Effects of Socioeconomic Status, Class Size and Ability Grouping on Science Achievement

A Sociological Approach+
  • John P. Keeves
  • Njora Hungi
  • I Gusti Ngurah Darmawan

Abstract

This study examines the effects of key social group variables (e.g. socioeconomic status, class size, ability grouping and school type) on the science achievement of secondary school students in Canberra, Australia after controlling for student level effects (e.g. prior performance, attitudes toward school, liking of science and educational aspirations). The study employed a multilevel analysis procedure to examine the data at the student, classroom and school levels for both direct effects and cross-level interaction effects. The major finding is that sociological factors in this school system operated at the classroom level, together with cross-level interaction effects operating at the school and classroom levels, with no main effects operating at the school level to explain nearly all the variability between classrooms and schools.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1996). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Barr, R. (1994). Classrooms: Grouping of students. In T. Husén & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies (2rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 821–825). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  3. Bryk, A.S., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Burns, R.B., & Mason, D.A. (2002). Class composition and student achievement in elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 207–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Finn, J.D. and Voelkl, K.E. (1998) In T. Husén & T.N. Postlethwaite et al. (Eds.), The Complete Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies. Oxford: Pergamon (Elsevier).Google Scholar
  6. Gamoran, A., & Mare, R.D. (1989). Secondary school tracking and educational inequality: Comparison, reinforcement, or neutrality? American Journal of Sociology, 94, 1146–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hallam, S., & Ireson, J. (2003). Secondary school teachers’ attitudes towards and beliefs about ability grouping. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hallinan, M.T. (1990). The effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A response to Slavin’s bestevidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 501–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Holmes, C.T., & Ahr, J.T. (1994). Effects of ability grouping on academic achievement and self. The Clearing House, 67(5), 294–298.Google Scholar
  10. Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (1999). Raising standards: Is ability grouping the answer? Oxford Review of Education, 25(3), 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jaeger, R.M., & Hattie, J.A. (1995). Detracking America’s schools: Should we really care? Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 218–220.Google Scholar
  12. Kanihan, S.F., Neuzil, M., & Bunton, K. (2003). Longitudinal effects of ability groups on news writing. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 58(2), 120–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keeves, J.P. (1972) Educational Environment and Student Achievement. Stockholm, Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
  14. Kelly, S. (2004 Are teachers tracked? On what basis and with what consequences, Social Psychology of Education, 7, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kerckhoff, A.C. (1986). Effects of ability grouping in British secondary schools. American Sociological Review, 51(6), 842–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kreft, I.G.G., Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L.S. (1995). The effects of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kulik, C.L., & Kulik, J. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lietz, P. (1996). Changes in reading comprehension across cultures and over time. Minister: Waxman.Google Scholar
  19. Nye, B., Hedges, L.V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2004). Do low-achieving students benefit more from small classes? Evidence from the Tennessee class size experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oakes, J. (1982). The reproduction of inequality: The content of secondary school tracking. The Urban Review, 14, 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oakes, J. (1994). Ability grouping and tracking in schools. In T. Husén & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies (2rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 6–12). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  22. Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (1994). Hierarchical linear models. In T. Husén & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies (2nd ed., pp. 2590–2596). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S., Cheong, Y.F., & Congdon, R.T. (2000a). HLM 5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling (Version 5.01.2067.1). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  25. Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S., Cheong, Y.F., & Congdon, R.T. (2000b). HLM 5: Hierarchical linear and non-linear modeling (user guide). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  26. Rogers, K.B. (2002). Guest editor’s comments on grouping the gifted and talented: Questions and answers. Roeper Review, 24(3), 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shields, C.M. (1996). To group or not to group academically talented or gifted students? Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(2), 295–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Slavin, R.E. (1990a). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Slavin, R.E. (1990b). Ability grouping in secondary schools: A response to Hallinan. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 505–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Slavin, R.E. (1995). Detracking and its detractors: Flawed evidence, flawed values. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 220–221.Google Scholar
  32. Sorensen, A.B., & Hallinan, M.T. (1986). Effects of ability grouping on growth in academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 519–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tieso, C.L. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore. Roeper Review, 26(1), 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • John P. Keeves
    • 1
  • Njora Hungi
  • I Gusti Ngurah Darmawan
  1. 1.The University of AdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations