University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students

(USC Thesis Other)

The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TRACKING AND IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 1

THE TRACKING EFFECT: TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY IN
MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS
by

Anakonia L. Matsumoto

______________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2019

Copyright 2019 Anakonia L. Matsumoto
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 2

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my late grandmother and namesake, Anthonia Kaniaupio. My
first teacher who taught me at an early age the importance of lifelong learning, I will never
forget her words: Kulia i ka nu ’u (strive for the highest). Thank you, grandma, ke akua pu.

I also want to dedicate this journey and dissertation to my mom, Reverend Cynthia K. Naweli.
Your constant encouragement to never give up, never quit, and never give in resonate deep
within my soul. Born of your heart, I thank you forever for the endless sacrifices you continue to
make for me. I love you more – beyond, beyond.

TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 3

Acknowledgements
This dissertation process has been one of the most significant academic challenges I have
ever had. First and foremost, thank you Lord for making all things possible. You are my rock and
my salvation.
Next, without the love and support of my family and friends, this accomplishment would
not have been possible. To everyone who has been a part of this process, you are all amazing and
I am so grateful for you.
I dedicate this work to my immediate family near and far. Your prayers and belief in my
abilities have pushed me to achieve my dreams. To Ken Matsumoto, thank you for your
eagerness to help in any way needed to make this journey sustainable. Without question, you did
whatever needed to make things easy and I am forever grateful. To my Kaniaupio family, you
are “the wind beneath my wings” and I am proud to represent. To the BE family, prayers are
priceless. Thank you all for your endless prayers and spiritual support. You are truly “sweeter
than honey.”
Special love and “warm fuzzies” goes to my two babies: Aryana Matsumoto and
Malakye Matsumoto. You are both my constant affirmation of God’s love and blessing and I am
most fortunate to be YOUR mom. You, more than anyone, were my drive to complete this great
task. Your pride in me and encouragement through this process allowed me to reach the finish
line. Thank you for sacrificing endless days and nights of having to “be quiet so mom can
study.” Life-long learning is important. I dedicate this part of my life to you and will always be
your greatest fan.
A special thank you goes to my editor and best friend through this entire doctoral process
– Jeff Piontek. Thank you for convincing me to apply to this program, and then being my go-to
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 4

guy for everything dissertation-related and more, including two years of last-minute edits (yes,
everything is last minute!) and helping to navigate every step of the way. Words cannot express
my gratitude for all you do; thank you for helping me to “defy gravity” as I have truly been
changed “for good.”
To my BCMS crew – we are family! Thank you for letting me vent, laugh and cry during
our lunch “therapy” sessions. I know I went M.I.A. the last few months while trying to get this
done but appreciate every note and text of encouragement and hugs in the hallway. You all rock!
I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Kaplan and committee members for your
support and guidance throughout this entire process. Fight on!

TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 5

Table of Contents
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................7
Abstract ................................................................................................................................8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .................................................................................10
Introduction ..................................................................................................................10
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................13
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................15
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................16
Research Questions ......................................................................................................16
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................17
Limitations ...................................................................................................................18
Delimitations ................................................................................................................18
Definitions....................................................................................................................19
Organization of Dissertation ........................................................................................22
Chapter Two: Literature Review .......................................................................................23
Introduction ..................................................................................................................23
Definition and Historical Overview of Tracking .........................................................23
Controversies in Tracking ............................................................................................25
Conflicting Positioning and Tracking Viewpoints ......................................................26
Tracking and Learning .................................................................................................27
Tracking Placements and Identification.......................................................................30
Perception and Achievement .......................................................................................32
Chapter Three: Methodology .............................................................................................33
Brief Introduction with Context of the Study ..............................................................33
Research Design and Methodology .............................................................................34
Description of the Site .................................................................................................36
Sample and Population ................................................................................................37
Data Collection and Analysis.......................................................................................38
Ethical Consideration ...................................................................................................40
Limitations ...................................................................................................................40
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 6

Conclusions ..................................................................................................................40
Chapter Four: The Findings ...............................................................................................41
Analysis of Findings: Research Question 1 .................................................................43
Analysis of Findings: Research Question 2 .................................................................50
Analysis of Findings: Research Question 3 .................................................................55
Summary ......................................................................................................................62
Chapter Five: Discussion ...................................................................................................64
Introduction ..................................................................................................................64
Summary ......................................................................................................................64
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................65
Research Questions ......................................................................................................65
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................65
Research Question One ..........................................................................................67
Research Question Two .........................................................................................68
Research Question Three ......................................................................................70
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................71
Recommendations ........................................................................................................72
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................74
References ..........................................................................................................................76
Figures................................................................................................................................87
Appendix A: Student Self-report survey................................................................................
Appendix B: Teacher Self-report survey ...............................................................................
Appendix C: School Accountability Report Card .................................................................
Appendix D: School Site Demographics ...............................................................................
Appendix E: School Site CAASPP results ............................................................................
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 7

List of Figures
Figure A: Student understanding of the term tracking .......................................................88
Figure B: Student choice for language arts class ...............................................................89
Figure C: Current grade to student ability and performance .............................................90
Figure D: Tracking and student labeling ...........................................................................91
Figure E: Student confidence in academic abilities ...........................................................92
Figure F: Student self-labeling...........................................................................................93
Figure G: Student opinions on teachers’ opinions about them ..........................................94
Figure H: Direct connection between class placement and motivation .............................95
Figure I: Language arts class and self-efficacy..................................................................96
Figure J: Language arts class and challenge factor ............................................................97
Figure K: Average minutes used for study ........................................................................98
Figure L: Student effort .....................................................................................................99
Figure M: Student interest in language arts class ............................................................100
Figure N: Student effort level ..........................................................................................101
Figure O: Responses to lack of challenge ........................................................................102
Figure P: Tracking and the effect on student perception of abilities ...............................103
Figure Q: Teacher rating on impact of peer abilities ......................................................104
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 8

Abstract
The overwhelming number of students of color not achieving in schools continue to grow despite
the nation’s effort to provide equitable education for all students. African American and Latino
students are often times denied an equal education as urban school struggle with societal and
educational challenges. Unfortunately, very few schools and districts with students of color
deliver high-performing results on state and national standardized assessments. Research reveals
that students with a stronger sense of self-efficacy have the ability to perform better than those
who do not. According to Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, increased levels of self-
efficacy greatly contributes to one’s ability to perform and complete a task. This study conducted
at Oceanview Middle School sought to examine whether a students’ placement in high or low-
level classes due to tracking impacted the students’ perceived self-efficacy and if it further
influenced their academic performance, specifically in language arts. The study focused on a title
1 school in southern California. A mixed-methods study approach was used to conduct a study of
one middle school, focusing on 8th grade students in language arts. Students from honors,
general, and support language arts classes completed self-report surveys. The study explored
three research questions to determine the factors that impact student self-efficacy. The three
research questions included:
1. How does ability grouping using tracking (support, general, honors) affect the eighth
graders’ perceptions of their abilities and achievements in language arts?
2. How does the self-efficacy of eighth grade students who are assigned to different tracks
(support, general, honors) affect their academic achievement in language arts?
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 9

3. How do the teachers’ perceptions of the eighth-grade students’ academic achievement in
language arts across different tracks (support, general, honors) relate to the students’ own
perceptions of their achievement in the same area?
This study found that there are numerous complexities surrounding the practice of tracking.
Eighth-grade students that participated in the survey have similar perceptions about tracking and
its impact on self-efficacy and academic achievement. Future research is recommended to
include a larger sample of students from different schools. Similarities and differences as a
function of socio-economic status and school type would be significant. The success of a student,
especially of color, greatly depends on numerous factors including self-efficacy.

TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 10

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Introduction
Since the twentieth century, ability grouping, also known as tracking, has sparked debate
across the country. Critics argue that (1) students are disadvantaged by tracking, (2) tracking
promotes inequality, (3) and that tracking promotes inequality and channels poor and minority
students into low tracks which seals their fate with an impoverished education (Loveless, 1998).
Yet proponents of tracking argue that high achieving students are less likely to be challenged in
mixed ability classes due to the wide range of ability levels of students. Studies indicate that
educators continue to favor the practice despite the bounty of negative literature on its so-called
detrimental effects on academic achievement, self-efficacy and self-esteem (Loveless, 2013).
Slavin (1987) views the most plausible argument against this practice in its “creation of
academic elites, a practice which goes against democratic ideals.”
Many schools across the country have or continue to implement ability grouping, also
known as tracking, to categorize and match students to curriculum or tracks. According to
scholarly research, ability grouping refers to a differentiation in curriculum and instruction based
on some form of measurement of student ability or performance (LeTendre, Hofer and Shimizu,
2003). The “curriculum” refers to the specific content of the subject, “courses” when bundled
together into units of instruction, and “program” when collected as units of the study (Loveless,
1999). More common in the elementary levels, within-class grouping allows teachers to place
students of similar ability in small group within the individualized class (Hollifield, 1987). At the
middle and high school level, between-class grouping involves the school’s practice of assigning
entire groups of students with similar ability levels into specific class schedules designed to best
accommodate their needs. Usually students will first experience tracking in middle school where
students lagging in Math or English will be placed in a remedial class (Loveless, 1999). On the
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 11

same note, those that excel in particular subjects may have the chance to be placed in honors
classes or receive advanced instruction, based on availability if the school offers it.
The practice of tracking goes back to the early 1900’s. During the 20’s and 30’s, four
main curricula existed: college preparatory, vocational (e.g., metal work, plumbing), general and
trade-oriented. Skin color, IQ, and race were key factors in determining their track placement
(Darling-Hammond, 2016). It was common for children from a lower socio-economic status and
children of immigrants to be assumed inferior in cognitive ability and placed in the appropriate
course track. As the nation’s demands for the working class continued to change, requirements
for industrial jobs demanded more than an eighth-grade education. A growing number of
students stayed in school working to obtain a high school degree but many of them struggled
with keeping up with the academic rigor. Educators and policy makers created “curriculum
tracks” to give students exposure to the courses based on what careers they would most likely
pursue. This policy however ended up being a justification for inequity and discrimination
(Mühlenweg &Puhani, 2010).
During the 60’s and 70’s, a push to eliminate social class and racial divide was met with
an educational push for student equity. Schools needed to prepare all students for college. The
practice of tracking fell to the wayside as the belief of student success moved schools to equalize
the course placement for every student. The aftermath of this push resulted in lower standards
and watered-down curricula (Angus & Mirel, 1993). Student performance on national
assessments declined dramatically and the nation grew concerned over the quality of education
students were receiving (Ravitch, 1990). Yet the growing concern was not a national level
priority and the general public were apathetic. However, the launch of Sputnik caused the public
to worry about the lack of rigor in schools. Laws were passed to address inequities in education
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 12

and the preparedness of students to lead the nation’s space race. Such laws included 1965’s
Elementary and Secondary Act (ESSA), which is now Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and
formerly known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the American Disability Act of 1972
(ADA, U. S. Department of Labor, n.d.); and the Individual Disability Education Act of 1975
(IDEA). The birth of programs including special education, gifted education and bilingual
education became accessible to students across the country.
A shift in interest occurred with the publication of “A Nation at Risk,” an examination
done in 1983 by the National Commission on Excellence in Education regarding the quality of
education in the United States. With the report stating “a rising tide of mediocrity” and alarming
the public, the education crisis became headline news overnight and the public attention needed
was finally heard. Since then, roughly 30 years later, public education continues to remain one of
our nation’s top priorities. There is an overwhelming abundance of concern for student
performance with emphasis surrounding test scores and proficiency rates.
Today, many schools continue to adopt tracking for grouping purposes in middle and
high schools. Depending on the school and grade level, tracking occurs in various forms most
commonly with students grouped into entirely separate classrooms of different abilities with
different teachers and instructional materials. Studies indicated that both teachers and
administrators have various opinions on tracking. Teachers that favor tracking appreciate the
ease in preparing lessons for homogeneous groups than having to prepare and differentiate
lessons for students of mixed ability groups in one single class (Ansalone, 2010; Biafora &
Ansalone, 2008; Glass, 2002; Holloway, 2001). Administrators are inclined to implement
tracking no necessarily because they believe it is the most effective means to place students in
their classes but because it is easier for schools (Ginsburg, 2016).
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 13

Significance of the Study
Since the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was implemented, its primary goal
of closing the achievement gap for all students has ignited a standards-based education reform
with particular emphasis on standardized assessments. Schools continue to be judged based on
students’ proficiency rates and teachers are held accountable for student performance or lack
thereof. Educational reformists such as Oakes (1985) and Burris & Garrity (2008) believe that by
reviewing the influence of tracking on student performance and minimizing the number of
students tracked, the greater the chance there will be of closing the achievement gap. Because the
various tracks include differentiated curriculums, expectations for both content and skills also
vary which may hinder students’ full academic opportunities and subsequently, their potential in
the lower level classes in relation to their peers placed in higher level course.
Title 1 schools who typically serve large student populations of minority and
disadvantaged students face the challenging task of closing the achievement gap by making sure
these students meet rigorous state academic standards. In the Beach City USD, students with the
lowest math scores on their fifth grade California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress (CAASPP) are automatically placed in support classes for both math and English when
they enter the sixth grade. These “at risk” student groups seldom meet the performance standards
on the CAASPP middle school assessments as determined by the Technical Advisory Committee
for the California Department of Education. Yearly test results have shown that there is a greater
number of students that are placed in general education and honors tracks that meet or exceed the
performance standards. The table below represents the percentage of sixth grade students by
category who “nearly met” or “did not meet” the standards in math.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 14

