What does tracking mean in sociology?
|
Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support . We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader. With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free. Show Already have an account? Log in Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan
Log in through your institution Purchase a PDFPurchase this article for $29.00 USD. Purchase this issue for $94.00 USD. Go to Table of Contents. How does it work?
journal article What Is Tracking? Cultural Expectations in the United States, Germany, and JapanAmerican Educational Research Journal Vol. 40, No. 1 (Spring, 2003) , pp. 43-89 (47 pages) Published By: American Educational Research Association https://www.jstor.org/stable/3699425 Read and download Log in through your school or library Alternate access options For independent researchers Read Online Read 100 articles/month free Subscribe to JPASS Unlimited reading + 10 downloads Purchase article $29.00 - Download now and later Abstract On the basis of the TIMSS Case Study Project data collected in the United States, Japan, and Germany in 1994-1995, this article examines the phenomenon of tracking as part of curricular differentiation and student placement practices in public K-12 school systems. The authors document clear national differences in differentiation and placement measures and summarize the history of conflict over those measures. Analysis of respondent perceptions and beliefs about differentiation and placement (what people think "tracking" is) shows that nation-specific values and attitudes (i.e., cultures) determine which forms of curricular differentiation are legitimated and which contested. Dominant cultural beliefs about what students are capable of and the role that schools should play in educating them create different points of conflict over tracking. Journal Information American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) has as its purpose to publish original empirical and theoretical studies and analyses in education. The editors seek to publish articles from a wide variety of academic disciplines and substantive fields. They are looking for contributions that are significant to the understanding and/or improvement of educational processes and outcomes. Publisher Information The American Educational Research Association (AERA) is concerned with improving the educational process by encouraging scholarly inquiry related to education and by promoting the dissemination and practical application of research results. AERA is the most prominent international professional organization with the primary goal of advancing educational research and its practical application. Its 20,000 members are educators; administrators; directors of research, testing or evaluation in federal, state and local agencies; counselors; evaluators; graduate students; and behavioral scientists. The broad range of disciplines represented by the membership includes education, psychology, statistics, sociology, history, economics, philosophy, anthropology, and political science. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. Issue The term tracking refers to a method used by many secondary schools to group students according to their perceived ability, IQ, or achievement levels. Students are placed in high, middle, or low tracks in an effort to provide them with a level of curriculum and instruction that is appropriate to their needs. The practice of tracking began in the 1930s and has been the subject of intense controversy in the past 20 years. Opponents argue that this model is detrimental to students, especially in the low and middle tracks largely comprising low-income and minority students (Slavin, 1990). Instructional methods tend to be more engaging, reflective, and challenging in high tracks, whereas low tracks emphasize good behavior and menial skills. Moreover, low-track students are often given the least qualified teachers and high-track students receive the best teachers, a practice that exacerbates the achievement gap and perpetuates a cycle of failure for low-achieving students (Education Trust, 2004). Tracking, therefore, unfairly isolates low-income and minority students in what amounts to a resegregation of students within schools (Oakes and Guiton, 1995). Opponents further argue that, regardless of ability, students will generally attain higher achievement in more-rigorous classes (Hallinan, 2000) Even students who fail in Advanced Placement courses have a better chance of earning a college degree, simply by virtue of having been exposed to a challenging curriculum (Adelman, 1999). Advocates of tracking argue that this model efficiently addresses the different achievement needs of students. Successful students are sent to high tracks while struggling students are assigned to low tracks, with the expectation that all students can perform according to their ability and motivation levels. It is also expected that students can move up and down the track ladder as their achievement levels change. Tracking, they argue, also makes teaching easier, as teachers can focus their lessons on one level of instruction only. Finally, defenders of tracking argue that research has failed to make a convincing case against tracking as findings show that high-track students would be held back and low-track students would not necessarily benefit from detracking (Loveless, 2002). Whether right or wrong, tracking is a generally accepted and a central part of the culture of secondary schools and will not be easily abolished. Schools that have attempted to end tracking have faced significant barriers. Parents of high-track students have resisted it, arguing that detracking would harm their children by taking teachers’ attention away from them. Many teachers, especially high-track teachers, have also opposed a change that would make teaching admittedly more challenging. NASSP Guiding Principles
Recommendations NASSP urges principals to:
References Adelman, Clifford, 1999. Answers in the Toolbox: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment. U.S. Department of Education, Jessup, MD. Camblin, Sharon, Gullatt, Yvette, Klopott, Shayna, 2003. Strategies for Success: Six Stories of Increasing College Access. Pathways to College Network, Boston, MA. http://www.pathwaystocollege.net/webarticles/pdf/strategiesforsuccess.pdf Hallinan, Maureen T., 2000. Ability Group Effects on High School Learning Outcomes. Loveless, Tom, 2002. The Tracking and Ability Grouping Debate, Thomas Fordham Foundation. NASSP, 2004, Breakthrough High Schools: You Can Do It Too, Reston,VA Oakes, Jeannie and Guiton, Gretchen, 1995. “Matchmaking: The Dynamics of High School Tracking Decisions.” American Educational Research Journal Vol. 32, No. 1:3-33 Slavin, R.E. 1990. “Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis.” Review of Educational Research. Vol. 80: 471-499 The Education Trust, 2004. The Real Value of Teachers, Thinking K-16, Vol. 8, Issue 1. Winter 2004. The Education Trust, Inc. Washington, DC. Wheelock, Anne, October 1992. “The case for Untracking”, in Untracking for Equity, Volume 50, Number 2, p. 6-10, ASCD. ————————- Adopted July 13, 2006 What is tracking in sociology of education?Tracking – also known as educational stratification, ability grouping, sorting or differentiation – refers to the allocation of students into an educational environment that is more homogeneous in terms of the students' cognitive abilities (Bol et al.
What does the term tracking refers to?The term tracking refers to a method used by many secondary schools to group students according to their perceived ability, IQ, or achievement levels. Students are placed in high, middle, or low tracks in an effort to provide them with a level of curriculum and instruction that is appropriate to their needs.
What is the difference between tracking and grouping?Assignment to Ability Grouping and Tracking
Ability grouping is the assignment of students to classes or instructional groups based upon the students' level of ability or achievement. Tracking is the assignment to different courses of instruction.
What is the difference between differentiation and tracking?I said that tracking refers to the systematic grouping of students into classes based on their overall achievement. By contrast, differentiated instruction is the adjusting of lesson activities and tasks for students in a single class who are at different levels.
|
