2018年国际学生评估项目(PISA)的研究结果显示,菲律宾学校的能力分组预测的是不平等,而不是成绩增长

IF 1.2 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Trinidad, Jose Eos, King, Ronnel B.
{"title":"2018年国际学生评估项目(PISA)的研究结果显示,菲律宾学校的能力分组预测的是不平等,而不是成绩增长","authors":"Trinidad, Jose Eos, King, Ronnel B.","doi":"10.1007/s10671-021-09307-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Grouping students in terms of ability and aptitude is assumed to be advantageous, given that high-performing students may be stimulated more while low-performing students may be supported more. However, studies on ability grouping often provide mixed results. Additionally, although ability grouping is a common practice in the Philippines, it has not been empirically investigated with a nationally representative dataset. Drawing on the Philippine data in PISA 2018 which contained responses from 6952 students nested in 180 schools, we found that students in schools that practice ability grouping did not perform any better than those in schools that did not engage in ability grouping. More importantly, schools which practice ability grouping had greater academic inequalities among students. Similar academic inequalities were also more prevalent for urban and more advantaged schools while less prevalent for private schools. Taken together, these results suggest the need to attend to sources of inequalities among students in a school, and to reconsider assumptions for the supposed benefits of ability grouping.</p>","PeriodicalId":44841,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research for Policy and Practice","volume":"75 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ability grouping predicts inequality, not achievement gains in Philippine schools: findings from PISA 2018\",\"authors\":\"Trinidad, Jose Eos, King, Ronnel B.\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10671-021-09307-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Grouping students in terms of ability and aptitude is assumed to be advantageous, given that high-performing students may be stimulated more while low-performing students may be supported more. However, studies on ability grouping often provide mixed results. Additionally, although ability grouping is a common practice in the Philippines, it has not been empirically investigated with a nationally representative dataset. Drawing on the Philippine data in PISA 2018 which contained responses from 6952 students nested in 180 schools, we found that students in schools that practice ability grouping did not perform any better than those in schools that did not engage in ability grouping. More importantly, schools which practice ability grouping had greater academic inequalities among students. Similar academic inequalities were also more prevalent for urban and more advantaged schools while less prevalent for private schools. Taken together, these results suggest the need to attend to sources of inequalities among students in a school, and to reconsider assumptions for the supposed benefits of ability grouping.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Research for Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":\"75 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Research for Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-021-09307-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Research for Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-021-09307-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

根据能力和天资对学生进行分组被认为是有利的,因为表现好的学生可能会受到更多的激励,而表现差的学生可能会得到更多的支持。然而,对能力分组的研究往往提供了好坏参半的结果。此外,尽管能力分组在菲律宾是一种常见的做法,但尚未对具有全国代表性的数据集进行实证调查。根据菲律宾2018年国际学生评估项目(PISA)的数据,其中包含来自180所学校6952名学生的回答,我们发现,在实行能力分组的学校,学生的表现并不比没有实行能力分组的学校的学生好。更重要的是,实行能力分组的学校学生之间的学业不平等更大。类似的学术不平等现象在城市和条件较好的学校中更为普遍,而在私立学校中则不那么普遍。综上所述,这些结果表明有必要关注学校学生之间不平等的根源,并重新考虑能力分组的假设好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ability grouping predicts inequality, not achievement gains in Philippine schools: findings from PISA 2018

Grouping students in terms of ability and aptitude is assumed to be advantageous, given that high-performing students may be stimulated more while low-performing students may be supported more. However, studies on ability grouping often provide mixed results. Additionally, although ability grouping is a common practice in the Philippines, it has not been empirically investigated with a nationally representative dataset. Drawing on the Philippine data in PISA 2018 which contained responses from 6952 students nested in 180 schools, we found that students in schools that practice ability grouping did not perform any better than those in schools that did not engage in ability grouping. More importantly, schools which practice ability grouping had greater academic inequalities among students. Similar academic inequalities were also more prevalent for urban and more advantaged schools while less prevalent for private schools. Taken together, these results suggest the need to attend to sources of inequalities among students in a school, and to reconsider assumptions for the supposed benefits of ability grouping.

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 Research for Policy and Practice
Educational Research for Policy and Practice EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Educational Research for Policy and Practice, the official journal of the Asia-Pacific Educational Research Association, aims to improve education and educational research in Asia and the Pacific by promoting the dissemination of high quality research which addresses key issues in educational policy and practice. Therefore, priority will be given to research which has generated a substantive result of importance for educational policy and practice; to analyses of global forces, regional trends and national educational reforms; and to studies of key issues in teaching, learning and development - such as the challenges to be faced in learning to live together in what is the largest and most diverse region of the world. With a broad coverage of education in all sectors and levels of education, the Journal seeks to promote the contribution of educational research, both quantitative and qualitative, to system-wide reforms and policy making on the one hand, and to resolving specific problems facing teachers and learners at a particular level of education in the Asia-Pacific region on the other. Education systems worldwide face many common problems as global forces reshape our institutions and lives, while at the same time, the research and problems facing education in Asia and the Pacific reflect its rich cultural and scholarly traditions as well as specific economic and social realities. Educators and researchers can learn from significant investigations, reform programmes, evaluations and case studies of innovations in countries and cultures other than their own. One purpose of this Journal is to make such investigations within the Asian-Pacific region more widely known.
×
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