Research has shown that low track classes fail to help students reach their full academic
potential and that school administrators who use tracking to sort students create a harmful
environment for disabled and economically disadvantaged students (Rubin, 2008). Yet, other
educators and parents support their belief that high achievers should be segregated to allow for
learning benefits in a more challenged curriculum-based environment, allowing room for greater
academic growth. Rubin and others have posited that the practice of tracking persists due to
inherent institutional politics, beliefs, values and culture as much as to “technical, structural or
organizational needs” (Pritchard, 2012).
Tracking, which results in the practice of ability grouping, exists in schools for the
purpose of assigning students according to similar ability levels or skills for the purpose of
achieving specific goals designed to be attainable. Ability grouping, most often occurring in the
elementary grade levels, groups students of similar abilities within the same class. These
instances involve such groups to work according to their cognitive level where the instructor
delivers differentiated instruction varying by abilities. Tomlinson (2014 as cited in Park &
Datnow 2017) explains that differentiated instruction includes differentiation through (a) content
involving information and ideas, (b) process of how students take in information, (c) product
including how students demonstrate their understanding and (d) effect and environment of the
classroom. As students move to middle and high schools, grouping within the classroom
becomes grouping by classes. Students with various academic abilities take classes with different
teachers, instructional materials, or at a different pace (Pritchard, 2012, p. 5). These differing
“tracks” of an institution expose the higher achieving students to college preparatory courses and
equips them with resources for college acceptance and attendance. The lower support “tracks”
places emphasis on remediation and vocational opportunities.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 15

The effects of tracking and its impact on the distribution of ability and achievement has
been widely researched. Qualitative research stresses how tracking denies low-ability students
challenging curricular opportunities and stigmatizes them with demoralizing labels (Rubin &
Noguera, 2004). Quantitative research has documented achievement advantages associated with
high-track membership and disadvantages associated with low-track membership” (Loveless,
16). This system of tracking also impacts students’ perceived self-efficacy. Bandura defined
perceived self-efficacy as “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute
courses of actions required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, Self-
efficacy Defined, para 1).
Statement of the Problem
Despite the abundance of literature surrounding the topic of tracking, few studies focus
on learning and understanding self-perceptions of students based on academic tracking and its
impact on self-efficacy. This policy and implementation, still used in schools for middle school
course placements along with the psychological impact it has on student motivation and
performance must be investigated.
The results of this study will benefit teachers and administrators working in school
settings that continue to implement tracking. For classroom teachers, the study will present an
opportunity to examine their own beliefs on student tracking and its impact on students’ self-
efficacy. This study can contribute to teachers’ understanding on the effects of tracking and
perceived self-efficacy among eighth grade students and how they can personalize instruction.
For administrators, the study will offer a better understanding of eighth grade students’
perceptions of themselves and their abilities due to their class placement and how it impacts their
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 16

own self-efficacy and achievement. In addition, they will be able to assess their own tracking
policy and adjust, if needed to best serve their student population.
Purpose of the study
The researcher’s primary purpose of this study is to examine whether a student’s
placement in high or low-level classes due to tracking impacts the students’ perceived self-
efficacy and if it further influences their academic performance, specifically in Language Arts.
The study also examines teachers’ perceptions of student self-efficacy and academic
performance in relation to the students’ own perceptions. This study focuses on eighth grade
students in a Title I school. Findings from this study can assist school administrators in the
decision-making and implementation process regarding student tracking and course placement.
The intent of this study is to shed light on the implications tracking has on a middle schooler’s
self-esteem and motivation and discover the role it plays on academic performance.
Research Questions
Based on (1) evidence that tracking has been identified as the major culprit for widening
the achievement gap (Loveless, 1999), (2) the necessity to study more closely the relationship
between tracking and perceived self-efficacy, and (3) the role of tracking and the correlation
between a teachers’ perception of a student’s academic ability to the students’ own perceptions
of their academic ability, the study will explore three research questions:
1. How does ability grouping using tracking (support, general, honors) affect the eighth
graders’ perceptions of their abilities and achievements in language arts?
2. How does the self-efficacy of eighth grade students who are assigned to different tracks
(support, general, honors) affect their academic achievement in language arts?
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 17

3. How do the teachers’ perceptions of the eighth-grade students’ academic achievement in
language arts across different tracks (support, general, honors) relate to the students’ own
perceptions of their achievement in the same area?
Conceptual Framework
Numerous theories exist regarding a person’s developmental changes throughout their
life (Erikson, 1963). Such theories vary greatly in the explanation of what impacts human
motivation and behavior. Human development varies and incorporates multiple styles and
change patterns. From a lifespan perspective, influential determinants include a diverse cycle of
life events that differ in their power to impact the direction lives take (Brim & Ryff, 1980;
Hultsch & Plemons, 1979). Some of these determinants include social influences within familial
and educational systems. Others include unforeseen events in the physical environment,
biological conditions, and irregular life events.
The conceptual model used to frame this study is Albert Bandura’s (1960) Social
Learning Theory (SLT). In SLT (1963, 1977, 1995), people learn primarily by observation and
modeling. SLT claims that the act of watching others and observing their specific actions and
behaviors results in the imitation and learning by proxy. Bandura (1994) defines self-efficacy as
the belief in one’s ability to influence events that affect one’s life and control over the way these
events are experienced. There are four main sources of influence that impact self-efficacy
include: mastery experience, social modeling, social persuasion, and psychological responses.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 18

Limitations
The following limitations were present for the current study:
1. The data from this study was limited to one public Title I middle school in Southern
California.
2. The data from this study was not representative of all eighth-grade students’ perspectives
within the Beach City Unified School District.
3. The data from this study was not representative of all eighth-grade teachers at Oceanview
Middle School nor the Beach City Unified School District.
The results of this study will be limited by the sampling of data. The results of this study
should not be used as generalizations of other populations due to the limitations of the survey
tool and geographic location. Oceanview Middle teachers and students have unique needs and
challenges with different goals and should not represent the needs, challenges and goals of all
teachers and students.
The idea that teachers and students of Oceanview Middle School hastily completed the
surveys without full consideration of the questions or their responses should not be dismissed. In
this case, such responses may not accurately reflect their perceptions. Also, although surveys are
confidential, some teachers and students may fear that their identity will be compromised and
their careers or reputation be tainted.
Delimitations
This study was a qualitative and quantitative study on a district within southern
California and was determined using the following criteria:
1. The middle school chosen for the study implements tracking based on standardized test
scores for student placement.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 19

