Adam Gamoran

Discussion-Based Approaches to Developing Understanding: Classroom Instruction and Student Performance in Middle and High School English

This study examines the relationships between student literacy performance and discussion-based approaches to the development of understanding in 64 middle and high school English classrooms. A series of hierarchical linear models indicated that discussion-based approaches were significantly related to spring performance, controlling for fall performance and other background variables. These approaches were effective across a range of situations and for low-achieving as well as high-achieving students, although interpretations are complicated because instruction is unequally distributed across tracks. Overall, the results suggest that students whose classroom literacy experiences emphasize discussion-based approaches in the context of high academic demands internalize the knowledge and skills necessary to engage in challenging literacy tasks on their own.

The Effects of Stratification in Secondary Schools: Synthesis of Survey and Ethnographic Research

On the topic of stratification in secondary schools, this paper uses ethnographic research to interpret the findings of survey analyses and uses survey studies to assess the causal implications and generalizability of ethnographic findings. The authors criticize survey research for ambiguity concerning the measurement of within-school stratification and for lack of attention to the mechanisms through which the effects of grouping and tracking occur. At the same time, ethnographic research is seen as limited by an inability to demonstrate the significance of between-track differences in social and instructional conditions and by the failure to disentangle track effects from the influence of social class and other preexisting circumstances. The authors advocate longitudinal, quantitative research that is sensitive to the actual dimensions of stratification in schools, and to classroom conditions and processes that vary across levels of the academic hierarchy.

The Variable Effects of High School Tracking.

The effects of tracking in high schools depend in part on the way tracking is organized: To the extent that the structure of tracking varies across schools, trackings impact on achievement also varies. I examine four structural characteristics of tracking systems: selectivity, electivity, inclusiveness, and scope. I predict that differences in these characteristics lead to variation in between-track inequality (the achievement gap between tracks) and school productivity (average achievement of students in the school), net of the composition of the student body. In addition, I hypothesize that Catholic schools have less inequality between tracks and higher productivity overall than public schools. I test the hypotheses using data from High School and Beyond, a national survey of high schools and their students. The results show that schools vary significantly in the magnitude of track effects on math achievement, and they differ in net average achievement on both math and verbal tests. Schools with more mobility in their tracking systems produce higher math achievement overall. They also have smaller gaps between tracks in both math and verbal achievement when compared to schools with more rigid tracking systems. Moderately inclusive systems also have less between-track inequality in math; and overall school achievement tends to rise in both subjects as inclusiveness increases. The hypotheses about Catholic schools are also supported, especially for math achievement. The way Catholic schools implement tracking partially accounts for their advantages.

Upgrading High School Mathematics Instruction: Improving Learning Opportunities for Low-Achieving, Low-Income Youth

Low-achieving, low-income students are typically tracked into dead-end math courses in high school. In this article, the authors evaluate the success of “transition” math courses in California and New York, which are designed to bridge the gap between elementary and college-preparatory mathematics and to provide access to more challenging and meaningful mathematics for students who enter high school with poor skills. The authors hypothesize that the transition courses—Math A in California and Stretch Regents and UCSMP Math in New York—allow students to keep pace with those who enter college-preparatory courses by covering rigorous mathematical content using a range of cognitive strategies. Data from 882 students in 48 math classes are analyzed using a three-level hierarchical linear model. The results show that growth in student achievement is significantly lower in general-track classes than in college-preparatory classes. Achievement in transition classes falls in between: not significantly lower than in college-preparatory classes, but not significantly greater than in general-track classes. More rigorous content coverage accounts for much of the achievement advantage of college-preparatory classes. The transition classes are judged a partial success in meeting their goal of upgrading the quality of mathematics instruction for low-achieving, low-income youth.

