Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Kiel, Germany.
Br J Educ Psychol. 2012 Dec;82(Pt 4):647-71. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02051.x. Epub 2011 Sep 22.
Assigning students to different school tracks on the basis of their achievement levels is a widely used strategy that aims at giving students the best possible learning opportunity. There is, however, a growing body of literature that questions such positive effects of tracking.
This study compared the developmental trajectories of reading comprehension and decoding speed between students at academic track schools that typically prepare students for university entrance and students at non-academic track schools that usually prepare students for vocational education.
In a longitudinal design with three occasions of data collection, the authors drew on a sample of N= 1,508 5th graders (age at T1 about 11 years, age at T3 about 14 years) from 60 schools in Germany. The academic track sample comprised n= 568 students; the non-academic track sample comprised n= 940 students.
Achievement measures were obtained by standardized tests of reading comprehension and decoding speed. Students at the different tracks were closely matched using propensity scores. To compare students' growth trajectories between the different school tracks, we applied multi-group latent growth curve models.
Comparable results were recorded for the complete (unmatched) sample and for the matched pairs. In all cases, students at the different tracks displayed a similar growth in reading comprehension, whereas larger growth rates for students at academic track schools were recorded for decoding speed.
Our findings contribute to an increasing body of literature suggesting that tracking might have undesired side effects.
根据学生的成绩水平将学生分配到不同的学校轨道是一种广泛使用的策略,旨在为学生提供尽可能好的学习机会。然而,越来越多的文献质疑这种跟踪的积极影响。
本研究比较了学术轨道学校(通常为学生进入大学做准备)和非学术轨道学校(通常为学生接受职业教育做准备)的学生的阅读理解和解码速度发展轨迹。
在一项具有三次数据收集的纵向设计中,作者从德国 60 所学校的 N=1508 名五年级学生(T1 时的年龄约为 11 岁,T3 时的年龄约为 14 岁)中抽取了样本。学术轨道样本包括 n=568 名学生;非学术轨道样本包括 n=940 名学生。
通过标准化阅读理解和解码速度测试获得成就衡量标准。使用倾向得分对不同轨道的学生进行了密切匹配。为了比较不同学校轨道学生的增长轨迹,我们应用了多组潜在增长曲线模型。
在完整(未匹配)样本和匹配对中都记录了可比的结果。在所有情况下,不同轨道的学生的阅读理解都呈现出相似的增长趋势,而学术轨道学校的学生的解码速度增长率更高。
我们的发现有助于越来越多的文献表明,跟踪可能会产生不良的副作用。