2. At least 70% of the student population are minorities.
3. At least 70% of the student population is on a Free or Reduced Meal Plan.
4. The school has consistently shown a less than 5% percent growth in ELA scores on the
CAASPP for eighth-grade students.
The CAASPP data was obtained from the California Assessment of Student Progress and
Performance website and the California Department of Education website. The findings and
results of this study may not apply to other districts, especially schools with different student
enrollment.
Definitions
This study used the following definitions:
Ability grouping: The placement of students in varied groups of the same course with
targeted instruction to each group’s ability level. Placement criteria includes, but not limited to,
test results, teacher recommendation, and other measurement assessments.
Academic achievement: Academic achievement represents performance outcomes,
specifically in education, that demonstrates the accomplished specific goals of the individual’s
focus of activities (ERIC, n.d.)
Achievement gap: An achievement gap occurs when one group of students (such as,
students grouped by race/ethnicity, gender) outperforms another group and the difference in
average scores for the two groups is statistically significant (NCES, n.d.)
At-risk student: An at-risk student is one who requires additional supports or
intervention, whether on-going or temporary, for academic success.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP): The CAASPP is
a system designed to monitor and provide information on student progress with the goal that all
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 20

students are college and career ready after high school. The CAASPP is a computer-adaptive
assessment for Math and Language Arts and a paper assessment for Science.
California Common Core State Standards: Standards designed to encourage the highest
achievement of K-12 standards by defining the knowledge, concepts and skills students should
acquire in each grade level.
Class placement: The specific class assignment for a student based on specific factors
including assessment scores, course grades and teacher or parent recommendations.
Cluster grouping: The intentional placement of a group of similar high-ability students in
an otherwise heterogenous classroom with a teacher who has the training and experience to
provide appropriate rigorous instruction for such students (education.com, n.d.)
Curriculum tracking: The placement of students into curricular tracks including general,
vocational and college preparatory.
Detracking: When students are deliberately placed in mixed ability classes.
Differentiated instruction: Factoring students’ individualized learning styles and level of
readiness while designing lesson plans and implementation.
Disadvantaged student: A disadvantaged student is one that comes from social, family or
economic circumstances that hinder their ability for academic success (Rand, n.d.)
Free or Reduced Lunch Plan – This is a federal plan administered by the U. S.
Department of Agriculture. Students are eligible based on the income of the student’s parent or
guardian and complete an application to participate.
General education: Required curriculum that makes up the foundation of an
undergraduate degree.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 21

Heterogenous groups: Groups of students with mixed abilities in one class, in order to
create a relatively even distribution of students in one class (education.com, n.d.)
Homogeneous groups: Groups of students of similar ability based on criteria including
standardized assessment scores, report card grades or teacher or administrator recommendations
(education.com, n.d.)
Honors track: An honors track is defined as rigorous classes assigned to higher achieving
students based on various assessment measures.
Individuation (in terms of education): The process by which individuals in society
become differentiated from one another (Merriam-Webster, n.d., 1.b)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, n.d.): This is a law that allows
students with disabilities the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education. It also ensures
special education and services for these students.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The NCLB Act was signed and enacted by President Bush
on January 8, 2002 to improve student performance by helping schools to focus on
accountability, give states and communities more freedom, implement proven education
methods, and give school choice for parents.
Self-efficacy: Self-efficacy is used to define the belief in one’s own capabilities to
achieve a goal or outcome (Margolis and McCabe, 2006).
Structures: Institutional policies and procedures created and mandated by federal, state,
or district policy and legislation widely accepted as the official structure of schools; structures
not likely to change within local school sites.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 22

Support track: A support track is defined as remedial, or support, classes assigned to
lower achieving students based on various assessment measures so that they can receive
modified instruction and scaffolding for student success.
Tracking: The grouping of students by ability between classes; common strategy in
middle school and high school.
Organization of Dissertation
Chapter One provides an overview and guide to the study. Chapter Two will analyze the
literature involved in tracking as used in the educational system and how it impacts performance
and self-efficacy. Chapter Three will examine the methodology implemented in the study,
including the collection and analysis of the data. Chapter Four will offer new finding along with
an investigation of the research. Lastly, Chapter Five will conclude the research with a summary
of the study and present recommendations and implications for teachers, administrators and
researchers.

TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 23

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter provides overview information on the practice of tracking as used in the
educational system. Researchers have investigated the link between tracking and student
achievement (Hallinan, 2004). In this section, I will discuss the theoretical foundation based on a
historical perspective in relation to tracking and its effect on self-efficacy of middle school
students, including its link to other learning outcomes and teachers’ instructional practices. I will
also analyze studies focusing on direct relationships between tracking and students’ self-efficacy
(e.g., self-esteem and sources of self-efficacy). Finally, I will discuss the purpose and
significance of this study which examines the relationship between tracking and students’ self-
efficacy specifically in eighth grade students.
Definition and Historical Overview of Tracking
Tracking, which results in the practice of ability grouping, utilizes multi-tiered metrics in
order to optimize placement and curricular tracks for students along with emphasizing placing
students with similar academic achievement in the same classes (Slavin, 1990). This practice is
primarily used for differentiating instruction specifically catered to the learners’ needs with the
overall goal of improving student achievement (Hornby, Witte, & Mitchell, 2011). In this
manner, peer groups and individual students can ameliorate their learning environments in order
to ensure that no child is left behind and each child is able to excel according to their particular
palette for learning.
Historically, this instructional practice traces back to the Progressive period (1890-1920)
with the growth of industrialization. Tracking during this time was rigid and deterministic
(Loveless, 1998). In the 1920’s, local school boards encouraged that students be placed in one of
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 24

four basic categories: academic, general, vocational (e.g., metal work, plumbing) and trade-
oriented (e.g., accounting, secretarial) (Loveless, 1999). Socio-economic status including skin
color, IQ and race played a key role in determining a student’s placement which defined and
perpetuated the achievement gap for students. The influx of immigrants needing to learn English
along with the necessity to develop a strong working class pushed schools to track students into
groups based on career goals and to empower immigrants socially and politically (McCarter,
2014). Ansalone (2010) posited that tracking was implemented at the turn of the century to
“Americanize” the southern African Americans and influx of immigrants-McCarter. Historically,
numerous shifts in education exist with movement toward a standardized curriculum and
assessment. The equal rights movement in the 1960’s pushed the nation to recognize the need to
eliminate social class and racial divides which prompted an urgency for educational equity in the
public schools (Mirel, 1998).
Tracking became less common as schools were moved to equalize course placement for
all students. The result of this new push resulted in low standards and lax curriculum which
caused student performance on national assessments to rapidly decline. The nation’s focus
became the quality of education students received, thus prompting “A Nation at Risk,” a 1983
publication by the National Commission on Excellence in Education in America (Ravitch, 1990).
In the 1990’s, popularity surrounding tracking grew and student grouping based on ability
became the focus to increase accountability in order to meet the demands of the competitive
global community (Ireson & Hallam, 1999). High ability students were typically placed in
academically rigorous courses while lower performing students were given vocational courses
(Cooper, 1996). Thirty-five years later, the nation’s attention to students’ academic success and
educational equity continue while public schools work to prepare students for college or career
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 25