Class Size and Student Achievement

Schooling has multiple purposes. In the long run, higher levels of schooling are associated with higher earnings and economic mobility, better health, lower mortality rates, and greater democratic participation. For these reasons, most societies require children to attend school for a specified number of years or until they reach a certain age. Many of the benefits of schooling occur in part because students learn some new knowledge or skills that enhance their ability to communicate, solve problems, and make decisions. Much of the debate over schooling is essentially about how to maximize the amount of student learning, typically as measured by various assessment instruments such as standardized achievement tests. From a societal viewpoint, since resources—most notably, time—are required for learning, and are scarce, the amount of learning needs to be maximized at least cost. Learning is complex, involving cognitive processes that are not completely understood. Typically, school systems have established a primary mode of learning that involves groups of students of about the same age interacting with a single individual leading activities in a confined physical space, directed toward learning a particular topic—in other words, students are placed in classes. The number of other students in the class can vary. At the extreme, there can be one or more adults facilitating learning—teachers—with one or two students. At the other, a student may be one of a few hundred being taught by a single instructor (or, with new Internet technology, one of millions). The number of students in a class has the potential to affect how much is learned in a number of different ways. For example, it could affect how students interact with each other—the level of social engagement. This may result, for example, in more or less noise and disruptive behavior, which in turn affect the kinds of activities the teacher is able to promote. It could affect how much time the teacher is able to focus on individual students and their specific needs rather than on the group as a whole. Since it is easier to focus on one individual in a smaller group, the smaller the class size, the more likely individual attention can be given, in theory at least. The class size could also affect the teacher’s allocation of time and, hence, effectiveness, in other ways, too—for example, how much material can be covered. Teachers may choose different methods of teaching and assessment when they have smaller classes. For example, they may assign more writing, or provide more feedback on students’ written work, or use open-ended assessments, or encourage more discussions, all activities that may be more feasible with a smaller number of students. Exposure to a particular learning environment may affect learning over the time period of exposure, or it may have longer term or delayed effects (e.g., by increasing self-esteem or cognitive developments that have lasting effects). For these reasons, changes to the class size are considered a potential means of changing how much students learn. Not only is class size potentially one of the key variables in the “production” of learning or knowledge, it is one of the simplest variables for policymakers to manipulate. However, the amount of student learning is dependent on many different factors. Some are related to the classroom and school environment in which the class takes place, but others are related to the student’s own background and motivation and broader community influences. When we ask whether class size matters for achievement, it is essential to ask also, how class size matters. This is important for three reasons. First, if we can observe not only achievement differences, but also the mechanisms through which the differences are produced, this will increase our confidence that the differences are real, and not an artifact of some unmeasured or inadequately controlled condition. Second, the effects of class size may vary in different circumstances, and identifying how class size affects achievement will help us to understand why the effects of class size are variable. Third, the potential benefits of class-size reduction may be greater than what we observe. For example, suppose class-size reductions aid achievement, but only when teachers modify instructional practices to take advantage of the smaller classes. If a few teachers make such modifications, but most do not, then understanding how class size affects achievement in some cases will help reveal its potential effects, even if the potential is generally unrealized.

An Organizational Analysis of the Effects of Ability Grouping

Ability grouping appears to be a logical means of organizing a student body with diverse academic skills. Many observers contend, however, that the practice favors students in high-ability groups at the expense of students in lower groups. An organizational conception of ability grouping clarifies the rationale for ability grouping but also illuminates its shortcomings: Grouping students leads to segregation on nonacademic as well as academic criteria, and differentiated instruction may lead to unequal results for students assigned to different groups. These issues are explored with data from 92 honors, regular, and remedial English classes in eighth and ninth grade. We examine the characteristics of students placed in different groups, similarities and differences in the quality of instruction across groups, and the links between instruction and achievement. The data show that rates of student participation and discussion are higher in honors classes, contributing to the learning gaps between groups. Rates of open-ended questions are similar across classes, but honors students benefit more from such discourse because it occurs more often in the context of sustained study of literature.

Student Achievement in Public Magnet, Public Comprehensive, and Private City High Schools

Problems with our public urban high schools are widely discussed, and many see magnet schools and private schools as the answer. But are those schools really better at increasing the academic skills of students? Using the National Educational Longitudinal Survey, I estimated the effect of attending a magnet school, Catholic school, or secular private school on the achievement of urban students in math, reading, science, and social studies. I then compared these estimates to the achievement of students who attend comprehensive public high schools. I found that magnet schools are more effective than regular schools at raising the proficiency of students in science, reading, and social studies; Catholic schools have a positive impact on math skills, while secular private schools do not offer any advantage, net of preexisting differences among students. Further analyses tested the sensitivity of the results to assumptions about independence and selectivity; these showed support for the magnet school advantages in reading and social studies, but raised doubts about the Catholic school effects in math and the magnet school effects in science.

Instructional and Institutional Effects of Ability Grouping.

This paper attempts to uncover the mechanisms through which stratification in schools differentiates student achievement. Two types of mechanisms are considered: (1) technical conditions of differentially allocated instruction, and (2) institutional processes operating through symbolically defined categories. Using data from twelve first-grade classrooms, I isolated the instructional effects and found that they are both large and stable. Institutional processes account at most for a small grouping effect, which occurs early in the year but fades as the year progresses.

Race, Instruction, and Learning.

Racial differences in learning to read are explained by the application of a sociological model of school system, classroom, and instructional organization. Neither differences in individual background characteristics (aptitude and SES) nor variation in structural position (ability group assignment) alone suffice to explain why nonblacks learn more than blacks in a sample of 302 first graders. To account for such differences it is necessary to consider educational technology, the conditions and activities that constitute instruction. The results show that learning is produced through a set of technological conditions, primarily time spent in instruction and the coverage of curricular materials. These features of instruction in our sample differ in schools attended by blacks and in those attended by nonblacks, with black students being exposed to restricted learning opportunities orginating in district and school differences in the availability of technological resources.

The Production of Achievement Inequality in High School English

Does unequal access to high quality English instruction lead to unequal achievement outcomes for students? Four key aspects of high quality instruction—quantity of assignments, coherence of instruction, student voice in curricular and pedagogical issues, and the content of instruction—are examined to see whether each aspect affects growth in reading achievement from grades 8 to 12. Analyses indicate that some aspects of student voice enhance achievement growth, but quantity and coherence do not. Content has the most substantial impact on achievement growth: greater emphasis on analytical writing is associated with greater growth in reading scores. Overall, these measures of instructional practices partially explain why students’ track position and reading achievement are related.