Ability grouping in German secondary schools: The effect of non-academic track schools on the development of Math competencies.

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL British Journal of Educational Psychology Pub Date : 2025-02-14 DOI:10.1111/bjep.12741
Sonja Herrmann, Katharina M Bach
{"title":"Ability grouping in German secondary schools: The effect of non-academic track schools on the development of Math competencies.","authors":"Sonja Herrmann, Katharina M Bach","doi":"10.1111/bjep.12741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Differences in competence gains between academic and non-academic track schools are often attributed to selection effects based on students' primary school performance and socioeconomic status (SES). However, how the competencies of comparable students (in terms of school performance and social background) at different tracks develop is often neglected.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We investigated whether comparable students diverge in their math competencies due to attending different types of secondary schools, contributing to the ongoing debate on whether inaccurate stratification may lead to disadvantages.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from the National Education Panel Study (Kindergarten Cohort SC2, N = 4180), we examined students' competence development from the fourth to seventh grade. We employed a quasi-experimental design (propensity score weighting, PSW) comparing similarly capable students at academic and non-academic school tracks to make causal inferences. The outcome variable was students' math competence in seventh grade. PSW used fourth-grade competency measures in math and reading and other variables such as sex, migration background, SES, class composition, special educational needs, school grades and school location.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results revealed a significant average treatment effect on the treated, indicating that comparable students attending non-academic track schools show lower math performance than those at academic track schools.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Non-academic tracks seem to hinder the full development of students' competencies. We conclude that the effects of preconditions like the students' SES, ability and aspirations on competence development are lower than assumed and that school learning environments should be given greater importance. We discuss practical solutions and provide suggestions for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":51367,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Educational Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Educational Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12741","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Differences in competence gains between academic and non-academic track schools are often attributed to selection effects based on students' primary school performance and socioeconomic status (SES). However, how the competencies of comparable students (in terms of school performance and social background) at different tracks develop is often neglected.

Aims: We investigated whether comparable students diverge in their math competencies due to attending different types of secondary schools, contributing to the ongoing debate on whether inaccurate stratification may lead to disadvantages.

Methods: Using data from the National Education Panel Study (Kindergarten Cohort SC2, N = 4180), we examined students' competence development from the fourth to seventh grade. We employed a quasi-experimental design (propensity score weighting, PSW) comparing similarly capable students at academic and non-academic school tracks to make causal inferences. The outcome variable was students' math competence in seventh grade. PSW used fourth-grade competency measures in math and reading and other variables such as sex, migration background, SES, class composition, special educational needs, school grades and school location.

Results: Results revealed a significant average treatment effect on the treated, indicating that comparable students attending non-academic track schools show lower math performance than those at academic track schools.

Conclusion: Non-academic tracks seem to hinder the full development of students' competencies. We conclude that the effects of preconditions like the students' SES, ability and aspirations on competence development are lower than assumed and that school learning environments should be given greater importance. We discuss practical solutions and provide suggestions for future research.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
2.70%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Educational Psychology publishes original psychological research pertaining to education across all ages and educational levels including: - cognition - learning - motivation - literacy - numeracy and language - behaviour - social-emotional development - developmental difficulties linked to educational psychology or the psychology of education
期刊最新文献
Ability grouping in German secondary schools: The effect of non-academic track schools on the development of Math competencies. Exploring antecedents of student teachers' emotions during instructional experiences: A situation-specific analysis. Be happy and effective? Incorporating emotional design into multimedia learning in elementary science education. Issue Information Editorial Acknowledgement
×
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