and life. Debate currently continues on the value or dangers of grouping: heterogenous and
homogenous.
The three common tracks in schools became identified as: (a) High track – these classes
include college prep and honors classes that are geared for students admission to top colleges and
universities; (b) General track – these classes are for the majority of students in the middle that
fall within the range of an “average” student; neither gifted nor deficient in ability; (c)
Low/Support track – these classes are vocational and/or offer additional remediation in the
course subjects.
Controversies in Tracking
Prominent groups across the country such as the ACLU, the Children’s Defense Fund,
the National Governors’ Association, College Board, the Carnegie Corporation, and the NAACP
Legal Defense Fund have condemned tracking and its practices and implications. Many
educational organizations recommend the elimination of tracking since they believe it creates
class and race-linked differences in access to learning. Professors in education find tracking
abhorrent. Slavin’s (1986 as cited in Hollifield, 1987) most cogent argument against tracking “is
its creation of academic elites, a practice that goes against democratic ideals” (Why Use Ability
Grouping?., para. 2). On the other hand, numerous surveys indicate that there is strong support
for tracking by teachers, parents and students (Loveless 1998). Oakes (1992) has pointed out that
lower-ability students could also thrive with the enriched curriculum, rather than the
homogeneity of the class. States and districts hold their own views of tracking and implement the
policy to best suit the needs of their community. Yet controversies continue to occur sparking
debate about its effectiveness.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 26

Conflicting Positioning and Tracking Viewpoints
The challenging task of matching students and curriculum exists because schools are
institutes for learning content that is authoritatively determined by someone else, rather than
offering a simple setting to meet and gather information (Loveless, 1999). No matter how precise
the instruction is chosen to accommodate the group, there is always the probability that the
choice will provide a poor match for some (Loveless, 1999). Middle school is usually the first
place that students will experience tracking where they are departmentalized for instruction in
mathematics and English.
Social tracking is one perspective that believes tracking welcomes bias into schools by
measuring ability in a way that discriminates race and class (Chub and Moe, 1990). Students
tracked by their perceived ability resulted in a high representation of white and wealthier
students in the high groups and poor and minority students in the low groups (Loveless, 1999).
The other perspective is functional orientation. This perspective claims that tracking is
useful for placing students in groups of similar abilities to receive appropriate instruction
(Loveless, 1999). Those in favor of functional orientation support the notion that schooling is
useless for students forced to sit in a class and receive content they already know just the same as
students who receive content that they are incapable of learning or understanding (Loveless,
1999). Functional orientation further argues that students placed in classes that they will most
likely struggle in does nothing to help the cause of equity (Cremin, 1998; Loveless, 1999).
Those against tracking claim that it perpetuates segregation in ostensibly desegregated
schools by placing a disproportionate number of blacks and Hispanics in lower-ability groups
(Salmans, 1988). Others believe that tracking is harmful because the struggling learners face the
greater loss than the slim gains of the gifted or honors students.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 27

Tracking and Learning
In theory, tracking is said to increase student performance by minimizing the differences
of student ability levels. This, in turn, should increase the prospect for teachers to provide
appropriate instruction for their students’ abilities (Hollifeld, 1987). One of the main issues in
education is that not all students are created equal, yet schools are held responsible for providing
instruction geared for the needs and abilities of each student (Drowatsky, 1981). A strong
argument against tracking emphasizes that this practice deprives low achievers of the incentives
of collaborating with high achieving students (Slavin, 1987). Also, placing these students in such
low achieving groups may send a negative message of self-fulfilling low expectations.
Tracking practices were developed so that students were placed in classes with similar
educational needs, yet these practices are not always indicative of students’ ability. Educational
psychologists have posited that a multitude of factors contribute to student ability and
achievement- including students’ level of motivation, parental involvement, and the allocation of
resources and teacher (Betts & Skolnik, 2000; Dweck, 1986; Useem, 1992). Tracking has been
found to have a major influence on teachers’ choice of instructional methods and Goodlad (1984)
discovered that tracking was used more effectively in upper tracks than lower tracks due to
greater emphasis on critical thinking processes such as making inferences, integrating ideas, and
high-level peer collaboration. Groups with students of lower ability oftentimes were found to
receive a lower quality instruction that those of high ability. Ascher (1992 as cited in Hall, 2014)
found that students in the lower academic track spent most of their instructional time completing
tasks involving rote memorization and learning.
Becker et al’s (2014) study showed that ability grouping does indeed revamp and
optimize psychosocial development since mirroring occurs in classroom environments where
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 28

ability grouping occurs. Mirroring is defined as a laden comfort and socially positive
environment where interplay between peers of similar abilities can occur organically. Becker and
his cohort came to the conclusion that mirroring is a byproduct of ability grouping and leads to
higher psychosocial development, since mirroring merges the individuation and maturation of
students’ sense of self with the socialization between peers in a controlled and positive learning
environment (Becker et al, 2014).
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002), commonly known today as ESSA (Every
Student Succeeds Act, 2015), acted as the starting point for ability grouping, becoming instated in
a comprehensive form in educational environments from preschool and kindergarten to the
higher tiers of high school and magnet schools for pre-collegiate tracks. The NCLB began the
innovative process of divisional metrics between different interdisciplinary characteristics (i.e.
socioeconomic background of students, intelligence quotient, social development, family
background, extracurricular achievements, etc.) being used as baseline points of differentiation
for grouping students together of similar backgrounds (Becker, et al., 2014). Schools found that,
by projecting potentialities and causative origins of students’ prior histories, they could optimize
the classroom experience for everyone, both students and teachers, involved (Bygren, 2016). The
NCLB found, through experiential scenarios, that students become higher achievers when they
feel like they are a part of an academic environment where their peers are similar to them
(education.com, n.d.). Contrarily, in classrooms where varying students of ability are blended,
negative ancillary traits develop, such as jealousy between students, behavioral outbursts, apathy
and insubordination (Bygren, 2016).
Barmby’s (2018) scholarly article called attention to tracking being conducted in primary
school environments where diversity is typically touted as a guiding light for the development of
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 29

