| Robert Petrin
University of Chicago
The distribution and effects of instruction for high school math and science
FINAL REPORT:
Research on opportunity to learn (OTL) at the secondary level often analyzes the effects of students' instructional experiences at the track- or school-level, and by and large only implicitly takes into account students' prior orientation to classroom material. As a result, the curriculum is incorporated into analyses at levels of aggregation that don't fully correspond to students' strategies or behaviors, or the ways in which subject matter is organized within schools. The purpose of this project was to extend current research on instructional effects in education by modeling differences in students' instructional experiences within and between distinct positions in math and science curricula while also demonstrating the ways in which the distribution and effects of instruction vary by course level.
The data for this study were drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of 1988. Drawing upon multigroup structural equation modeling techniques, methods for missing data analysis, and two separate subsamples consisting of 9,167 sophomores enrolled in one of four mathematics curricular positions and 7,170 sophomores enrolled in one of four science curricular positions at the time of the First Follow-Up questionnaire, it was found that: (1) instructional experiences are qualitatively different across positions in math and science curricula; (2) prior student motivations and aspirations were among the strongest predictors of classroom experiences as well as student engagement and achievement; (3) among courses that can be judged similar in terms of students' instructional experiences, social, material, and institutional and curricular resources interact in different ways across curricular positions to influence learning; (4) student-reported classroom instructional contents are significantly correlated with student engagement and achievement in math and science, but did not always have the effects proponents of curricular reform often suggest; and (5) many students at the middle and upper ends of the achievement and socioeconomic spectrum could be classified as "underchallenged" or "disengaged" in math and science -- this was particularly the case for more talented and more ambitious students, as well as students attending academically strong schools.
These findings suggest not only that the curriculum must be incorporated into analyses of OTL in a more comprehensive manner than is commonly done, but that the effects of broad-based pedagogical reforms at the secondary level cannot be taken for granted because the associated constraints on innovation are multi-layered and manifest in various resource positions created by interpenetrating school, social, and curricular restructures. It is likely that isolated or localized interventions or changes in curricula may only enjoy modest effects until reform becomes established throughout all levels of the educational system. In order to improve the opportunities for all students to learn, reformers must take into account the variation in needs and interests of students within a range of positions in the curriculum in a way that neither discourages the intellectual growth and aspirations of less talented students or frustrates the natural inclinations and learning styles of more talented students.
Back to Funded Dissertation Grants Page |