“一切在一起”:通过在异质分组的班级中嵌入荣誉来提高加速学习的机会

IF 1.3 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
David Nurenberg, Liana Tuller
{"title":"“一切在一起”:通过在异质分组的班级中嵌入荣誉来提高加速学习的机会","authors":"David Nurenberg, Liana Tuller","doi":"10.1177/01614681231198637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: For the last century, the dominant practice in U.S. high schools has involved sorting students by perceived ability level, yet 40 years of research has yielded consistent evidence that these practices harm the learning of students placed in lower-level classes; evidence is inconsistent about benefits for students in classes designated as higher-level, depending often on the actual pedagogy involved. Sufficient evidence exists to encourage schools to take on the challenge of implementing effective differentiated pedagogy within heterogeneous classrooms. Ideally, such pedagogy would avoid the well-established negative effects of separate-class ability grouping while preserving opportunities for all students to access stimulating and challenging learning opportunities that are both suited to their present readiness level and geared toward pushing them to advance to higher levels of academic capability. Focus of Study: Despite all that is known about the harms of tracking, most studies have focused on the contrast between classes that are tracked by ability level vs. heterogeneously grouped classes. There has been little research on the opportunity to embed an “honors” option within a heterogeneously grouped class. In theory, embedded honors may prove an antidote to some of the challenges presented by separated ability-grouped classes while avoiding the pitfalls of non-differentiated heterogeneous environments. This study examined one school’s change in student placement policy to test whether within-class leveling (within heterogeneously grouped classes) correlated with an increase in the participation of students, particularly from marginalized groups, signing up for “honors” level learning opportunities, as well as with an increase in learning and performance among any populations of students. The study also attempted to examine how students experienced learning in within-class leveling in heterogeneously grouped classes vs. separately grouped, leveled courses, in terms of the various areas identified in the literature. Research Design: This is a multi-methods study combining analysis of existing quantitative and qualitative data, as well as analysis of additional follow-up surveys and qualitative interviews. This case study examines one suburban Massachusetts high school’s experiment with converting seven separated “ability-leveled” courses in English, history, science, and math into heterogeneously grouped courses, in which students could elect whether or not to take the class for “honors” credit while still learning alongside the full spectrum of their peers. The authors examine data collected by the district ( n = 6,995 student data points), as well as from surveys and interviews ( n = 709) to analyze the resulting changes to enrollment and achievement, in the context of existing theory and research around grouping practices. Conclusions: Statistically significant correlational results included: (1) increased participation in Honors 1 coursework, particularly among students from traditionally marginalized groups; (2) lower barriers to enrollment in Honors classes among students who had previously enrolled in non-Honors classes; and (3) statistically significant increased academic performance for all students enrolled in Honors options, including those who had previously enrolled in non-Honors. In addition, students reported (4) decreased stigma for those enrolled in the non-Honors option, (5) more diverse classrooms, and (6) perception of greater academic challenge among students who selected non-Honors within heterogeneously grouped classes, but diminished challenge among students who selected Honors. Cautions include that this experiment was conducted during the pandemic-induced remote learning period of 2020–21; thus, many other factors may influence these results. Teachers in the study also appear to have been inconsistent in their use of effective pedagogy for differentiating instruction. Authors offer discussion of what schools elsewhere might be able to learn about improving leveling and equity efforts from this case study.","PeriodicalId":48274,"journal":{"name":"Teachers College Record","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“All in This Together”: Improving Access to Accelerated Learning Through Embedding Honors in Heterogeneously Grouped Classes\",\"authors\":\"David Nurenberg, Liana Tuller\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01614681231198637\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: For the last century, the dominant practice in U.S. high schools has involved sorting students by perceived ability level, yet 40 years of research has yielded consistent evidence that these practices harm the learning of students placed in lower-level classes; evidence is inconsistent about benefits for students in classes designated as higher-level, depending