongst these is the school’s general ethos,
culture, and climate within which the policies concerning both the formal and the informal
civic and citizenship curriculum develop.
Students’ learning experiences that contribute to their civic and citizenship understandings
include classroom organization and management, classroom and cross-curricular activities
and projects, and the resources, materials, and technologies employed in the teaching and
assessment processes undertaken. The relationships among students and between teacher and
students are other important aspects of the school context. These relationships are influenced
by the school’s decisionmaking processes and the opportunities for participation in formal and
informal governance processes.
School questionnaire data on the context of schools and classrooms
The school questionnaires include items seeking information on important antecedent variables
at the school level, such as principals’ characteristics and school characteristics and resources.
It also asks about process-related variables concerning school management, school climate,
teacher, parent, and student participation at school, and the implementation of civic and
citizenship education at school.

37
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
School characteristics and resources: School resources consist of both material and human resources,
and there is strong debate on the extent to which school resources can contribute to school
development and improvement (Hanushek, 1994, 1997). Beyond the quality of teachers, there
is evidence that teacher density—as measured by the students to teacher ratio—is associated
with some student outcomes (McNeal, 1997).
The ICCS school questionnaire includes items asking about the demographic characteristics
of schools (Anderson, Ryan, & Shapiro, 1989). These characteristics are associated with the
variables usually included in a description of a school. The questionnaire also includes a few
questions asking for fundamental information, notably the type of school (public/private),
students’ enrolment, and number of teachers.
School management: Schools differ within and across countries with reference to the degree
of autonomy in defining their own educational policies in terms of their management in
the narrowest sense (school governance, financing, teaching and non-teaching staff ) and
their organization of curricular and teaching and learning activities (curricular contents,
cross-curricular activities, choice of textbooks, assessment and evaluation) (Eurydice, 2007).
Individual schools’ degree of autonomy is a factor affecting the possibility of establishing
specific courses and activities (both curricular and extra-curricular ones) linked to civic and
citizenship education. A broader degree of autonomy can give greater opportunities for
the effective participation within democratic school governance of not only teachers and
students but also of administrative staff, parents, and the community as a whole. The school
improvement literature shows that at least some autonomy favors the success of improvement
efforts (Reezigt & Creemers, 2005).
The questions included in the school questionnaire investigate the level of schools’ autonomy
in management and in educational planning. Opportunity to organize specific courses,
projects, curricular and extra-curricular activities, to choose textbooks, and to define criteria
and procedures for assessment, evaluation, and self-evaluation all contribute to characterizing
the school educational plan as one that is more or less consistent with the development of
effective civic and citizenship education. Furthermore, the existence of national legislation and
regulations and of standards concerning the results that students should achieve, can act, within
different school systems, as a resource or a constraint for the development of activities related to
civic and citizenship education.
The principals’ answers to the questionnaire items also give insight into the extent to which a
school has autonomy to determine its own educational planning and educational activities and
how these relate to the construction of an open and democratic school culture. These responses
furthermore show the extent to which the organization of decisionmaking processes influences
the participation of teachers, parents, and students in the running of the school.
Teacher, parent, and student participation at school: Participative governance practices help
characterize schools as democratic learning environments. Allowing for the participation of
teachers and parents assists each school to understand the variety of student learning needs
and to secure teachers’ and parents’ commitment to supporting school educational activities
(Ranson, Farrell, Peim, & Smith, 2005).
Students’ participation in the running of the school helps to build a democratic school
environment and to give students opportunity to develop skills and attitudes related to civic
and citizenship education. CIVED showed that students’ participation in school councils and
student parliaments related positively to students’ civic knowledge and engagement (Losito &
D’Apice, 2003; Torney-Purta et al., 2001).

38 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
The ICCS school questionnaire includes a set of items asking about students’ participation in
class/school representative elections, as well as about teachers’ and parents’ participation in the
running of the school.
School climate: This construct refers to “the shared beliefs—the relations between individuals
and groups in the organization, the physical surroundings, and the characteristics of individuals
and groups participating in the organization” (Van Houtte, 2005, p. 85). In a civic and
citizenship education context, school climate can be referred to as the “impressions, beliefs,
and expectations held by members of the school community about their school as a learning
environment, their associated behavior, and the symbols and institutions that represent the
patterned expressions of the behavior” (Homana, Barber, & Torney-Purta, 2005, p. 3).
A variety of learning situations can affect civic and citizenship education at schools. These
include leadership and management, everyday activities within the school, and the quality of
relationships inside the school itself and between the school and the outside community. The
students’ daily experience in school is a factor that strongly influences students’ perception
of school as a democratic environment. 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 one’s own opinion and points of view, allow students
to practice a democratic lifestyle, to begin exercising their own autonomy, and to develop a
sense of self-efficacy.
School climate also relates to the school culture and ethos that contribute to define the school
as a social organization as well to distinguish each individual school from others (Stoll, 1999).
School culture refers to patterns of meaning that include norms, beliefs, and traditions shared
by the members of the school community and that contribute to shaping their thinking and the
way they act (Stolp, 1994).
School climate and culture contribute to the development among students, teachers, and non-
teaching staff of a sense of belonging to the school, thereby enhancing the commitment and
motivation that these groups have toward improving school educational activities. School staff
must feel motivated and committed to developing school activities if these are to be successful
(Reezigt & Creemers, 2005).
The ICCS school questionnaire includes a set of items asking about the extent to which
teachers, students, and non-teaching staff numbers feel a sense of belonging to the school.
Implementation of civic and citizenship education: The CIVED teacher questionnaire included a
set of items relating to the implementation of civic education at the school level. The ICCS
school questionnaire includes a set of items that focus on how civic and citizenship education
is delivered at the school level, the principals’ perceptions of the importance of the aims of
this area of education, and how specific responsibilities for civic and citizenship education are
assigned within the school.
Data from the school instrument are used to look at the actual implementation of civic
and citizenship education at the level of schools in order to compare the development and
implementation of this area of education at the national level. The data also provide information
about the relationships between the intended curriculum and the implemented curriculum.
Teacher questionnaire data on the context of schools and classrooms
The teacher questionnaire aims to gather information about teacher characteristics, teachers’
participation in school governance, teachers’ views of student influence on school-based
decisions, teachers’ confidence in teaching methods, teachers’ perception of school climate,
teaching practices in the classroom, and teachers’ perception of classroom climate and

