Content uploaded by Haiqin Ning
All content in this area was uploaded by Haiqin Ning on Dec 27, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Educational Success and Social Participation of Socially and Educationally
Disadvantaged Students with Migration Background in Extended Education
Haiqin Ning, Jule Schmidt, Nanine Lilla, MarianneSchüpbach
The project is funded within the “Framework Programme for Empirical Educational Re-
search”of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under the funding code
01JB2112 A-C. Project duration: 01. 10.2021–30.09.2024. As acollaborative project, there
are three partners working together:
•Team Freie Universität Berlin: Prof. Dr. MarianneSchüpbach (Coordinator of the col-
laborative research project), Dr. Nanine Lilla, Haiqin Ning, Jule Schmidt, Dr. Jan Willem
Nieuwenboom, Hanna Lehmkuhl, Magdalena Reichenbach|Primary Education, Berlin
•Team Universität Hamburg: Prof. Dr. Ingrid Gogolin, Luise Krejcik, Tobias Potthoff |
General, Intercultural and International Comparative Education, Hamburg
•Team German Children and Youth Foundation: Anna-Margarete Davis, Dr. Alexander
Wedel |School Success &All-Day School as well as Research &Development, Berlin
Transforming half-day schools into all-day schools (i. e. aform of extendededucation)isoften
seen as away to deal with thechallenges addressedtothe German education system. Recent
research shows that first- and second-generation migrant children in Germany continue to be
at adisadvantage throughout their educational pathway, and oftenintwo senses: through their
social background (e.g. low-income, low SES, rural areas) and their migration background
(e.g. cultural and linguistic minority) (e. g. Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung, 2020;
Köller et al., 2019).
All-day schools are expected to achieve measurable improvements in the educational
success and social participation of students with amigration background (KMK, 2015), who
are often –if not always –also living in sociallyprecarious circumstances. It is evident that the
extra-curricular offerings of all-day schools are used by students at the primary level in
Germany (Steiner, 2009; Willems et al., 2014). However, these expectations for all-day
schools have not been adequately fulfilled in Germany, e. g. no direct effects on subject-
related learning have been proven (StEG Consortium, 2016). Regarding the question of how
all-day school settings can contribute to reducing disadvantages in respect of linguistic,
cultural, and social heterogeneity, there is not much research-based knowledgeavailable in the
German context (Reinders et al., 2011; Bremm, 2018).
International Journal forResearch on Extended Education, Vol. 10,Issue 1/2022, 75–78
In other countries, however, there are comparable high-quality offerings of extended
education that have been shown to be effective. Findings from studies in the US indicate that
participation in high-quality afterschool programs over alonger period of time, which are
comparabletoall-day schools, leads to higher scores in achievement tests than non-partic-
ipation (Durlak et al. 2010; Vandell et al., 2015). In their meta-analysis (based on 68 studies),
Durlak et al. (2010) emphasize that programsthat are sequential, active, focused,and explicit
(SAFE) are effective both in terms of subject-related and non-academic competencies. The
meta-analysis by Lauer et al. (2006)also shows that the disadvantaged students in particular
benefit from participationinspecific intervention programs. In South Korea, participation in
afterschool programs has been shown to have apositive effect on subject-related performance
–especially for socially and educationally disadvantaged students (Bae et al., 2010).
Against this background, there is assumed potential in the German all-day school settings.
The question arises whether the existing offerings can be optimized by incorporating em-
pirical findings from international contexts on such learning settings as well as conditions for
Therefore, the objective of the project is to harness empirical findings and knowledge
from other national contexts to better exploit the potential of all-day schools in Germany as
well. Socially and educationally disadvantaged students with migration background are the
target group of this project with aspecial focus on primary schools.
Based on research questions, several theoretical frameworks are referred to in this research
project. In international contexts, there are many different forms of extended education, which
can differ considerably in their design. The characterization tool and aspects of charac-
terization according to Schüpbach (2018, p. 137) serve as abasis for characterizing the
current offerings in Germany and in other countries. The basic points are
(a) What is the (age) range of the participants?
(b) What is the focus?
(c) What form does it take?
(d) When does it take place?
(e) Who is the provider?
(f) Where is it located?
(g) Who participates?
(h) What is the professional background of the staff?
(i) Who pays the costs?
Based on this tool, different forms of extended education in the (inter)national fields can be
described in its current basic features.
The concept of educational quality is based on the work of Tietze et al. (2005). In their
German version of the School-Age Care Environment Rating Scale (SACERS) by Harms et
al. (2013) –in German “Hort- und Ganztagsangeboteskala”(HUGS) –Tietze et al. (2005)
describe three levels of educational quality: The educational process quality is placed in the
International Journal forResearch on Extended Education, Vol. 10,Issue 1/2022, 75–7876
center, which includes aspects of the offering concept,such as the spatial and material
equipment, moreoverall interactions that promote education and development of the students.
The educational processesare framed by the structural quality and orientation quality: While
the structural quality includes the conditions of the learning environment, which are mainly
politically regulated (e. g. group size and composition, qualification of the pedagogical staff),
the level of orientation quality refers to aspects of the educational attitude of the pedagogical
staff (Tietze et al., 2005).
