Academic tracking is related to gains in students' intelligence over four years: Evidence from a propensity score matching study.

Autor/inn/en	Guill, Karin; Lüdtke, Oliver; Köller, Olaf
Titel	Academic tracking is related to gains in students' intelligence over four years: Evidence from a propensity score matching study.
Quelle	In: Learning and instruction, (2017) 47, S. 43-52Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei (1); PDF als Volltext (2) Link als defekt meldenVerfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	Forschungsdaten, Studiendetails und Erhebungsinstrumente
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0959-4752
DOI	10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.10.001
URN	urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs-126793
Schlagwörter	Empirische Untersuchung; Intelligenz (Psychologie); Kognitive Entwicklung; Leistungssteigerung; Schulqualität; Differenzierender Unterricht; Lerngruppe; Unterrichtsmethode; Leistungskurs; Einflussfaktor; Hamburg
Abstract	Ability grouping or tracking during secondary schooling is widespread. Previous research shows academic track schools are more successful than non-academic track schools in teaching mathematics, reading and foreign languages. Reasons include a more favorable student composition and higher instructional quality. However, there is less evidence that between track differences are even large enough to differentially affect the students' cognitive development. We used data from a large Hamburg panel study to test this hypothesis (N = 8628). By employing several propensity score matching algorithms we formed parallelized samples of academic track and either non-academic track students or comprehensive school students. After four years of tracking, academic track students showed considerably higher intelligence scores than their counterparts at the non-academic tracks and slightly higher scores than students at the comprehensive schools. Our results underline the importance of a cognitively stimulating learning environment in school to support students' cognitive development. (IPN/Orig.).
Erfasst von	DIPF \| Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsforschung und Bildungsinformation, Frankfurt am Main
Update	2017/3