39
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
discipline. In addition, one optional section includes questions for teachers of subjects related
to civic and citizenship education. These questions ask teachers for their views on civic and
citizenship education at school and on practices used to teach this subject area at school.
Teacher characteristics: The ICCS teacher questionnaire includes a set of items asking about
teachers’ demographic variables (gender, age) and work experience (in general and also their
experience inside their current school). The number of years of teaching inside the current
school and the holding of specific positions and responsibilities are factors that may influence
how teachers consider their own relationship with the school, their sense of belonging to it,
and the extent to which they are willing to take an active part in their school community. These
factors are therefore ones that contribute to the openness of the school climate. Variables related
to the teachers’ work experience are subject/s taught in the target grade, years of teaching,
years of teaching in the (current) school, and specific positions/responsibilities within the
school (head teacher, coordinator of subject areas, department coordinator).
Teachers’ participation in school governance: The ICCS teacher questionnaire includes a set of
items asking about teachers’ participation in school governance. The items refer to teacher
participation in school representative bodies, to their willingness to take on responsibilities
besides those of teaching, and to their participation in drafting the school education plans.
The questions also ask the teachers about their participation in civic- and citizenship-related
activities carried out by the school in the community, and their personal engagement (that is,
beyond their teaching) in activities of this type. Teacher participation can be seen as a measure
of both the degree of openness of the school management and of teachers’ commitment toward
and sense of belonging to their respective schools.
Teachers’ confidence in teaching methods: The use of teaching and learning methods and classroom
management procedures that are primarily learner-centered may contribute to the creation of an
open and democratic classroom climate favorable to acquisition of the skills and competencies
necessary for active participation and for dealing with situations necessitating problem-solving
and conflict resolution. Teachers’ confidence in using particular methods and procedures relates
to both their professional experience and their learning opportunities during their initial
and in-service training. Indications in this regard also emerged in CIVED. When asked about
training needs, many of the teachers who participated in this survey expressed their preference
for training in content areas (Losito & Mintrop, 2001). However, teachers of some countries
indicated, as important, pedagogical training related to leading classroom discussions and
fostering an open classroom climate for discussion.
Because the ICCS teacher questionnaire is addressed to teachers of all subjects, the items
concerning this construct focus mainly on teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge (Shulman,
1987). The teachers’ ability to take on a range of managerial responsibilities within and outside
the classroom (“managerial competence”) as well as their recognition of and “commitment to
the acknowledgement of the dignity of others [that is, ‘empathy’]” are identified as two of the
dimensions that contribute to defining quality in teaching (OECD, 1994, p. 35).
Teachers’ perception of school climate: The ICCS teacher questionnaire includes a set of items asking
about school climate. The items refer to the school as a democratic learning environment and to
the contribution of teachers in bringing about a democratic ethos inside the school.
The teachers’ answers are analyzed in relation to the answers given by the school principals
in the school questionnaire, as well as to students’ answers to a similar question in the student
questionnaire, in order to compare the different perspectives.

40 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Teaching practices in the classroom: The ICCS teacher questionnaire includes items asking about
the use of different teaching approaches, including the use of assessment. The use of teaching
methods that focus on individual students and that favor students’ active participation in
learning activities contributes to the development of a classroom climate that is open and
favors the acquisition and exercising of skills and competencies related to civic and citizenship
education.
Teachers’ perception of classroom climate and discipline: Classroom climate is a general concept,
the definitions of which focus mainly on the level of co-operation 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 understand the advantages
of democratic values and practices and may have a positive effect on their active assimilation
(Perliger, Canetti-Nisim, & Pedahzur, 2006).
CIVED results highlighted the importance of classroom climate in civic and citizenship
education (Tornet-Purta et al., 2001). With respect to other variables, classroom climate
seemed to be one of the factors more directly correlated to student performance and to student
willingness to engage in civic-related activities. In further analysis, “open classroom climate” was
used as a predictor of the expectation of participating as an informed voter and of expectations
of community participation (Torney-Purta & Barber, 2004).
The construction of an open classroom climate presents a challenge for policy development and
practice. Students who had high scores on this scale agreed that “students feel free to disagree
openly with their teachers about political and social issues” and also that “teachers encourage
the discussion of political social issues about which people have different opinions” (Torney-
Purta & Barber, 2004, p. 17). Although many teachers across countries agree in principle that
such discussions are valuable, not every teacher is sufficiently skilled to guide such a discussion.
The ICCS teacher questionnaire includes a set of items asking teachers about their perception
of classroom climate and about students’ participation in classroom activities and class
discussion.
Teachers’ views on civic and citizenship education: The ICCS teacher questionnaire includes a set of
items asking teachers how they conceptualize civic and citizenship education, what they see as
the objectives of this form of education, and how this subject area is delivered in their schools.
Two constructs are assessed: teachers’ perception of the aims of civic and citizenship education
at school; and teachers’ opinion on which people should be responsible for civic and citizenship
education at school.
The constructs relate to which, in the teachers’ view, are the most important aims of civic
and citizenship education (development of knowledge and skill, development of a sense of
responsibility toward the environment, one’s own opinions and social cohesion, development of
active participation). The items included in the ICCS teacher questionnaire derive in part from
the CIVED teacher questionnaire.
Citizenship education and teaching practices at school: The ICCS teacher questionnaire includes an
international option on civic and citizenship education at school and on the teaching practices
adopted for teaching civic and citizenship education. This part of the questionnaire is restricted
to teachers of civic- and citizenship-education-related subjects.
Constructs and variables included in the international option relate to the planning of civic
and citizenship education, teaching and learning activities in civic and citizenship education,
student assessment in civic and citizenship education, teacher confidence in teaching civic- and
citizenship-related topics, and possible improvements to civic and citizenship education.
Most of the items for the international option derive from the CIVED teacher questionnaire.

41
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Student questionnaire data on the context of schools and classrooms
The student questionnaire includes questions regarding the classroom climate for civic and
citizenship education, students’ views of their influence on decisionmaking at school, and
students’ perceptions of school climate.
Classroom climate for civic and citizenship education at school: The CIVED survey 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 student questionnaire
includes a similar instrument that measures students’ perceptions of what happens in their
classrooms during discussions of political and social issues.
Perceptions about students’ influence on decisionmaking at school: Some scholars argue that more
democratic forms of school governance contribute to higher levels of student engagement in
school (see, for example, Mosher, Kenny, & Garrod, 1994, p. 83). However, a more recent
Swedish study found evidence that student perceptions of direct influence on school or
classroom matters are negatively associated with civic knowledge (Almgren, 2006). ICCS
includes a set of seven items asking about the extent to which students think they have a direct
influence on different types of school matters.
Student perceptions of school climate: School climate is widely regarded as an important factor in
explaining student learning outcomes. Scheerens and Bosker (1997, p. 112 ff ) view school
climate as a synonym for a school culture that manifests a range of variables centered on student
engagement, student absenteeism, student conduct and behavior, staff motivation, and the
relationships among students, teachers, and the school itself. Homana et al. (2005) emphasize
the importance of a positive school climate for engaging students in civic-related learning
experiences.
The ICCS student questionnaire includes a set of seven items measuring students’ perceptions
of school and their perceptions of student–teacher relationships at school.
The context of the home environment
The home and family contexts and characteristics that can influence the development of young
people’s knowledge, competencies, behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs in the context of civics and
citizenship are considerable. They include peer-group interactions, educational resources in the
home, culture, religion, values, language use, the relationship status young people have within
their respective families, parental education, incomes and employment levels, access to different
kinds of media, the quality of the school–home connections, and the wide range of civic-
related opportunities out of school the young people can access.
Research findings often emphasize the role of family background for developing positive
attitudes toward engagement by and participation of young people (see, for example, Renshon,
1975). However, the school as an agent competing with the home background has been seen as
even more influential (see, for example, Hess & Torney, 1967). Nonetheless, there is a general
consensus that family background is an influential variable in the political development of
adolescents. The role of socioeconomic background can be seen as influential in providing a
more stimulating environment and enhancing the educational attainment and future prospects
of adolescents. These factors, in turn, foster political involvement as an individual resource.
Studies of political socialization and participation emphasize the importance of the extent
to which families and individuals can access different forms of capital. Bourdieu (1986) sees
economic capital as the sources of other forms of capital and distinguishes between human,
cultural, and social capital. Whereas human capital refers to an individual’s skills, knowledge,