At the same time, theempirical, interdisciplinary, and action-oriented project follows the
rationale of co-construction of innovation (Maasen,2020) for the transfer of scientific
findings to school practice. The German Childrenand Youth Foundation is acollaborative
partner. Cooperation with the service agencies “Ganztägig lernen”(All-Day learning) as well
as the participating federal states, in particular their education administrations, will already
start at an early stage of the project. This enables acontinuousreview of preconditions for the
implementation of the created concepts and products in school practice.
The project is designed as aqualitative study, which is divided into four phases and utilizes
different methods to collect and analyze empirical data.
In the first phase, all-day primary schools in Germany are characterized with aspecial
focus on the target group (Schüpbach, 2018). On this basis, (inter)national experts are going to
be interviewed and evaluate the current implementationinGermany with regard to learning
settings and necessary conditions of high-quality learning settings of the extra-curricular
offerings in all-day primary schools.
In the secondphase, (inter)national experts receive asummary of the assessments from all
experts concerning the offerings currently implemented in the German context for asecond
evaluation. Then, the evaluations of the(inter)national experts are analyzed in asequential
procedure with the help of qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2014).
In the third phase, theinsights gained are to be discussed in focus groupsconsisting of
German practitioners (e. g. education administrators, educational institutions and extra-
curricular cooperation partners, school principals, teachers, and other educational staff) with a
view to transferring them into innovative concepts, measures, and products in the German
context (Morgan,1997). The focus group discussions are also to be analyzed using qualitative
In the fourth phase, these concepts will be developed and their suitability for the local
context will be tested together with German practitioners and transfer partners at selected all-
day primary schools in four federal states of Germany. Afinal survey with schools and their
cooperationpartners aims at generating assessments of whether the concepts and measures
developed are practicable and purposeful.
77H. Ning, J. Schmidt, N. Lilla, M. Schüpbach: Educational Success and Social Participation
Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung. (2020). Bildung in Deutschland 2020: Ein in-
dikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Bildung in einer digitalisierten We lt. wbv Media.
Bae, S., Oh, H., Kim, H., Lee, C., &Oh, B. (2010). The impact of after-school programs on educational
equality and private tutoring expenses. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(3), 349–361.
Bremm, N. (2018). Schulen mit ganztägigem Angebot. Eine empirisch ermittelte Typologie. Weinheim
München: Beltz Juventa.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., &Pachan, M. (2010). Ameta-analysis of after-school programs that seek
to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 45(3–4), 294–309.
Harms, T., Jacobs, E. V., &White, D. R. (2013). School-Age CareEnvironment Rating Scale, updated
edition (SACERS). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Köller, O., Klieme, E., Reiss, K., &Weis, M. (2019). PISA 2018: Grundbildung im internationalen
Ve rgleich. Waxmann Verlag. https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/56297 KMK.
(2015). Ganztagsschulen in Deutschland: Bericht der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 03. 12. 2015.
Köller, O., Klieme, E., Reiss, K. &Weis, M. (Ed.). (2019). PISA 2018. Grundbildung im internationalen
Ve rgleich. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., &Martin-Glenn, M. L. (2006). Out-
of-School-Time Programs: AMeta-Analysis of Effects for At-Risk Students. Review of Educational
Research, 76(2), 275–313.
Maasen, S. (2020). Innovation und Relevanz. Forschung im Gerangel widerstreitender Anforderungen.
In A. M. Horatschek (Ed.), Competing knowledges –Wissen im Widerstreit (pp. 123–140). De
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software
solution. SSOAR. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd. ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Reinders, H., Gogolin, I., Gresser, A., Schnurr, S., Böhmer, J., &Bremm, N. (2011). Ganztags-
schulbesuch und Integration von Kindern mit Migrationshintergrund im Primarbereich: Erste
Näherungen an empirische Befunde einer vergleichenden Untersuchung. ZeitschriftFür Erzie-
hungswissenschaft(Sonderband 14), 163–183.
Schüpbach, M. (2018). Useful terms in English for the field of extended education and acharacter-
ization of the field from aSwiss perspective. International Journal for Research on Extended
Education, 6(2), 132–143.
StEG-Konsortium. (2016). Ganztagsschule: Bildungsqualität und Wirkungen außerunterrichtlicher
Angebote. Ergebnisse der Studie zur Entwicklung von Ganztagsschulen 2012–2015. DIPF.
Steiner, C. (2009). Mehr Chancengleichheit durch die Ganztagsschule? Zeitschriftfür Pädagogik (54.
Tietze, W., Roßbach, H.‑G., Stendel, M., &Wellner, B. (2005). Hort- und Ganztagsangebote-Skala
(HUGS): Feststellung und Unterstützung pädagogischer Qualität in Horten und
Außerunterrichtlichen Angeboten. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
Vandell, D. L., Larson, R. W., Mahoney, J. L., &Watts, T. W. (2015). Children’sOrganized Activities.
Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science (7), 1–40.
Willems, A.S., Wendt, H., Gröhlich, C., Walzebug, A. &Bos, W. (2014). Mehr Chancengerechtigkeit
durch die Ganztagsschule?InH.G. Holtappels et al. (Ed.), Jahrbuch der Schulentwicklung.
Band 18. Daten, Beispiele und Perspektiven (S. 62–100). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.
International Journal forResearch on Extended Education, Vol. 10,Issue 1/2022, 75–7878