校际政策辩论促进批判性思维和上大学:来自波士顿公立学校的证据

IF 2.4 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Beth E. Schueler, Katherine E. Larned
{"title":"校际政策辩论促进批判性思维和上大学:来自波士顿公立学校的证据","authors":"Beth E. Schueler, Katherine E. Larned","doi":"10.3102/01623737231200234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Few interventions reduce inequality in reading achievement, let alone higher-order thinking skills, among adolescents. We study policy debate—an extracurricular activity focused on improving middle and high schoolers’ critical thinking, argumentation, and policy analysis skills—in Boston schools serving large concentrations of economically disadvantaged students of color. Student fixed effects estimates show debate had positive impacts on English Language Arts (ELA) test scores of 0.13 SD, equivalent to 68% of a full year of average ninth-grade learning. Gains were concentrated on analytical more than rote subskills. We find no harm to math, attendance, or disciplinary records, and evidence of positive effects on high school graduation and postsecondary enrollment. Impacts were largest among students who were lowest achieving prior to joining debate.","PeriodicalId":48079,"journal":{"name":"Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis","volume":"52 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interscholastic Policy Debate Promotes Critical Thinking and College-Going: Evidence From Boston Public Schools\",\"authors\":\"Beth E. Schueler, Katherine E. Larned\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/01623737231200234\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Few interventions reduce inequality in reading achievement, let alone higher-order thinking skills, among adolescents. We study policy debate—an extracurricular activity focused on improving middle and high schoolers’ critical thinking, argumentation, and policy analysis skills—in Boston schools serving large concentrations of economically disadvantaged students of color. Student fixed effects estimates show debate had positive impacts on English Language Arts (ELA) test scores of 0.13 SD, equivalent to 68% of a full year of average ninth-grade learning. Gains were concentrated on analytical more than rote subskills. We find no harm to math, attendance, or disciplinary records, and evidence of positive effects on high school graduation and postsecondary enrollment. Impacts were largest among students who were lowest achieving prior to joining debate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis\",\"volume\":\"52 10\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737231200234\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737231200234","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

很少有干预措施能减少青少年阅读成绩的不平等,更不用说高阶思维技能了。我们在波士顿的学校研究政策辩论,这是一项旨在提高初高中学生批判性思维、论证和政策分析技能的课外活动,主要服务于大量经济上处于劣势的有色人种学生。学生固定效应估计显示,辩论对英语语言艺术(ELA)考试成绩有0.13 SD的积极影响,相当于九年级平均全年学习的68%。收益集中在分析而非死记硬背的子技能上。我们发现对数学、出勤率或纪律记录没有损害,并有证据表明对高中毕业和高等教育入学有积极影响。在参加辩论前成绩最差的学生中,影响最大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interscholastic Policy Debate Promotes Critical Thinking and College-Going: Evidence From Boston Public Schools
Few interventions reduce inequality in reading achievement, let alone higher-order thinking skills, among adolescents. We study policy debate—an extracurricular activity focused on improving middle and high schoolers’ critical thinking, argumentation, and policy analysis skills—in Boston schools serving large concentrations of economically disadvantaged students of color. Student fixed effects estimates show debate had positive impacts on English Language Arts (ELA) test scores of 0.13 SD, equivalent to 68% of a full year of average ninth-grade learning. Gains were concentrated on analytical more than rote subskills. We find no harm to math, attendance, or disciplinary records, and evidence of positive effects on high school graduation and postsecondary enrollment. Impacts were largest among students who were lowest achieving prior to joining debate.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (EEPA) publishes manuscripts of theoretical or practical interest to those engaged in educational evaluation or policy analysis, including economic, demographic, financial, and political analyses of education policies, and significant meta-analyses or syntheses that address issues of current concern. The journal seeks high-quality research on how reforms and interventions affect educational outcomes; research on how multiple educational policy and reform initiatives support or conflict with each other; and research that informs pending changes in educational policy at the federal, state, and local levels, demonstrating an effect on early childhood through early adulthood.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信