42 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
and qualifications, cultural capital refers to those “widely shared, high-status cultural signals
(attitudes, preferences, formal knowledge, behaviours) 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 (Stolle with Lewis,
2002).
In his study of institutional performance in Italy, Putnam (1993, p. 185) positioned social
capital as the “key to making democracy work.” His conceptual view built on Coleman’s (1988)
concept of social capital that is generated by the relational structure of interactions inside
and outside the family and which facilitates the success of individuals’ actions and also their
learning outcomes.7 According to Putnam (1993), three components of social capital (social
trust, social norms, and social networks) form a “virtuous cycle” that provides a context for
successful co-operation and participation in a society.
Social capital research uses various groups of different factors, including socioeconomic
status, personal networks, memberships in organizations, interpersonal trust, and personal
communication (media, discussions). The concept of social capital consequently is often
criticized for its lack of clarity and the problems it presents in terms of finding suitable
indicators (Woolcock, 2001).
Within the context of ICCS, the concept of social capital is viewed as helpful in that it
describes mechanisms that 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 attitudinal and background variables. Some variables reflecting social
capital are related to the home environment, in particular interactions with parents, peers, and
media. Other variables relevant in this context are measures of interpersonal trust and voluntary
participation in civic-related organizations (see Civic and Citizenship Framework above).
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. The ICCS student background
questionnaire also collects data on process-related variables that reflect social interactions
outside of school (for example, discussing political and social issues with parents and peers and
accessing media information).
Parental socioeconomic status: Socioeconomic status (SES) is widely regarded as an important
explanatory factor that influences learning outcomes in many different and complex ways
(Saha, 1997). There is general agreement 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 (White, 1982). However, there is no agreement among researchers on which
measures should be used in any one analysis (Entwisle & Astone, 1994; Hauser, 1994).
In international studies, the additional caveats imposed on the validity of background measures
and the cross-national comparability of family background measures present an ongoing
challenge for researchers in this area (see Buchmann, 2002).
The ICCS survey collects three different types of measures through the student background
questionnaire:
• Dataon parental occupation are collected through open-ended student reports on mother’s
and father’s jobs and coded according to the ISCO-88 classification (International Labour
7 Putnam’s view of social capital, however, is narrower and more specific than Coleman’s concept. Putnam saw social
capital as a collective resource and stated that horizontal interactions tend to foster trust and participation whereas vertical
relationships lead to distrust and disengagement (Stolle with Lewis, 2002).

43
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Organisation, 1990), which in turn is scored using the International Socio-economic Index
(SEI) of occupational status in order to obtain SES measures (Ganzeboom, de Graaf, &
Treiman, 1992).
• Dataonparental education are collected through closed questions in which educational
levels are defined by the ISCED-97 classifications (UNESCO, 2006) 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/ethnic background: International studies confirm differences in reading literacy relative
not only to language and immigrant status (see, for example, Elley, 1992; Stanat & Christensen,
2006) but also to mathematics literacy (Mullis et al., 2000). Students from immigrant families,
especially those recently arrived in a country, tend to lack proficiency in the language of
instruction and to be unfamiliar with the cultural norms of the dominant culture. Also, ethnic
minorities often have a lower SES, which correlates highly with learning and engagement; there
is also evidence that immigrant status and language have a unique impact on student literacy
(Lehmann, 1996).
ICCS measures cultural and ethnic family background via the following variables:
• Country of birth (mother, father, and student): This information is used to distinguish “native,”
“first-generation” (parents born abroad but student born in country), and “immigrant”
(parents and student born abroad) students.
• Language of use at home (language of test versus other languages).
• Student self-reports on ethnicity (this question is optional for countries).
Parental interest: There is evidence that young people with parents engaging them in discussions
about politics and civic issues tend to have higher levels of civic knowledge and engagement
(see, for example, Lauglo and Øia, 2006; Richardson, 2003). The ICCS survey asks students to
what extent their parents are interested in political and social issues.
Family composition: Family structure represents an important factor of socialization, which may
affect learning outcomes. Research in the United States, for example, shows that students from
single-parent families perform less well than those from two-parent households. This finding
typically has been 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 are generally considered to be relatively small (for a review,
see Marjoribanks, 1997).
ICCS measures family structure by asking students about the composition of their respective
households, that is, parents, guardians, siblings, relatives, and/or other persons. (This question is
optional for countries.)
Indicators of social interaction: Analysis of CIVED data showed that frequency of political
discussions is a positive predictor of both feelings of efficacy and expected participation (see,
for example, Richardson, 2003). Similar results were found in a comparative study of lower and
upper secondary students in 15 countries that participated in CIVED (Schulz, 2005).
One popular explanation for the waning of civil society in the United States is the negative
effect of television viewing (Putnam, 2000), which leads to decreases in interest, sense of
efficacy, trust, and participation (see also Gerbner, 1980; Robinson, 1976). However, research
shows that media use (in particular for information) is usually positively related to political
participation. Norris (2000), for example, found no conclusive evidence from an extensive
literature review and findings from a large-scale study for a negative relationship between media

44 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
use and political participation. CIVED showed that obtaining information through television
news is a positive predictor of civic knowledge and expected participation in elections (Torney-
Purta et al., 2001).
Researchers suggest that religious affiliation may help to foster political and social engagement
(see, for example, Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995) because religious organizations provide
networks focused on political recruitment and motivation. However, there is also evidence of
negative effects of religious affiliation on democratic citizenship, as reflected in lower levels of
political knowledge and feelings of efficacy among strongly religious people (Scheufele et al.,
2003). In the case of young people, religious affiliation and participation can be seen as part of
the home environment and its influence on civic-related learning.
The following variables reflect students’ interactions in the context of the home environment
and/or peer-group:
• Participationindiscussionsaboutpoliticalsocialissueswithparentsorpeers
• Mediainformationfromtelevision,radio,newspapersand/ortheinternet
• Participationinreligiousservices(optional).
The context of the individual student
The extent to which each student develops understandings, competencies, 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 the student
characteristics of age, gender, and expected educational qualifications. The student questionnaire
also collects process-related factors, such as leisuretime activities and active civic participation at
school and in the community.
Age: Research has found that adolescent students’ 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 students’ feelings of trust in the responsiveness of institutions and willingness
to engage in conventional forms of active political participation decrease as they near the end of
their secondary schooling (Schulz, 2005).
In cross-sectional research based on grade sample data, age tends to be negatively correlated
with student performance in general. This association is particularly evident in countries with
higher rates of grade repetition. The reason why is that the older students in the class are
typically those students who are repeating a grade because of low achievement.
Gender(male,female): The first IEA Civic Education Study in 1971 found considerable gender
differences relative to cognitive achievement, with males tending to have the higher civic
knowledge scores (Torney et al., 1975). The IEA 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, somewhat higher gender differences in favor of
males were found in the follow-up study of upper secondary students (Amadeo et al., 2002).
CIVED also showed that gender differences were usually larger with regard to 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).
Expected educational level: In the first two IEA studies on civic education, expected years of
future education were important predictors of civic knowledge (Amadeo et. al., 2002; Torney
et al., 1975; Torney-Purta et al., 2001). This variable reflects individual aspirations. However,

45
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
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.
A shortcoming of asking about years of further education is that students do not necessarily
know how long they might take to reach certain qualifications (in particular at the tertiary
level). A decision was therefore made to include a modified question in the ICCS survey
that asks students about the educational qualifications they expect to attain. The educational
qualifications listed in the survey follow the ISCED qualifications (UNESCO, 2006) and are
adapted to each country’s education system.
Out-of-schoolactivities: CIVED included a few indicators of student activities outside of school.
Higher frequencies of students spending time with peers outside their homes were found to
be a negative predictor of civic knowledge (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). The ICCS student
questionnaire includes a set of items regarding student behavior outside of school. These items
include television watching, spending time with peers, and reading for enjoyment.
Civic participation: The ICCS student questionnaire collects data on students’ involvement in
civic-related activities in the community and on their involvement in civic-related activities
at school. These variables are described in detail as behavioral constructs in the Civic and
Citizenship Framework above.

