For better or for worse? a nationwide study of the social psychological effects of gender and ability grouping in mathematics

Abstract

This exploratory investigation employs the National Education Longitudinal Surveybreak(NELS:88) to examine equity in tracking from a new, less-studied angle, with the view that tracking may not be all good or all bad, but that its effects are variable. The present study considers how these variable effects might, in part, be produced through a mechanism of social comparison conceptualized by Marsh et al. as the big-fish-little-pond effect (BFLPE). It compares similar students, except that some are in schools that use tracking and some are in schools that do not use tracking. Unlike previous studies of between-track effects, it asks whether tracking works uniformly for males and females within the same track placement in a particular subject area. Analyses yielded significant differences in students' attitudes toward mathematics, educational aspirations, self-esteem, locus of control, and engagement in school. These systematic effects suggest the mechanisms of the BFLPE. Despite the ‘reflected glory’ of being in a high ability track, when males, in contrast to females, are grouped with peers of similar high ability in a subject area that defines their competence, they seem to lose their competitive edge. Low ability males are positively affected through the mechanism of comparing with their peers because the competition to do well is relatively less keen than in high tracks.