totalistic curriculums where all students can be a proactive part of non-judgmental and multi-
faceted classrooms where heterogenization is cultivated and lionized. Typically, during the
nascent days of NCLB, ability grouping and tracking were easier to put into place in secondary
schools, parochial environments and pre-grammar school classrooms where diversity is typically
not placed on a pedestal as much as it is in teenage primary school environments. Thus, Barmby
came to the conclusion that primary school environments can benefit by downplaying diversity
training, which occurs naturally at any rate, and optimizing the way in which students are
grouped in order to induce higher quotients of mirroring (Barmby, 2018). Playing to the
strengths, likenesses and similarities of groups of students increases achievement and also helps
students to socialize better.
Tracking has also been found to accelerate development in terms of standardized test
scores. Steenbergen-Hu, Makel, & Olszewski-Kubilius (2016) hypothesized that optimized
standardized test scores are a direct result and byproduct of creating classroom environments
where similar students are grouped together so as to create learning pathways that are more
convergent in scope. The researchers found that 100 years of experiential chronicling on the
matter has shown that increasing the likenesses of student bodies lessens classroom disruptions
and negative externalities that depress learning solutions in classroom environments.
Furthermore, congruent student bodies allow students to progress in a unified way, whereas
traditional classrooms experience disjointed progress between students (Barmby, 2018).
It has also been posited that tracking may hinder limiting the achievement gap and the
academic potentials of students in lower level courses. Bygren (2016) surmised that tracking may
constitute the enactment of unintentional negative externalities having to do with the framework
of labeling theory. Labeling theory posits that a person is likely to act in accordance with the way
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 30

in which others view them. For instance, if a student is labeled as a troublemaker, low achiever
and poor classroom participant, labeling theory surmises that such a student will internalize such
behaviors and act them out regardless if they are latent traits of the student or not. Bygren
stipulates that labeling theory hinders students and is a direct byproduct of tracking and ability
grouping. Thus, Bygren and other naysayers of tracking believe that ability grouping and
tracking actually constitute forms of tacit academic discrimination. This is because they claim
that the students have little say in the grouping decisions and they remain inactive participants in
terms of how the grouping occurs and the type of metrics used to determine how grouping and
tracking are implemented (Bygren, 2016).
Tracking is also sometimes seen as another way of organizing classrooms into more
coherent and orderly units. Whether this is helpful or not, scholars hold differing opinions on the
matter. Moreover, any sort of academic organizational principle must be bolstered by a clear-cut
manner of analyses and metrics for observation in order to determine if the organizational
grouping is helpful or hindering the overarching purpose (Steenbergen-Hu, et al, 2016).
Despite the efforts for educational equity in tracking, researchers suggest that students in
the lower academic tracks will have minimal access to rigorous instruction and challenging
curriculum (Weis, Parsley, Banilower & Heck, 2003).
Tracking Placements and Identification
Traditionally, there are two ways in which students are tracked in schools. One way is
where schools place grade-level students in classrooms based on “ability.” Students have the
option of taking a mix of high and low-level classes but due to complexities in scheduling;
students commonly end up taking classes in the same track (Slavin, 1990). The other way
involves “within-class” tracking where students are assigned to different “ability groups” within
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 31

a classroom (Hallinan, 1992). Tracking decisions are primarily left to school administrators and
vary at age groups.
Commonly used motivations for decisions on student placement include planned
individualized instruction, minimizing boredom and challenging instruction for advanced
students, content scaffolding to class ability, and support for struggling students (Loveless as
cited in Slavin, 1990). Administrators believe that the main motivation for tracking students is
that it will allow teachers to customize class instruction and encourage student achievement
(Hornby et al., 2011). Others believe that implementing tracking in schools make it easier for
teachers in the classroom to instruct students at the same level (Fui & Lian, 2011). Hornby et al.
(2011) discovered, however, that many administrators base their decision to implement tracking
simply on personal preference toward the topic. Students should not be locked into a specific
track long-term but instead, should be modified according to students’ needs. However, this
varies greatly from school to school.
Schools use a variety of identification methods for tracking students into appropriate
classes. Some use informal teacher observations, objective testing procedures or a combination
of both. Some claim that these methods are flawed due to the subjective nature of the observation
(Drowatsky, 1981). Many schools have chosen to use students’ results on standardized tests as
their criteria for student class placement. When grouping students, the most commonly used
approach involves placing students into classes where students remain with the same group of
peers for instruction in all subjects (Drowatsky, 1981). One flaw with this placement is that all
abilities are not equal; therefore, schools should not approach class placement as a “one-size-fits-
all approach.”
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 32

Perception and Achievement
Tracking leads to greater quotients and correlations between self-efficacy and self-
perception. Park and Datnow (2017) found that students felt more self-fulfilled, self-actualized
and satisfied with their schooling when placed in academic environments where they felt
bolstered by peers who exhibited similar characteristics. This lends credence to the theory of
mirroring where classroom similarities lead to an environment of abundance where students feel
impelled to achieve at the same rate as their peers. This imposed self-challenge boosts one’s self-
efficacy which is focused on a cognitive self-concept concerning one’s perceived capabilities in
a given task (Ersandi, 2015). Conversely, traditional classrooms tend to create environments of
scarcity where students compete against each other in a zero-sum manner. Thus, ability grouping
and tracking lead to positive and self-sustaining environments where students help one another
instead of competing against each other in a social Darwinist fashion (Park & Datnow, 2017).
While some scholars hold that ability grouping and tracking are innovative, modern and
ameliorative ways of inducing positive changes in classroom environments, others believe that
such organizational methods promote labeling theory, negative self-efficacy outcomes and lack
of positive classroom cohesion between divergent students (Park & Datnow, 2017). In this sense,
ability grouping and tracking are seen as offshoots of NCLB (2002) in that the aggregate
outcomes of such methodologies have only been observed for a short number of years. Longer
time periods of observation are needed in order to come to an informed conclusion as to whether
ability grouping and tracking are truly effective manners of organizing student bodies to
optimize academic achievement and personal individuation.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 33

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter describes the methodology used for the self-report survey research study.
Brief Introduction with Context of the Study
Ability grouping, which is the differentiation in curriculum and instruction based on
various forms of measurement regarding student ability and performance enables students to be
placed in classes with peers of similar ability levels to receive curriculum and instruction best
suited to their perceived needs (LeTendre, Hofer, and Shimizu, 2003). This practice, also
commonly referred to as tracking, traces back to the early 1900’s. Student performance and high-
test scores remain the priority in our nation’s education initiative and many schools continue to
adopt tracking for grouping purposes. Factors including school and grade level determine how
and when students are tracked and results vary dramatically.
The purpose of this study is to examine whether the perceived self-efficacy of eighth
grade students is impacted by their placement in high or low-level classes due to tracking and if
it further influences their academic performance, specifically in language arts. The general thesis
is that tracking diminishes the chance of closing the achievement gap and hinders students’ full
academic potential in the lower ability classes in relation to their peers placed in higher ability
courses. The intent of this study is to shed light on the implications tracking has on an eighth
graders’ self-esteem and its impact of their academic performance.
In this chapter, the research methodology will be explained. In addition, a full description
of the district, school and student population, as well as the sampling rationale, will be described.
The study will examine ability tracking in eighth grade students and its effects on self-efficacy,
perceptions and academic performance. The study will focus on a district with the majority of
students representing the minority and disadvantaged population.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 34