46 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Assessment Design
The ICCS instruments
The ICCS instruments collect data relative to outcome as well as contextual variables. Given
the specific nature of a study on civic and citizenship education, outcome variables are assessed
through cognitive test material and a student questionnaire. Contextual data that explain
variation in outcome variables are collected through student, teacher, and school questionnaires
as well as through the national context survey.
Table 3 lists the instruments used in ICCS, their approximate administration times, and their
respondents. The student assessment instrument consists of two parts: (i) an international
core, including the cognitive test and the student questionnaire; and (ii) an optional regional
instrument that includes a regional test and a questionnaire.8
Three regional modules are available for the countries in Asia, Europe, and Latin America.
Student-level instruments have been developed for each module. Regional instruments are
administered in the countries participating in these regional modules, but not until the two
international core instruments (student test and student questionnaire) have been completed.
Table 3: ICCS instruments
Instrument Length Respondent
International cognitive test 45 min. Student
International student questionnaire 40 min. Student
Regional module instrument ~30 min. Student
Teacher questionnaire ~30 min. Teacher
School questionnaire ~30 min. Principal
National context survey 30–60 min. NRC
Note: NRC = national research coordinator or designate.
Both the international student test and the international student questionnaire include sets
of items that were used in the IEA CIVED survey in 1999. A set of 17 non-released CIVED
test items will be used to estimate measures of trends for those countries participating in both
surveys. The student questionnaire assesses a number of constructs that were also measured in
CIVED through use of identical or similar sets of items.
The assessment framework has been central to the process of instrument development because
it provides a theoretical underpinning and describes the areas of assessment. It has guided the
development of all ICCS instruments and served as a point of reference for the development of
instruments for the three regional modules.
8 The Asian regional instrument consists of a questionnaire only.

47
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
The coverage of framework domains
Table 4 shows the mapping of cognitive and affective-behavioral domains to content domains.
It also shows, within each cell, coverage of the cognitive and perceptions items included in the
international student test and questionnaire.
Table 4: Coverage of cognitive/affective-behavioral and content domains in the ICCS student survey
Content domains
Civic society Civic Civic Civic Total
and systems principles participation identities
Cognitive domains
Knowing 15 3 1 0 19
Analyzing and
reasoning 17 22 17 5 61
Total 32 25 18 5 80
Affective-behavioral
domains
Value beliefs 12 12 0 0 24
Attitudes 12 18 18 14 62
Behavioral intentions 21 21
Behaviors 14 14
Total 24 30 53 14 121
Note: The table does not include optional student questionnaire items.
The cognitive items from both domains (knowing and reasoning and analyzing) and the affective-
behavioral items from two domains (value beliefs and attitudes) were developed within the
contexts of all four content domains. However, the items are not spread evenly across the cells
in the table: most items measuring the cognitive domain knowing relate to the content domain
civic society and systems. The affective-behavioral items measuring value beliefs relate to two of
the four content domains only (civic society and systems and civic principles).
Item types
The ICCS instruments include a range of different item types in order to assess a diversity of
cognitive, affective-behavioral, or contextual aspects.
The cognitive test contains two item types:
• Multiple-choice (MC): Each item has four response options, one of which is the correct
response and the other three of which are distracters.
• Open-endedresponse(OR): Students are requested to write a short response to an open-ended
question. The responses are scored by scorers working for the national centers.
Six of the 80 ICCS test items are open-ended response items. All other items have a multiple-
choice format. Test questions are typically organized in units within which the content of all
items refers to a stimulus describing a particular situation or problem and, in a few cases, is
accompanied by a graphic. Appendix B provides examples of ICCS test questions.

48 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
The student, teacher, and school questionnaires have the following item types:
• Likert-type items: For each item, respondents are asked to rate a number of statements,
typically on a four-point scale. For most of these items, the rating scale ranges from
(1) strongly agree to (4) strongly disagree. The rating scales for other questions indicate
frequencies (never, rarely, sometimes, often) or levels of interest, trust, or importance.
• Multiple-response items: Respondents are asked to indicate the three aspects they view as
most important.
• Categorical response items: Respondents are required to choose from two or more response
categories the response that they consider most appropriate. These questions are primarily
used for collecting contextual information (for example, on gender, educational level
of parents, books in the home, subjects taught at school, and public or private school
management).
• Open-responseitems:Respondents are asked to write short responses that are coded by the
national centers. (These items are used only used for collecting information on parental
occupation.)
The ICCS test booklet design
ICCS uses a rotated design for test administration, making it possible to include more test
material and thus ensure greater coverage of the assessment framework without increasing the
testing time for each student. This procedure also enables a sufficient number of score points
to be generated to provide the basis for comprehensive descriptions of the scale. Rotating the
clusters throughout the booklets ensures that the different tests are linked and can be scaled
using IRT (item response theory) methods (Hambleton, Swaminathan, & Rogers, 1991).
Table 5 shows the booklet design for the ICCS main survey. Cluster C07 contains the CIVED
link items and that will appear in Booklets 4, 6, and 7. The booklet design is completely
balanced, which means that each cluster appears in three booklets in three different positions.
Table 5: Field trial test booklet design
Position
Booklet A B C
1 C01 C02 C04
2 C02 C03 C05
3 C03 C04 C06
4 C04 C05 C07
5 C05 C06 C01
6 C06 C07 C02
7 C07 C01 C03

49
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Reporting on the contextual scales
ICCS will report outcomes of civic and citizenship education on a number of international
scales derived from the student test and the student questionnaire.
The cognitive test items will be scaled to obtain scores of civic knowledge and understanding.
The scale will cover student knowledge and understanding with regard to the four content
domains and the two cognitive domains. Items will be used to describe student knowledge and
understandings at different levels of student proficiency.
The student questionnaire includes items that are used to obtain the following scales reflecting
students’ value beliefs:
• Students’supportfordemocraticvaluebeliefs
• Students’supportfortheimportanceofconventionalcitizenship
• Students’supportfortheimportanceofsocial-movementrelatedcitizenship.
The student questionnaire includes items that are used to obtain scales reflecting the following
attitudes:
• Students’interestinpoliticalandsocialissues
• Students’civicself-concept
• Students’supportforequalgenderrightsandresponsibilities
• Students’supportforequalrightsforethnic/racialgroups
• Students’supportforequalrightsforimmigrants
• Students’condenceinschool-basedparticipation
• Students’trustingovernment-relatedinstitutions
• Students’senseofcitizenshipself-efcacy
• Students’attitudestowardtheircountry.
The student questionnaire includes items that are used to obtain scales reflecting the following
behavioral intentions:
• Students’expectationstoparticipateinlegalprotestactivities
• Students’expectationstoparticipateinillegalprotestactivities
• Students’expectationstoparticipateinelections
• Students’expectationstoengageinactivepoliticalparticipation
• Students’expectationstoparticipateininformalpoliticalparticipation.
The student questionnaire includes items that are used to obtain scales reflecting the following
behaviors:
• Students’reportsofcivicparticipationoutsideof school
• Students’reportsofcivicparticipationatschool.
Additional scales reflecting contextual factors are derived from the student, teacher, and
school questionnaires. These scales are designed to describe the learning context for civic and
citizenship education and to explain variation in learning outcomes.

