The gap between learners’ personal needs and institutional demands in second chance education in Germany

Figures & data

Figure 1. Distribution of expected norms by learners in second chance education

Note: Higher values indicate higher universalistic-specific normative expectations

Figure 2. Distribution of the perceived practice of teachers in second chance education

Note: Higher values indicate higher universalistic-specific normative expectations

Table 1. Correlations between expected norms, perceived practice of teachers, and individual and family characteristics

	Distance to mainstream culture	Academic self-concept	Psychological problems	Lack of parental support	Age
Normative expectations	−.12*	−.13**	−.20***	−.17***	.02
Perceived practice	.10*	.12*	−.02	.07	−.09 +

Note: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; +p < 0.1. Higher values in expected norms and perceived practice indicate higher universalistic-specific normative expectations. Higher values in individual and family characteristics indicate greater distance from the mainstream culture, fewer resources, and higher age.

Figure 3. Distribution of the differences between experienced teacher practice and normative expectations

Note: Differences smaller than −1 indicate a type A mismatch, differences greater than +1 indicate a type B mismatch

Table 2. Mismatch of fit and individual and family characteristics (all variables standardised; MW)

		Distance to mainstream culture	Academic self-concept	Psychological problems	Lack of parental support	Age
1	Type A mismatch	−.14	−.10	−.41	−.32	.24
2	Fit	−.08	−.08	.03^1**	.02^1+	−.00
3	Type B mismatch	.38^2**, 1***	.35 ^2*, 1**	.17^1**	.14^1*	−.14^1+

Note: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; +p < 0.1. Superscript figures indicate significant differences in pairwise group comparisons between the 3 groups of fit and mismatch (see first column; one-way Anova).

Figure 4. School engagement, absences and mismatch of fit

Note: Positive values of school engagement indicate a higher level of school engagement. One-way ANOVA (F(2,407) = 12.83, p =.000). Positive values of absences indicate more absences. One-way ANOVA (F(2,407) = 6.84, p =.0012).

Table 3. Regression of school engagement and absence on mismatch of fit, individual and family characteristics (all discrete variables standardised)

	School engagement Model 1	School engagement Model 2	Absences Model 3	Absences Model 4
Mismatch A	.14		−.14	-
Fit (reference)	1		1	-
Mismatch B	−.44***		.26*	-
Linear: Normative expectations	-	.12+		−.11
Linear: Perceived teacher practice	-	−.40***		.11
Distance from mainstream culture	−.02	−.02	.14+	.13*
Academic self-concept	−.12*	−.11*	.03	.02.
Psychological problems	−.09+	−.11*	.13*	14*
Lack of parental support	−.03	.02	.04	.03
Age	.09+	.09	−.07	−.07
Constant	.61	1.19*	−1.0	−.46
R^2	.15	.16	.11	.11

***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; +p < 0.1. Semester (= school half year) and first language learned at home (1 = German, 0 = non-German) included as control variables.