often on the actual pedagogy involved. Sufficient evidence exists to encourage schools to take on the challenge of implementing effective differentiated pedagogy within heterogeneous classrooms. Ideally, such pedagogy would avoid the well-established negative effects of separate-class ability grouping while preserving opportunities for all students to access stimulating and challenging learning opportunities that are both suited to their present readiness level and geared toward pushing them to advance to higher levels of academic capability. Focus of Study: Despite all that is known about the harms of tracking, most studies have focused on the contrast between classes that are tracked by ability level vs. heterogeneously grouped classes. There has been little research on the opportunity to embed an “honors” option within a heterogeneously grouped class. In theory, embedded honors may prove an antidote to some of the challenges presented by separated ability-grouped classes while avoiding the pitfalls of non-differentiated heterogeneous environments. This study examined one school’s change in student placement policy to test whether within-class leveling (within heterogeneously grouped classes) correlated with an increase in the participation of students, particularly from marginalized groups, signing up for “honors” level learning opportunities, as well as with an increase in learning and performance among any populations of students. The study also attempted to examine how students experienced learning in within-class leveling in heterogeneously grouped classes vs. separately grouped, leveled courses, in terms of the various areas identified in the literature. Research Design: This is a multi-methods study combining analysis of existing quantitative and qualitative data, as well as analysis of additional follow-up surveys and qualitative interviews. This case study examines one suburban Massachusetts high school’s experiment with converting seven separated “ability-leveled” courses in English, history, science, and math into heterogeneously grouped courses, in which students could elect whether or not to take the class for “honors” credit while still learning alongside the full spectrum of their peers. The authors examine data collected by the district ( n = 6,995 student data points), as well as from surveys and interviews ( n = 709) to analyze the resulting changes to enrollment and achievement, in the context of existing theory and research around grouping practices. Conclusions: Statistically significant correlational results included: (1) increased participation in Honors 1 coursework, particularly among students from traditionally marginalized groups; (2) lower barriers to enrollment in Honors classes among students who had previously enrolled in non-Honors classes; and (3) statistically significant increased academic performance for all students enrolled in Honors options, including those who had previously enrolled in non-Honors. In addition, students reported (4) decreased stigma for those enrolled in the non-Honors option, (5) more diverse classrooms, and (6) perception of greater academic challenge among students who selected non-Honors within heterogeneously grouped classes, but diminished challenge among students who selected Honors. Cautions include that this experiment was conducted during the pandemic-induced remote learning period of 2020–21; thus, many other factors may influence these results. Teachers in the study also appear to have been inconsistent in their use of effective pedagogy for differentiating instruction. Authors offer discussion of what schools elsewhere might be able to learn about improving leveling and equity efforts from this case study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48274,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Teachers College Record\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Teachers College Record\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681231198637\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teachers College Record","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681231198637","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在上个世纪,美国高中的主要做法是根据能力水平对学生进行分类,然而40年的研究已经得出一致的证据,这些做法损害了低水平班级学生的学习;根据实际的教学方法,关于在高水平班级学习的学生是否受益的证据并不一致。有足够的证据鼓励学校接受挑战,在异质教室中实施有效的差异化教学法。理想情况下,这种教学法可以避免分班能力分组的负面影响,同时为所有学生保留机会,使他们能够获得既适合他们目前的准备水平,又能促进他们向更高水平的学术能力前进的刺激和具有挑战性的学习机会。研究重点:尽管大家都知道跟踪的危害,但大多数研究都集中在按能力水平跟踪的班级与不同分组班级之间的对比上。很少有人研究在异构分组的班级中嵌入“荣誉”选项的可能性。从理论上讲,嵌入式荣誉可能被证明是一种解毒剂,可以解决能力分组分开的班级所带来的一些挑战,同时避免非差异化异构环境的陷阱。本研究考察了一所学校对学生分班政策的改变,以测试班级内(在不同分组的班级内)的水平是否与学生(特别是边缘群体)参与“荣誉”级别学习机会的增加有关,以及与任何学生群体的学习和表现的增加有关。该研究还试图根据文献中确定的各个领域,检查学生在异质分组的班级与单独分组的班级内水平课程中的学习体验。研究设计:这是一个多方法的研究,结合现有的定量和定性数据的分析,以及分析额外的随访调查和定性访谈。本案例研究考察了马萨诸塞州郊区一所高中的实验,该实验将英语、历史、科学和数学等七门独立的“能力等级”课程转换为不同的分组课程,学生可以选择是否参加“荣誉”课程,同时仍然与同龄人一起学习。作者检查了该地区收集的数据(n = 6,995个学生数据点),以及调查和访谈(n = 709),以分析在分组实践的现有理论和研究背景下,入学率和成绩的变化。结论:统计上显著的相关结果包括:(1)荣誉1课程的参与增加,特别是来自传统边缘化群体的学生;(2)以前在非荣誉班就读的学生进入荣誉班的门槛较低;(3)所有选择荣誉课程的学生,包括之前选择非荣誉课程的学生,学业成绩都有统计学上的显著提高。此外,学生们报告了(4)那些选择非荣誉课程的学生的耻辱减少了,(5)教室更加多样化,(6)在异质分组的班级中,选择非荣誉课程的学生感受到更大的学术挑战,而选择荣誉课程的学生感受到的挑战减少了。需要注意的是,本实验是在2020 - 2021年疫情引发的远程学习期间进行的;因此,许多其他因素可能影响这些结果。在这项研究中,教师在使用有效的教学方法进行差异化教学方面似乎也不一致。作者讨论了其他地方的学校可以从这个案例研究中学到什么,以提高水平和公平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“All in This Together”: Improving Access to Accelerated Learning Through Embedding Honors in Heterogeneously Grouped Classes