50 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
The student questionnaire includes items that are used to obtain scales reflecting the learning
context of students:
• Students’perceptionsofstudent–teacherrelationshipsatschool
• Students’perceptionsofopenclassroomclimatefordiscussion
• Students’perceptionsofstudentinuenceondecisionmakingatschool
• Students’reportsofdiscussionof politicalandsocialissueswithparentsandpeers.
The teacher questionnaire includes items that are used to obtain scales reflecting the following
teacher perceptions of the school environment:
• Teachers’personalparticipationinactivitiesoutsideschool
• Teachers’participationinschoolgovernance
• Teachers’perceptionsofstudentactivitiesinthecommunity
• Teachers’perceptionsofstudentinuenceatschool
• Teachers’perceptionsofsocialproblemsatschool.
The teacher questionnaire includes items that are used to obtain scales reflecting the following
teacher perceptions of school and classroom climate:
• Teachers’perceptionsofstudents’senseofbelongingtotheschool
• Teachers’perceptionsofstudentparticipationinclassactivities
• Teachers’perceptionsofstudentparticipationinclassdiscussion
• Teachers’perceptionsofclassroomclimate.
The international option included in the teacher questionnaire includes items that are used
to obtain a scale reflecting teachers’ perceptions of how civic and citizenship education is
implemented at the school level:
• Teachers’reportsontheuseoftraditionalteachingmethodsincivicandcitizenshipeducation
• Teachers’reportsontheuseofactiveteachingandlearningincivicandcitizenshipeducation.
The school questionnaire includes items that are used to obtain scales reflecting principals’
perceptions of the school environment:
• Principals’perceptionsofschoolautonomyinmanagement
• Principals’perceptionsofschoolautonomyineducationalplanning
• Principals’perceptionsofteacherparticipationinschoolgovernance
• Principals’perceptionsofstudentopportunitiestoparticipateincommunityactivities
• Principals’perceptionsofparents’participationinschoollife
• Principals’perceptionsofstudentinuenceatschool
• Principals’perceptionsofstudentbehavioratschool
• Principals’perceptionsofteachers’senseofbelongingtotheschool
• Principals’perceptionsofstudents’senseof belongingtotheschool
• Principals’perceptionsofnon-teachingstaff ’ssenseofbelongingtotheschool
• Principals’perceptionsofsocialtensioninthelocalcommunity
• Principals’perceptionsofsocialproblemsatschool.

51
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
References
Almgren, E. (2006). Attfostrademokrater:Omskolanidemokratinochdemokratiniskolan (To educate
democracy:Ondemocracyinschoolorschoolindemocracy). Dissertation. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.
Amadeo, J., Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Husfeldt, V., & Nikolova, R. (2002). Civic knowledge
and engagement: An IEA study of upper secondary students in sixteen countries. Amsterdam: International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Anderson, L. W., Ryan, D. W., & Shapiro, B. J. (Eds.). (1989). The IEA Classroom Environment Study.
Oxford/New York: Pergamon Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational
Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Balch, G. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept “sense of political efficacy.”
Political Methodology, 1(2), 1–43.
Baker, D., & LeTendre, G. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of
schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (2004). Diversity and citizenship education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barnes, S. H., Kaase, M. et al. (Eds.). (1979). Political action: Mass participation in five Western
democracies (pp. 487–521). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ben Porath, S. R. (2006). Citizenshipunderre:Democraticeducationintimesofconict. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Benavot, A., Cha, Y., Kamens, D., Meyer, J., & Wong, S. (1991). Knowledge for the masses: World
models and national curricula, 1920–1986. American Sociological Review, 56, 85–100.
Birzea, C., Kerr, D., Mikkelsen, R., Pol, M., Froumin, I., Losito, B., & Sardoc, M. (2004). All-European
Study on Education for Democratic Citizenship Policies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for
sociology and education (pp. 241–248). New York: Greenwood Press.
Branson, M. S. (1999). Globalizationanditsimplicationsforciviceducation. Paper presented at the
Globalization of Politics and Economy International Conference in Bad Urach, Germany,
October 3–8.
Buchmann, C. (2002). Measuring family background in international studies of education:
Conceptual issues and methodological challenges. In A. C. Porter & A. Gamoran (Eds.),
Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp. 150–197). Washington
DC: National Academy Press.
Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, and
Company.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. AmericanJournalofSociology,
94(supplement), 95–120.
Converse, P. E. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In A. Campbell & P. E. Converse (Eds.),
The human meaning of social change (pp. 263–337). New York: Sage.
Cox, C., Jaramillo, R., & Reimers, F. (2005). Education for citizenship and democracy in the Americas: An
agenda for action. Washington DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
Craig, R., Kerr, D., Wade, P., & Taylor, G. (2005). Taking post-16 citizenship forward: Learning from
the Post-16 Citizenship Development Projects (DfES research report 604). London: Department for
Education and Skills (DfES).
Curtice, J., & Seyd, B. (2003). Is there a crisis of political participation? In A. Park, J. Curtice,
K. Thomson, L. Jarvis, & C. Bromley (Eds.),Britishsocialattitudes:The20threport—continuityand
change over two decades (pp. 93–107). London: Sage.

