Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality.

Oromaner, Mark; Oakes, Jeannie

doi:10.2307/2070941

Cited by 568 publications

(178 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

171

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In lower-level classes, instruction is often characterized by rote memorization, drill, and practice. By contrast, teachers of upper-level courses emphasize higher-order thinking and present more interesting materials (Oakes, 1985(Oakes, , 1990.…”

Section: Who Gets Which Type Of Instruction?mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Despite many possible barriers, empirical evidence suggests that constructivist instruction is practiced in limited settings-but in which settings? Decisions concerning method and content of instruction are directly influenced by the characteristics of students or groups within the classroom (Barr & Dreeben, 1983;Dreeben & Barr, 1988;Newmann et al, 1996;Herr, 1992;Oakes, 1985Oakes, , 1990Raudenbush, Rowan, & Cheong, 1993). Just as traditional views of instruction encourage didactic teaching, traditional views of students' intellectual ability may dictate the types of students to whom constructivist teaching is directed.…”

Section: Who Gets Which Type Of Instruction?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This would suggest that teachers are less likely to use innovative instructional techniques if they believe their students need training in basic skills. There is some evidence that use of traditional instructional techniques is, in turn, more prevalent in lower-as opposed to higher-track classes (Oakes, 1985(Oakes, , 1990. In lower-level classes, instruction is often characterized by rote memorization, drill, and practice.…”

Section: Who Gets Which Type Of Instruction?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study is important in light of the growing concern for learning opportunities (or lack thereof) among economically and socially disadvantaged students. Extant research suggests that both instructional time and the quality of learning opportunities typically favor more advantaged students (Oakes, 1985(Oakes, , 1990.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Access to Constructivist and Didactic Teaching: Who Gets It? Where is it Practiced?

Smerdon

Burkam

Lee

1999

Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Calls for the reform of instruction in U.S. classrooms, particularly in secondary schools, are growing and often strident. Many reformers advocate a move away from traditional, teacher-centered, (didactic) direct instruction, where students are passive receptors of knowledge, toward more student-centered understanding-based (constructivist) teaching that focuses on exploration and experimentation. In this study we investigate the issue of access to these two types of instruction in U.S. high school science classrooms. We use a nationally representative sample of 3,660 students and their science teachers drawn from the first two waves of the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS:88). Although didactic instruction is more common among higher–socioeconomic status and female students, constructivist instruction is practiced more often among students of lower ability. Constructivist teaching is also more common in both higher-level science courses (i.e., chemistry) and lower-level courses (i.e., basic biology and physical science). The students of average social and academic status appear to be the forgotten majority with respect to constructivist instruction. We offer explanations for the findings and discuss implications for educational policy and social equity in high school science.

show abstract

Section: Who Gets Which Type Of Instruction?mentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Who Gets Which Type Of Instruction?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Who Gets Which Type Of Instruction?mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Access to Constructivist and Didactic Teaching: Who Gets It? Where is it Practiced?

Smerdon

Burkam

Lee

1999

Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, the possibility that school tracking may affect educational inequality must also be considered (van de Werfhorst & Mijs, 2010). Some authors argue that tracking increases inequality among students (Gamoran & Mare, 1989;Lucas, 1999Lucas, , 2001Oakes, 1985) not only in terms of dispersion of achievement (Galindo-Rueda & Vignoles, 2005;Hanushek & Woessmann, 2006;Manning & Pischke, 2006) but also in terms of inequality of opportunities-namely, the strength of the influence of family background on student outcomes. These studies usually quantify the extent to which economic, cultural, and social resources in the home environment affect student achievement across educational systems characterized by different institutional arrangements (Bol & van de Werfhorst, 2013;Brunello & Checchi, 2007;Jackson, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of School Tracking on Student Achievement and Inequality: A Meta-Analysis

Terrin

Triventi

2022

Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis examines the effects of sorting secondary students into different tracks (“between-school” tracking) or classrooms (“within-school” tracking) on the efficiency and inequality levels of an educational system. Efficiency is related to the overall learning achievement of students, whereas inequality can refer to “inequality of achievement” (i.e., the dispersion of outcomes) or “inequality of opportunity” (i.e., the strength of the influence of family background on student achievement). The selected publications are 53 analyses performed in the period from 2000 to 2021, yielding 213 estimates on efficiency and 230 estimates on inequality. The results show that the mean effect size (Hedge’s G) of tracking on efficiency is not statistically significant (G = −.063), whereas it is significantly positive (G = .117) on inequality. We further set out to explain variation in effect sizes by (a) policy characteristics, (b) the operationalization of main variables, (c) the research design, (d) the set of control variables included in the statistical analyses, and (e) the quality of the study, year of publication, and publication status (peer reviewed or not peer reviewed).

show abstract

Framing, classification, and conceptual linkages: What can interdisciplinary practice in small secondary schools contribute to the curriculum conversation?

Termaat

2023

The Curriculum Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on the design of interdisciplinary units in five International Baccalaureate schools in Norway and Denmark, each with fewer than 100 students in their Middle Years Programme. The mixed methods study describes subject combinations and time frames of 37 enacted units and 111 hypothetical interdisciplinary units, and the qualitative perspectives of nine teachers, representative of the curriculum frameworks' eight subject groups, on the contribution of these school‐based units to student learning. In the special context of schools with logistically simple staffing structures, interdisciplinary units were consistently conceived and enacted as substantial units, typically implemented over 8 weeks. Subjects were usually paired using a common Key Concept and differentiated by Related Concepts. Although framing and classification were considerations in interdisciplinary planning, the quantitative data found nearly every pairing of the subject groups was feasible. Interdisciplinary units were consistently valued by teachers for helping students connect disciplinary knowledge and developing metacognitive skills that supported their future learning, and for enriching teachers' own pedagogical practice. As a pragmatic, sustainable approach that resolves the tensions posed by assessment of disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives, the strategies reported in this study suggest a ‘middle way’ for countering the disciplinary fragmentation associated with junior secondary education.

show abstract

Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality.

Cited by 568 publications

References 0 publications

Access to Constructivist and Didactic Teaching: Who Gets It? Where is it Practiced?

Access to Constructivist and Didactic Teaching: Who Gets It? Where is it Practiced?

The Effect of School Tracking on Student Achievement and Inequality: A Meta-Analysis

Framing, classification, and conceptual linkages: What can interdisciplinary practice in small secondary schools contribute to the curriculum conversation?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About