Immigrant Students' Academic Performance in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Singapore.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigrants to the USA and Western Europe show a disadvantage in academic achievement that persists into the second generation. In contrast, an immigrant advantage is often seen in countries with selective immigration policies. This paper examines whether four countries with selective migration policies continue to show an academic advantage in data from PISA 2012; whether the advantage applies equally across reading, mathematics and science; and whether any advantage can be attributed to greater access to three personal (school belonging, attitude towards school learning activities and outcomes), and two teacher-related academic resources (student-teacher relationship, teacher support). Three groups (first-generation immigrant; second-generation immigrant; native-born) of 15-year-old students were compared in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Singapore. In Australia and Singapore, first- and secondgeneration immigrant students showed an advantage in all three subjects. In New Zealand and Canada, there was no evidence of a consistent immigrant disadvantage. The five academic resources were related to individual differences in PISA scores, but did not account for differences between migrant and native students. “Immigration is one of the defining issues of the 21st century. It is now an essential, inevitable and potentially beneficial component of the economic and social life of every country and region” (Brunson McKinley, Director General, International Organization for Migration, 2007). As a result, education systems in most countries are now responsible for ensuring that large and diverse populations of immigrant students develop the academic skills and knowledge necessary for successful resettlement. Although immigration is now a global phenomenon, it remains particularly salient in traditional “countries of immigration” (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand). Over 25% of Australia’s population are immigrants, and over 46% of Australians are either immigrants or have a parent who was an immigrant (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012). Some “countries of immigration”, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Singapore, are distinctive because a large proportion of their intake of long-term migrants is reserved for skilled workers (Bryant, Genc & Law 2004; Hugo, 2006;
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".