52 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Ehman, L. H. (1980). Change in high school pupils’ political attitudes as a function of social studies
classroom climate. AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,17, 253–265.
Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read? The Hague: International Association for the
Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Entwistle, D. R., & Astone, N. M. (1994). Some practical guidelines for measuring youth’s race/
ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 65, 1521–1540.
Eurydice. (2005). Citizenship education at school in Europe. Brussels: Author.
Eurydice. (2007). School autonomy in Europe: Policies and measures. Brussels: Author.
Ganzeboom, H. B. G., de Graaf, P. M., & Treiman, D. J. (1992). A standard international socio-
economic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21, 1–56.
Gerbner, G. (1980). The mainstreaming of America. JournalofCommunication,30, 10–29.
Gottfried, A. W. (1985). Measures of socioeconomic status in child development research: Data and
recommendations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31(1), 85–92.
Hahn, L. (1999). Citizenship education: An empirical study of policy, practices and outcome. Oxford
Review of Education, 25, 231–250.
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory.
Newbury Park/London/New Delhi: Sage.
Hanushek, E. A. (1994). Money might matter somewhere: A response to Hedges, Laine, &
Greenwald. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–8.
Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An
update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 141–164.
Harvey-Beavis, A. (2002). Student and school questionnaire development. In R. Adams and M. Wu
(Eds.), PISA2000technicalreport (pp. 33–38). Paris: OECD Publications.
Hauser, R. M. (1994). Measuring socioeconomic status in studies of child development. Child
Development, 65, 1541–1545.
Hess, R. D., & Torney, J. (1967). The development of political attitudes in children. Garden City, NY:
Anchor.
Homana, G., Barber, C., & Torney-Purta, J. (2005). Assessing school citizenship education climate:
Implications for the social studies (Circle Working Paper 48). Available online at http://www.civicyouth.
org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP48 Homana.pdf.
Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement.
American Political Science Review, 51(1), 63–77.
IDEA. (2006). Democracy, conflict and human security policy summary: Key findings and recommendations.
Stockholm: Author.
International Labour Organisation (ILO). (1990). InternationalStandardClassicationofOccupations:
ISCO-88. Geneva: Author.
Kaase, M. (1990). Mass participation. In M. K. Jennings, J. W. van Deth et al. (Eds.). Continuities in
political action (pp. 23–67). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Kennedy, K. (2006). Towards a conceptual framework for understanding active and passive citizenship.
Unpublished report.
Kerr, D., Ireland, E., Lopes, J., & Craig, R., with Cleaver, E. (2004). Making citizenship real: Citizenship
EducationLongitudinalStudy.Secondannualreport.Firstlongitudinalsurvey (DfES Research Report 531).
London: Department for Education and Skills (DfES).
Kymlicka, W. (2001).Politicsinthevernacular:Nationalism,multiculturalism,andcitizenship. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and glissandos in recent
theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6, 153–168.

53
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Lauglo, J., & Øia, T. (2006). Education and civic engagement among Norwegian youths (NOVA report
14/06). Oslo: Norwegian Social Research.
Lehmann, R. (1996). Reading literacy among immigrant students in the United States and former
West Germany. In M. Binkley, K. Rust, & T. Williams (Eds.), Reading literacy in an international
perspective (pp. 101–114). Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
Losito, B., & D’Apice, A. (2003). Democracy, citizenship, participation: The results of the second
IEA Civic Education Study in Italy.InternationalJournalofEducationalResearch,39(6), 609–620.
Losito, B., & Mintrop, H. (2001). The teaching of civic education. In J. Torney-Purta, R. Lehmann,
H. Oswald, & W. Schulz (Eds.), Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries (pp. 157–173).
Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Macedo, S. (2000). Diversity and distrust: Civic education in a multicultural democracy. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
McLanahan, S. S., & Sandefur, G. D. (1994). Growingupwithasingleparent:Whathurts,whathelps.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McNeal, R. B. (1997). High school dropouts: A closer examination of school effects. Social Science
Quarterly,78, 209–222.
Marjoribanks, K. (1997). Children of single-parent families. In L. J. Saha (Ed.), International
Encyclopedia of the Sociology of Education (pp. 589–595). Oxford/New York/Tokyo: Elsevier.
Mellor, S., & Prior, W. (2004). Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific: Promoting social
tolerance and cohesion in the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. In W. O. Lee, D. L. Grossman,
K. Kennedy, & G. P. Fairbrother (Eds.), Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and issues
(pp. 175–194). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC) and Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Menezes, I., Ferreira, P. D., Carneiro, N. S., & Cruz, J. B. (2004). Citizenship, empowerment
and participation: Implications for community interventions. In A. Sánchez Vidal, A. Zambrano
Constanzo, & L. M. Palacín (Eds.), Psicologia Comunitaria Europea: Comunidad, ética y valores (European
Community psychology: Community, ethics and values) (pp. 301–308). Barcelona: Publicacions Universitat
de Barcelona.
Mosher, R., Kenny, R. A., & Garrod, A. (1994). Preparing for citizenship: Teaching youth to live
democratically. Westport/London: Praeger.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Garden, R. A., O’Connor, K. M.,
Chrostowski, S, J., & Smith, T. A. (2000). TIMSS 1999 international mathematics report: Fndings from
IEA’s repeat of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study at the eighth grade. Chestnut Hill, MA:
Boston College.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Ruddock, G. J., O’Sullivan, C. Y., Aroa, A., & Erberber, E. (2005).
TIMSS2007assessmentframeworks. Boston, MA: International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement (IEA).
Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communication in postindustrial societies. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Niemi, R., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students learn? New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1994). Quality in teaching.
Paris: Author.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). Technical report for the
OECDProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment2003. Paris: OECD Publications.
Perliger, A., Canetti-Nisim, D., & Pedahzur, A. (2006). Democratic attitudes among high-school
pupils: The role played by perceptions of class climate. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
17(1), 119–140.

54 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Potter, J. (2002). Active citizenship in schools. London: Kogan Page.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowlingalone:ThecollapseandrevivalofAmericancommunity. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Rahn, W. M. (2004).Globalization,thedeclineofciviccommitmentsandthefutureofdemocracy. Paper
presented at the conference on Democracy in the Twenty-First Century: Prospects and Problems,
University of Illinois, October 24–26.
Ranson, S., Farrell, C., Peim, N., & Smith, P. (2005). Does governance matter for school
improvement? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(3), 305–325.
Reezigt, G. J., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2005). A comprehensive framework for effective school
improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(4), 407–424.
Reimers, F. (2007). Civic education when democracy is in flux: The impact of empirical research on
policy and practice in Latin America. Citizenship and Teacher Education, 3(2), 5–21.
Renshon, S. A. (1975). The role of personality development in political socialization. In D. C.
Schwartz & S. Schwartz (Eds.), New Directions in Socialization (pp. 29–68). New York: Free Press.
Richardson, W. (2003). Connecting political discussion to civic engagement: The role of civic knowledge,
efficacy and context for adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College
Park, MD.
Robinson, M. J. (1976). Public Affairs television and the growth of political malaise: The case of
“the selling of the Pentagon.” AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,70, 409–432.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.
Saha, L. J. (1997). Introduction: The centrality of the family in educational processes. In L. J. Saha
(Ed.), International encyclopedia of the sociology of education (pp. 587–588). Oxford/New York/Tokyo:
Elsevier.
Scheerens, J. (1990). School effectiveness and the development of process indicators of school
functioning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1, 61–80.
Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon.
Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M. C., & Brossard, D. (2003). Pathways to political participation? Religion,
communication contexts, and mass media. InternationalJournalofPublicOpinionResearch,15(3),
300–324.
Schulz, W. (2004). Scaling procedures for Likert-type items on students’ concepts, attitudes and
actions. In W. Schulz & H. Sibberns (Eds.), IEA Civic Education Study: Technical report (pp. 193–126).
Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Schulz, W. (2005). Political efficacy and expected political participation among lower and upper secondary
students. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, Budapest, September 8–10.
Seltzer, J. (1994). Consequences of marital dissolution for children. AnnualReviewof Sociology,20,
235–266.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational
Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Stanat, P., & Christensen, G. (2006). Where immigrant students succeed: A comparative review of
performanceandengagementinPISA2003. Paris: OECD Publications.
Stoll, L. (1999). School culture: Black hole or fertile garden for school improvement? In J. Prosser
(Ed.), School culture (British Educational Management series). London: Sage.
Stolle, D., with Lewis, J. (2002). Social capital: An emerging concept. In B. Hobson, J. Lewis, &
B. Siim (Eds.), Contested concepts in gender and European social politics (pp. 195–229). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Press.
Stolp, S. (1994). Leadership for school culture (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 91). East
Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

