TY  - JOUR
A1  - Chmielewski, Anna K.
A1  - Dumont, Hanna
A1  - Trautwein, Ulrich
T1  - Tracking Effects Depend on Tracking Type
BT  - An International Comparison of Students’ Mathematics Self-Concept
JF  - American Educational Research Journal
N2  - The aim of the present study was to examine how different types of tracking—
between-school streaming, within-school streaming, and course-by-course
tracking—shape students’ mathematics self-concept. This was done in an
internationally comparative framework using data from the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA). After controlling for individual
and track mean achievement, results indicated that generally for students
in course-by-course tracking, high-track students had higher mathematics
self-concepts and low-track students had lower mathematics self-concepts.
For students in between-school and within-school streaming, the reverse pat-
tern was found. These findings suggest a solution to the ongoing debate about
the effects of tracking on students’ academic self-concept and suggest that the
reference groups to which students compare themselves differ according to the
type of tracking.
KW  - academic self-concept
KW  - international comparison
KW  - reference groups
KW  - social comparison
KW  - tracking
Y1  - 2013
UR  - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0002831213489843
U6  - https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213489843
SN  - 0002-8312
VL  - 50
IS  - 5
SP  - 926
EP  - 957
PB  - Sage
CY  - Thousand Oaks, Calif.
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Dumont, Hanna
A1  - Ready, Douglas D. D.
T1  - On the promise of personalized learning for educational equity
JF  - npj science of learning
N2  - Students enter school with a vast range of individual differences, resulting from the complex interplay between genetic dispositions and unequal environmental conditions. Schools thus face the challenge of organizing instruction and providing equal opportunities for students with diverse needs. Schools have traditionally managed student heterogeneity by sorting students both within and between schools according to their academic ability. However, empirical evidence suggests that such tracking approaches increase inequalities. In more recent years, driven largely by technological advances, there have been calls to embrace students' individual differences in the classroom and to personalize students' learning experiences. A central justification for personalized learning is its potential to improve educational equity. In this paper, we discuss whether and under which conditions personalized learning can indeed increase equity in K-12 education by bringing together empirical and theoretical insights from different fields, including the learning sciences, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. We distinguish between different conceptions of equity and argue that personalized learning is unlikely to result in "equality of outcomes" and, by definition, does not provide "equality of inputs". However, if implemented in a high-quality way, personalized learning is in line with "adequacy" notions of equity, which aim to equip all students with the basic competencies to participate in society as active members and to live meaningful lives.
KW  - Education
KW  - Psychology
KW  - Sociology
Y1  - 2023
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-023-00174-x
SN  - 2056-7936
VL  - 8
IS  - 1
PB  - Nature Publishing Group
CY  - London
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Tetzlaff, Leonard
A1  - Hartmann, Ulrike
A1  - Dumont, Hanna
A1  - Brod, Garvin
T1  - Assessing individualized instruction in the classroom
BT  - comparing teacher, student, and observer perspectives
JF  - Learning and instruction : the journal of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI)
N2  - In this article, we address the measurement of individualized instruction in the context of regular classroom instruction. Our study assessed instructional practices geared towards individualization in German third grade reading lessons by combining self-report data from 621 students, from their teachers (n = 57), and live obser-vations. We then investigated the reliability of these different approaches to measuring individualization as well as the agreement between them. All three approaches yielded reliable indicators of individualized practices, but not all of them corresponded with each other. We found considerable agreement between students and observers, but neither agreed with teachers' self-reports. Upon closer examination, we found that students' ratings only correlated with teacher ratings that were provided close to the timepoint of interest. This correlation increased when teacher measures were corrected for response tendencies. We conclude with some recommendations for future studies that aim to measure individualized instruction in the classroom.
KW  - Individualization
KW  - Personalization
KW  - Differentiation
KW  - Adaptive teaching;
KW  - Individualized instruction
KW  - Instructional quality
KW  - Learning
KW  - environments
KW  - Live observations
KW  - Classroom research
Y1  - 2022
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101655
SN  - 0959-4752
SN  - 1873-3263
VL  - 82
PB  - Elsevier
CY  - Oxford
ER  -