Unexpected gender differences in teacher ratings of academic skills and school track recommendations

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Studies in Educational Evaluation Pub Date : 2024-07-02 DOI:10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101384
Isa Steinmann
{"title":"Unexpected gender differences in teacher ratings of academic skills and school track recommendations","authors":"Isa Steinmann","doi":"10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101384","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Previous research suggests that girls get better school marks and are more often recommended for academic school tracks after primary school. Using data from a representative sample of 4529 students who were followed longitudinally between grades 1–4 in Germany, this study adds nuance to this picture. In simple logistic regression models, girls were found to get more favourable teacher ratings in terms of language and written skills and more favourable school track recommendations, while boys got better teacher ratings in terms of nature knowledge and mathematical skills. In models that included control variables (achievement test scores, teacher-rated ability to concentrate, teacher-rated social skills, and teacher-rated personality characteristics), gender gaps shifted to the boys’ advantage, with written skills remaining the only domain with female advantages. Linear growth models showed that in three out of four cases, gender gaps in teacher-rated skills widened over the course of primary school.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47539,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000634/pdfft?md5=22845738e1f998a37374c3e1304995a0&pid=1-s2.0-S0191491X24000634-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X24000634","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous research suggests that girls get better school marks and are more often recommended for academic school tracks after primary school. Using data from a representative sample of 4529 students who were followed longitudinally between grades 1–4 in Germany, this study adds nuance to this picture. In simple logistic regression models, girls were found to get more favourable teacher ratings in terms of language and written skills and more favourable school track recommendations, while boys got better teacher ratings in terms of nature knowledge and mathematical skills. In models that included control variables (achievement test scores, teacher-rated ability to concentrate, teacher-rated social skills, and teacher-rated personality characteristics), gender gaps shifted to the boys’ advantage, with written skills remaining the only domain with female advantages. Linear growth models showed that in three out of four cases, gender gaps in teacher-rated skills widened over the course of primary school.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
教师对学生学业技能的评价和学校轨道建议中的意外性别差异
以往的研究表明,女生的学习成绩更好,小学毕业后更容易被推荐进入学术学校。本研究利用对德国 4529 名一至四年级学生进行纵向跟踪的代表性样本数据,对这一情况进行了细微的补充。在简单的逻辑回归模型中,我们发现女生在语言和书写技能方面更容易获得教师的好评,也更容易获得学校的推荐,而男生在自然知识和数学技能方面则更容易获得教师的好评。在包含控制变量(成绩测验分数、教师评定的集中注意力能力、教师评定的社交能力和教师评定的个性特征)的模型中,性别差距转向男生的优势,而书写技能仍然是女性唯一具有优势的领域。线性增长模型显示,在四种情况中的三种情况下,教师评定技能的性别差距在小学阶段有所扩大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
90
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: Studies in Educational Evaluation publishes original reports of evaluation studies. Four types of articles are published by the journal: (a) Empirical evaluation studies representing evaluation practice in educational systems around the world; (b) Theoretical reflections and empirical studies related to issues involved in the evaluation of educational programs, educational institutions, educational personnel and student assessment; (c) Articles summarizing the state-of-the-art concerning specific topics in evaluation in general or in a particular country or group of countries; (d) Book reviews and brief abstracts of evaluation studies.
期刊最新文献
The long-term effect of alternative education on self-regulated learning: A comparison between Montessori, Dalton, and traditional education Developing career-related skills through project-based learning Admission testing, pre-academic exam self-efficacy, and retention. A prospective cohort study Unexpected gender differences in teacher ratings of academic skills and school track recommendations Learning together through collaborative writing: The power of peer feedback and discussion in doctoral writing groups
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1