55
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Torney, J., Oppenheim, A. N., & Farnen, R. F. (1975). Civic education in ten countries: An empirical study.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Torney-Purta, J., & Barber, C. (2004). Democratic school participation and civic attitudes among European
adolescents: Analysis of data from the IEA Civic Education Study. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, DGIV/
EDU/CIT (2004) 40.
Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in twenty-
eight countries. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement
(IEA).
Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J., & Amadeo, J. A. (1999). Civic education across countries: Twenty-four case
studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement (IEA).
Travers, K. J., Garden, R. A., & Rosier, M. (1989). Introduction to the study. In D. A. Robitaille &
R. A. Garden (Eds.), The IEA Study of Mathematics II: Contexts and outcomes of school mathematics
curricula. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Travers, K. J., & Westbury, I. (1989). The IEA Study of Mathematics I: Analysis of mathematics curricula.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
UNESCO. (2006). ISCED 1997: International Standard Classification of Education (rev. ed.). Paris:
UNESCO-UIS.
USAID. (2002). Approaches to civic education: Lessons learned (Technical Publication Series PNP-ACP-
331). Washington DC: Clearinghouse.
Van Houtte, M. (2005). Climate or culture? A plea for conceptual clarity in school effectiveness
research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 71– 89.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wade, R. C. (2007). Community action rooted in history: The CiviConnections model of service learning.
Silver Spring, MD : National Council for the Social Studies.
Walker, D. A. (1976). The IEA Six Subject Study: An empirical study of education in twenty-one countries.
Stockholm/New York: Almqvist and Wiksell International/John Wiley and Sons.
White, K. R. (1982).The relation between socioeconomic status and educational achievement.
PsychologicalBulletin,91(3), 461–481.
Woolcock, M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes.
ISUMACanadianJournalofPolicyResearch,2(1), 11–17.

56 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Appendices
APPENDIX A: INSTITUTIONS AND STAFF
The international study center and its partner institutions
The international study center is located at the Australian Council for Educational Research
(ACER) and serves as the international study center for ICCS. Center staff are responsible for
the design and implementation of the study in close co-operation with the center’s partner
institutions NFER (National Foundation for Educational Research, Slough, United Kingdom)
and LPS (Laboratorio di Pedagogia Sperimentale at the Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy) as
well as the IEA Data Processing and Research Center (DPC) and the IEA Secretariat.
Staff at ACER
John Ainley, project coordinator
Wolfram Schulz, research director
Julian Fraillon, coordinator of test development and the Asian regional module
Naoko Tabata, project researcher
Tim Friedman, project researcher
Staff at NFER
David Kerr, associate research director
Joana Lopes, senior research officer
Staff at LPS
Bruno Losito, associate research director
Gabriella Agrusti, project researcher
The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)
IEA provides overall support in coordinating ICCS. The IEA Secretariat in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, is responsible for membership, translation verification, and quality control
monitoring. The IEA Data Processing and Research Center (DPC) in Hamburg, Germany, is
mainly responsible for sampling procedures and the processing of ICCS data.
Staff at the IEA Secretariat
Hans Wagemaker, executive director
Barbara Malak, manager membership relations
Jur Hartenberg, financial manager
Staff at DPC
Heiko Sibberns, co-director
Dirk Hastedt, co-director
Falk Brese, ICCS coordinator
Michael Jung, researcher
Olaf Zuehlke, researcher (sampling)
Sabine Meinck, researcher (sampling)

57
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
The ICCS project advisory committee (PAC)
PAC has, from the beginning of the project, advised the international study center and its
partner institutions during regular meetings. PAC also reviewed draft versions of the assessment
framework and the instruments.
PAC members
John Ainley (chair), ACER, Australia
Barbara Malak, IEA Secretariat
Heiko Sibberns, IEA Technical Expert Group
John Annette, University of London, United Kingdom
Leonor Cariola, Ministry of Education, Chile
Henk Dekker, University of Leiden, the Netherlands
Bryony Hoskins, Center for Research on Lifelong Learning, European Commission
Rosario Jaramillo F., Ministry of Education, Colombia
Judith Torney-Purta, University of Maryland, United States
Lee Wing-On, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong SAR, China
Christian Monseur, University of Liège, Belgium
The ICCS sampling referee
Jean Dumais from Statistics Canada in Ottawa is the sampling referee for the study. He has
provided invaluable advice on all sampling-related aspects of the study.
National research coordinators
The national research coordinators (NRCs) play a crucial role in the development of the project.
They provided policy- and content-oriented advice on the development of the assessment
framework and instruments and are responsible for the implementation of ICCS in participating
countries.
Austria
GüntherOgris
SORA Institute for Social Research and Analysis, Ogris & Hofinger GmbH
Belgium (Flemish)
SaskiadeGroof
Center of Sociology, Research Group TOR, Free University of Brussels (Vrije Universiteit
Brussel)
Bulgaria
Svetla Petrova
Center for Control and Assessment of the Quality in Education, Ministry of Education and
Science, Bulgaria
Chile
Catalina Covacevich
Unidad de Curriculum y Evaluación, Ministerio de Educación
Chinese Taipei
Meihui Liu
Taiwan Normal University, Department of Education
Colombia
Margarita Peña
Instituto Colombiano para el Fomento de la Educación Superior (ICFES)
Cyprus
Mary Koutselini
University of Cyprus, Department of Education

58 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Czech Republic
Petr Soukup
Institute for Information on Education
Denmark
JensBruun
The Danish University of Education, Department of Educational Anthropology
Dominican Republic
JulioLeonardoValeirónUreña
Evaluación y Control de la Calidad de la Educación, Secretaría de Estado de Educación
England
JulieNelson
National Foundation for Educational Research
Estonia
Anu Toots
Tallinn University
Finland
Pekka Kupari
Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä
Greece
GeorgiaPolydorides
Department of Early Childhood Education
Guatemala
Luisa Muller Durán
SINEIE—Ministerio de Educación
Hong Kong SAR, China
Wing-OnLee
Hong Kong Institute of Education
Indonesia
Diah Haryanti
Balitbang Diknas, Depdiknas
Republic of Ireland
JudeCosgrove
Educational Research Centre, St Patrick’s College
Italy
GennyTerrinoni
INVALSI
Republic of Korea
Tae-JunKim
Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI)
Latvia
Andris Kangro
Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Latvia
Liechtenstein
HorstBiedermann
Universität Freiburg, Pädagogisches Institut
Lithuania
Zivile Urbiene
National Examination Center