There were three research questions guiding this study. Based on 1) evidence that
tracking has been identified as the major culprit for widening the achievement gap (Loveless,
1999) the necessity to study more closely the relationship between tracking and perceived self-
efficacy, and 3) the role of tracking and students’ academic performance, the researcher posed
three research questions to guide the study:
1. How does ability grouping using tracking (support, general, honors) affect the eighth
graders’ perceptions of their abilities and achievements in language arts?
2. How does the self-efficacy of eighth-grade students who are assigned to different tracks
(support, general, honors) affect their academic achievement in language arts?
3. How do the teachers’ perceptions of the eighth-grade students’ academic achievement in
language arts across different tracks (support, general, honors) relate to the students’ own
perceptions of their achievement in the same area?
Research Design and Methodology
The research study will examine one low performing middle school within the Beach
City Unified School District as defined with a predominantly high population of minority and
disadvantaged student population living in a low-income urban area. A mixed-methods study
will be implemented to develop an in-depth study of student and teacher attitudes and
perceptions regarding self-efficacy and performance. During the research, a mixed-methods
study will be performed to study tracking and the effects on self-efficacy and its impact on
student performance among eighth graders. Qualitative findings will come from the data
collection of self-report surveys and direct observations.
A descriptive, self-report survey research design will be chosen to investigate the impact
tracking has on perceived self-efficacy in eighth grade students attending Oceanview Middle
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 35

School in the Beach City Unified School District. Specifically, it will focus on the following
major research question: “How does ability grouping using tracking (support, general, honors)
affect eighth grade students’ perceptions of their achievements in language arts?” Two survey
types will be administered. In the first survey designed specifically for students, all eighth-grade
students will be asked to complete both a self-report and Likert scale survey consisting of ten
questions each focusing on motivation, perceived self-efficacy, and academic performance.
Eighth grade students will equally represent the three language arts tracks including support,
honors, and general language arts. The study considers the theoretical nature of Bandura’s
mastery experience construct. “Mastery experience” involves the manner in which individuals
cognitively internalize their successes and failures (Locklear, 2012). Bandura hypothesizes that
self-perception impacts one’s choices of activities, effort expenditure, and perseverance in the
face of difficulties and expectations of eventual success (Adunyarittigun, 2015). Individuals use
this sense of self-perception to base their ability to perform and then form their expectations on
their success or failure, which affects future-oriented behavior (Weiner et al., 1971).
The second survey used is designed to learn of the teachers’ perception regarding their
students’ academic achievement in language arts in relation to their students’ own perceptions of
self-achievement. All eighth-grade language arts teachers at the Oceanview Middle School will
be asked to complete the self-report survey consisting of 10 questions focusing on student
motivation and learning, student competency, areas for differentiation and their opinion on the
difference in the perceived self-efficacy. The criteria used in the selection of the participants for
this study required the teachers to teach eighth grade language arts at Oceanview Middle School.
The teachers’ surveys will collect data regarding the number of years taught and what subject
they teach to use for consideration when collecting and analyzing the survey results.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 36

Likert scale survey and self-report survey methodologies will be used to examine and
interpret the attitudes and opinions of middle school teachers and student class placement. This
type of methodology is chosen to offer the researcher a unique form of qualitative and
quantitative analysis as this analysis provides an ideal, macroscopic, addition to qualitative
approaches highlighting the theme and nature of the study (Watts & Stenner, 2005).
Description of the Site
Beach City Unified School District (BCUSD) is located in southern California and serves
approximately 2,504 students in grades six through eight, which includes three middle schools.
In particular, Oceanview Middle School has a student population of less than 800 and
approximately 300 students are in 8th grade. In particular, the school website states that they are
committed to academic excellence, the use of technology and providing students a rigorous
standards-based curriculum. The school’s mission focuses on the idea that all students are
provided a comprehensive and safe educational experience in which students are successful
within a community dedicated to learning.
Each year, the students take a California Assessment of Student Progress and
Performance (CAASPP) in English/Language Arts and Mathematics. Students in the eighth
grade have the lowest scores in the ELA section, scoring roughly 10% lower than the state
average. In the 2015-16 school year, roughly 37% of eighth graders scored in “meet” or
“exceed” category combined. California’s state average for “meet” or “exceed” was 48%
combined. Although scores improve yearly, the performance gap between this district to the state
average remains, which leaves parents, students, and faculty at BCUSD concerned and
frustrated. This problem negatively impacts the district’s goals to graduate students who are
meeting or exceeding state standards on the CAASPP assessment.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 37

This district classifies as Title I with a purpose to ensure that all students are given the
opportunity to receive a high-quality education, and to be able to reach proficiency on state
standardized assessments. Currently, this district enrolls approximately 98.9% of students that
classify as minorities, with 57% Hispanic and 42% African American. The average household
income is $44,504 and 87% of students receive free or reduced lunch. Only 19% percent of the
people living in the study’s area ages 25 or older have a college degree. More than 90% percent
of the eighth-grade students remain in the area and attend high schools within the Beach City
Unified School District. Roughly 25% of the eighth-grade students are placed in a language arts
support class their Freshman year.
The eighth-grade student scores for the CAASPP illustrate the academic status on the
Beach City Unified School District and the community it serves. Historically, the eighth-grade
students have consistently scored the lowest on the ELA CAASPP since 2000-10 and has been in
program improvement for the last five years. Parents, teachers, and administrators are concerned
about this gap and continue to research best practices and implement strategies that could help
improve student performance.
Sample and Population
The target population for this study will be eighth grade language arts teachers and eighth
grade students from Oceanview Middle School, located in southern California. The selections are
made based on the focus of the research study, which pertains to middle school teachers and
eighth grade students. The school was selected because it is a model of ability tracking. For
confidentiality purposes, the district will be named Beach City Unified School District. The
school site for this study will be named Oceanview Middle School. Overall, the school has
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 38

shown little growth on the ELA CAASPP scores among eighth graders. The student population
of the school is primarily made up of Title I students on a traditional school calendar.
The teachers represent both new and veteran teachers with varied experience levels
regarding tracking. The selection process resulted in asking all of the eighth-grade language arts
teachers at Oceanview Middle School to participate. The selection process for the eighth- grade
students involved asking all eighth-grade students to participate. Students selected must be
students that have attended elementary school in the BCUSD and have continued as a student at
Oceanview Middle from the sixth to eighth grade.
In August of 2018, a letter was sent to the District Superintendent and Principal or
Assistant Principal of Oceanview Middle School. The email included the detailed information of
the researcher’s IRB process and asked for approval to conduct research with selected
participants. This middle school was chosen to participate based on a recommendation by the
district superintendent and allowed the researcher to select teachers and students for the study.
Data Collection and Analysis
Before the collection of any new data, information was gathered regarding the protocol
and policies for tracking and student placement at Oceanview Middle School. This information
allowed the researcher a clear understanding of the process by which students are placed in their
respective classes when graduating from their fifth-grade elementary class and entering the
middle school in the sixth grade. The researcher gathered the information from the school
administrators at Oceanview Middle to ensure a clear and thorough understanding of the process
along with ensuring the collection of accurate data. The administrator of Oceanview Middle was
contacted through email. If the researcher did not hear back from the administrator within a
week, the researcher followed-up with a phone call to ensure transparency and continued
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 39