Background: For the last century, the dominant practice in U.S. high schools has involved sorting students by perceived ability level, yet 40 years of research has yielded consistent evidence that these practices harm the learning of students placed in lower-level classes; evidence is inconsistent about benefits for students in classes designated as higher-level, depending often on the actual pedagogy involved. Sufficient evidence exists to encourage schools to take on the challenge of implementing effective differentiated pedagogy within heterogeneous classrooms. Ideally, such pedagogy would avoid the well-established negative effects of separate-class ability grouping while preserving opportunities for all students to access stimulating and challenging learning opportunities that are both suited to their present readiness level and geared toward pushing them to advance to higher levels of academic capability. Focus of Study: Despite all that is known about the harms of tracking, most studies have focused on the contrast between classes that are tracked by ability level vs. heterogeneously grouped classes. There has been little research on the opportunity to embed an “honors” option within a heterogeneously grouped class. In theory, embedded honors may prove an antidote to some of the challenges presented by separated ability-grouped classes while avoiding the pitfalls of non-differentiated heterogeneous environments. This study examined one school’s change in student placement policy to test whether within-class leveling (within heterogeneously grouped classes) correlated with an increase in the participation of students, particularly from marginalized groups, signing up for “honors” level learning opportunities, as well as with an increase in learning and performance among any populations of students. The study also attempted to examine how students experienced learning in within-class leveling in heterogeneously grouped classes vs. separately grouped, leveled courses, in terms of the various areas identified in the literature. Research Design: This is a multi-methods study combining analysis of existing quantitative and qualitative data, as well as analysis of additional follow-up surveys and qualitative interviews. This case study examines one suburban Massachusetts high school’s experiment with converting seven separated “ability-leveled” courses in English, history, science, and math into heterogeneously grouped courses, in which students could elect whether or not to take the class for “honors” credit while still learning alongside the full spectrum of their peers. The authors examine data collected by the district ( n = 6,995 student data points), as well as from surveys and interviews ( n = 709) to analyze the resulting changes to enrollment and achievement, in the context of existing theory and research around grouping practices. Conclusions: Statistically significant correlational results included: (1) increased participation in Honors 1 coursework, particularly among students from traditionally marginalized groups; (2) lower barriers to enrollment in Honors classes among students who had previously enrolled in non-Honors classes; and (3) statistically significant increased academic performance for all students enrolled in Honors options, including those who had previously enrolled in non-Honors. In addition, students reported (4) decreased stigma for those enrolled in the non-Honors option, (5) more diverse classrooms, and (6) perception of greater academic challenge among students who selected non-Honors within heterogeneously grouped classes, but diminished challenge among students who selected Honors. Cautions include that this experiment was conducted during the pandemic-induced remote learning period of 2020–21; thus, many other factors may influence these results. Teachers in the study also appear to have been inconsistent in their use of effective pedagogy for differentiating instruction. Authors offer discussion of what schools elsewhere might be able to learn about improving leveling and equity efforts from this case study.
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
Teachers College Record
Teachers College Record EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
89
期刊介绍: Teachers College Record (TCR) publishes the very best scholarship in all areas of the field of education. Major articles include research, analysis, and commentary covering the full range of contemporary issues in education, education policy, and the history of education. The book section contains essay reviews of new books in a specific area as well as reviews of individual books. TCR takes a deliberately expansive view of education to keep readers informed of the study of education worldwide, both inside and outside of the classroom and across the lifespan.
×
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