59
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Luxembourg
JosephBritz
Ministère de l’Éducation nationale
Malta
Raymond Camilleri
Department of Planning and Development, Education Division
Netherlands
M.P.C.vanderWerf
GION, University of Groningen
New Zealand
Sharon Cox
Comparative Education Research Unit, Ministry of Education
Norway
Rolf Mikkelsen
University of Oslo
Paraguay
AgustinaSolamíaBurgos
Dirección General de Desarrollo Educativo, Ministerio de Educación y Cultura
Poland
Krzysztof Kosela
Institute of Sociology, University of Warsaw
Russia
Peter Pologevets
Institution for Education Reforms of the State University Higher School of Economics
Slovak Republic
Ervin Stava
Department of Educational Measurements, National Institute for Education
Slovenia
Marjan Simenc
University of Ljubljana
Spain
Rosario Sánchez
Instituto de Evaluación, Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia
Sweden
Fredrik Lind
The Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket)
Switzerland
FritzOser
Universität Freiburg, Pädagogisches Institut
Thailand
SiripornBoonyananta
The Office of the Education Council, Ministry of Education
Somwung Pitiyanuwa
The Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment

60 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE TEST ITEMS
Example Item 1
Example Item 1 is an adaptation of an item used in the ICCS field trial. This item accesses:
• Content Domain 1: Civic Society and Systems
o Sub-domain: State institutions
  •Aspect: Legislatures/parliaments
o Key concept: Voting/franchise.
• Cognitive Domain 1: Knowing
o Process: Describe
E1 Which people are allowed to vote in a country’s national <parliament/legislature>?
* representatives voted into office in national elections
judges who sit in the highest court in the country
business leaders who pay a fee to be allowed to vote
senior members of the national police force
Note: • = correct answer.

61
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Example Items 2 and 3
Example Items 2 and 3 were presented together as a unit in the ICCS field trial. A unit is one
or more items that appear in sequence and refer to a common theme or set of information.
Example item 2 accesses:
• Content Domain 1: Civic Society and Systems
o Sub-domain: State institutions
  •Aspect: Government
o Key concept: Power/authority
• Cognitive Domain 2: Reasoning and analyzing
o Process: Generalize
The United Nations has election monitors who check whether national elections have taken place fairly.
The United Nations can only send election monitors to visit a country if the government of that country
asks them to come.
<Zedland> asked the United Nations to monitor their national election. After the election, the election
monitors reported that the election was fair.
E2 How does the report that the election was fair help the newly elected government lead
<Zedland>?
People who did not vote for the new government are more likely to change their minds and
agree with all the decisions the new government makes.
* People who did not vote for the new government are more likely to accept the authority of the
new government to make decisions.
People who voted for the new government are more likely to vote for it again in the future.
People who voted for the new government are more likely to agree with everything it does.
Note: • = correct answer.

62 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Example Item 3 accesses:
• Content Domain 1: Civic Society and Systems
o Sub-domain: State institutions
  • Aspect: Government
o Key concept: Democracy
• Cognitive Domain 2: Reasoning and analyzing
o Process: Integrate
E3 What message might the United Nations hope to give the world by working with countries to
monitor their elections?
Most countries do not want to conduct fair elections.
Countries only need to have fair elections when the election monitors are involved.
* Countries have a responsibility to make sure that elections are fair.
Fair elections can only be guaranteed if election monitors are present.
Note: • = correct answer.
Example Item 4
Example Item 4 is a CIVED release item and was therefore developed with reference to the
CIVED conceptual model. Seventeen of the 80 ICCS test items are CIVED-trend (non-release)
items. Example Item 4 illustrates both the “nature” of the CIVED items and their similarity
to and congruence with the newly developed ICCS items. The ICCS assessment framework
incorporates and builds on the CIVED conceptual model. The CIVED non-release trend items
were included in the ICCS test instrument to facilitate the measurement of student cognitive
achievement in ICCS on the same metric used in CIVED. It is therefore possible to map the
CIVED test items (trend and release) onto the ICCS assessment framework. Example Item 4 can
be mapped to:
• Content Domain 1: Civic Society and Systems
o Sub-domain: Civil institutions
• Aspect: Political parties
o Key concept: Democracy
• Cognitive Domain 1: Knowing
o Process: Describe
E4 In democratic countries what is the function of having more than one political party?
* To represent different opinions [interests] in the national legislature [e.g. Parliament, Congress]
To limit political corruption
To prevent political demonstrations
To encourage economic competition
Note: • = correct answer.

63
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Example Item 5
Example Item 5 is one of eight open-ended response items used in the ICCS field trial. The
scoring guide for Example Item 5 is included on the next page in order to illustrate the
different categories of credit that were allocated to different conceptual categories of student
response to the item. Example Item 5 accesses:
• Content Domain 3: Civic Participation
o Sub-domain: Community participation
  •Aspect: Volunteering
o Key concept: Civic involvement.
• Cognitive Domain 1: Reasoning and analyzing
o Process: Understand civic motivation
A local school has a volunteer day. On this day parents volunteer to come to the school and paint the
classrooms. The parents are not paid for their work.
<Male Name> is a parent who does not like painting, but he volunteered anyway.
E5 Write the best reason to explain why <Male Name> volunteered to help paint the classrooms.

64 ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
Example Item 5 Scoring Guide
The example student responses in the scoring guide for Example Item 5 are all “real” responses
provided by students during the ICCS field trial.
Full credit
Code 2: Refers to either or both of the two categories of reason listed below.
RC1. a concern for the common good
RC2. a desire to participate in the local community.
RC1. Suggestsaconcernforthecommongoodasamotivationforvolunteering.[Note:Adesiretohelpothersortohelpthe
schoolisseenassufcientforthiscategory.]
Example responses:
• Hewantstocontributetotheschool.
• It’stherightthingtodo.
• Becausehe’shelpingotherpeople,evenifhedoesn’twanttohewouldfeelbetter
knowing he helped them.
RC2. Suggestsadesiretoparticipateintheschool/localcommunityasamotivationforvolunteering.
Example responses:
• Hewantstogetinvolvedinhischild’sschool.
• Hewantstofeelpartofthelocalcommunityandtheschool.
• Sohecansocializeandhavefun.
Partial credit
Code 1: Suggestsonlyimmediateself-interestorbenetasamotivationforvolunteering.
Example responses:
• Hewantstolookimportant/wantstolookgood.
• Hewantstolearnnewskills.
• Tomakesureheknowstheenvironmenthischildisworkingin.
No credit
Code 0: Refers to a generalized personality quality of <Male Name> or provides an irrelevant,
 incoherentresponse,orrepeatsthequestion.
Example responses:
• Hedoesn’twanttorefuse.[vague]
• Becausehischildrengothere.[vague]
• Becauseheisprobablyagoodman,isgenerousanditwasachanceforhimto
volunteer.

65
ICCS ASSeSSment FrAmework
This document outlines the framework and assessment design for the
International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) sponsored by the
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Over the past 50 years, IEA has conducted comparative research studies focusing
on educational policies, practices, and outcomes in more than 80 countries
around the world.
The purpose of ICCS is to investigate the ways in which young people in lower
secondary schools are prepared to undertake their roles as citizens in a range of
countries. The study will report on student achievement on a test of conceptual
understandings and competencies in civic and citizenship education and also
will collect and analyze data about student dispositions and attitudes relating
to civic and citizenship education. Teacher and school questionnaires will gather
information about teaching and class-management practices, school governance
and climate, and other matters. A national context survey will collect information
about civic and citizenship education and its contexts (aspects related to political,
cultural, and educational contexts) in each participating country.
The study framework also offers “regional modules” that will allow groups of
participating countries from the same region to address region-specific issues in
civic and citizenship education. The three regional modules established for ICCS
relate to Europe, Latin America, and Asia.