movement with the study. The researcher reviewed the criteria the school used for student class
placement along with policies for class transfers.
The data collected and analyzed from the study will include the Likert scale and self-
report surveys from the selected teachers and students at the Oceanview Middle School. Analysis
for both the scale and survey results were tabulated utilizing the frequency scores and
percentages. Analysis was the same for the scale and survey results collected from the teachers.
Finally, a comparative analysis compared the relationship between the student and teacher
responses to see similarities and differences.
The selection for the self-report survey was created by the researcher under the leadership
of Dr. Kaplan. All included questions will include short answers from the participant. Questions
and survey protocols were created for all stakeholders, including teachers, students and
administrators. See Appendix A for student self-report surveys and Appendix B for teacher self-
report survey.
The focus of the student surveys was how class placement using tracking affects one’s
self-efficacy, perceptions of achievement and actual academic performance. The focus of the
teachers’ surveys was to determine if a teacher’s perception of a student’s performance aligns to
the students’ own perception of their performance. The study was arranged beforehand with
district and school administrators, requesting participation in the study.
Teachers were asked to participate in the study. Eighth grade teachers completed the
surveys after school. These teachers represented different classes including support, general and
honors. It took approximately twenty to thirty minutes to complete the survey.
The study examined documents that provided data about the school. Johnston (2014)
cites that documents analyzed should provide insight or valuable information pertinent to the
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 40

study. Data used in this study included (1) district description, (2) school description,
(3) students by ethnicity, (4) students by socioeconomic status, and (5) CAASPP scores. Other
documents included the school site assessment results.
Ethical Consideration
All participants were informed that identities and information gathered will be strictly
confidential. In addition, consent forms were approved and signed before the study. Due to the
fact that the study was conducted at one district, the names of all participants were concealed and
protected. Similarly, all documents, observation notes and test scores were concealed.
It is also important to note that all research processes adhered strictly to the University of
Southern California and the district’s procedures. Also, the district’s guidelines for ethical
considerations will be strictly upheld.
Limitations
It is important to consider the limitations of the researcher. During the study, the
researcher was an eighth-grade language arts teacher for one of the schools in the district. Every
attempt was made by the researcher to remain objective. The research data collected was used to
obtain a clearer understanding of how tracking can impact students’ self-efficacy, perceptions of
achievement, and their academic performance.
Conclusions
Chapter Three provided a description of the framework and methodology used in this
qualitative study. Included in this chapter was the explanations for the research design, site
description, and population and sample. Also discussed was a narrative of how the research was
conducted and how the data was collected and analyzed. Data collection at Oceanview Middle
School was supported by surveys completed by all stakeholders and records.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 41

Chapter Four: The Findings
Chapter Four includes reports and descriptions of the findings of the self-report surveys
completed by a random selection of teachers and eighth grade students at a Title 1 middle school.
Historically, students that attended elementary school within the Beach City Unified School
District and continued middle school at Oceanview Middle from grades six through eighth grade
are placed in math and language arts classes using a tracking system. Oceanview Middle uses the
incoming sixth graders CAASPP scores for math and language arts to determine student course
placement. Typically, once students are placed, most remain in the same track for all three years.
The purpose of this study was to examine whether a students’ placement in high or low-
ability classes developed to accommodate a tracking design in language arts and math impacts
the students’ perceived self-efficacy and if it further influences their academic performance,
specifically in language arts. The three levels of ability are categorized as support, general, and
honors language arts. Students are typically placed in one of three ability classes: low ability
(support), general ability (general), or high ability (honors). The overall theoretical framework of
the study was modeled after Albert Bandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory which focuses on
people learning primarily by observing and modeling. Specifically, the research sought to
ascertain what eighth grade students believe to be the impact tracking might have on self-
efficacy and academic performance.
A qualitative study was implemented to collect data from Oceanview Middle School in
the Beach City Unified School District. Oceanview Middle was selected for this study due to the
fact that they are a model for a tracking designed program and have implemented this method for
students’ course placement for several years. Oceanview Middle also was selected due to its
large population of minority and disadvantaged student population indicated by the high
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 42

percentage of recipients receiving free or reduced lunch. Resources at the school site provided
the data for this study. These resources included two types of data collection: (1) descriptive,
self-report surveys completed by eighth grade students and teachers and (2) direct student
observation. The validity of the data collect by the researcher was increased due to the
combination of all the resources used. The study was designed to answer the following research
questions:
1. How does ability grouping using tracking (support, general, honors) affect the eighth
graders’ perceptions of their abilities and achievements in language arts?
2. How does the self-efficacy of eighth grade students who are assigned to different tracks
(support, general, honors) affect their academic achievement in language arts?
3. How do the teachers’ perceptions of the eighth-grade students’ academic achievement in
language arts across different tracks (support, general, honors) relate to the students’ own
perceptions of their achievement in the same area?
The data were collected over a two-week period through the administering of self-report
surveys. A total of 71 student surveys and five teacher surveys were administered and collected.
Eighth grade class observations were also conducted, one class from each language arts track:
support, general, and honors. Artifacts collected during the study included school data from the
School Accountability Report Card (SARC), Beach City District website, and formative and
summative data.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 43

Analysis of Findings: Research Question 1
How does ability grouping using tracking (support, general, honors) affect the eighth
graders’ perceptions of their abilities and achievements in language arts?
The first research question is about finding out how ability grouping using tracking
affects the perceptions of eighth graders’ achievements in their language arts class. A variety of
data are needed to understand how class placement impacts, if any, students’ own perceptions of
their abilities and achievement. The data from the self-report surveys administered to eighth
graders representing the three language arts classes (support, general, honors) and the class
observations were used to understand the impact on perceptions and achievement.
The following questions from the student self-report survey directly aligned to gather
data with reference to research question one:
Survey question asked: “Do you understand what the term tracking means? Yes or No? ”
The purpose of this question was to find out how many students understood the definition
of tracking in education. A follow-up to question one asked the students to write their definition
of tracking if they answered “yes.” (see Figure 1)
The data results show that across all classes, 62% of students claimed to not understand
the term of tracking in education. Of the 38% of students that claimed to understand the term,
none of the responses were related to educational tracking.
The following are sample written responses from students that illustrate the lack of
understanding for the term’s definition:
Support class student responses:
• Tracking is like a number system.
• To me, tracking is like following someone or something.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 44

General class student responses:
• Tracking is knowing something casually.
• I think that tracking is following how you are doing in class.
Honors class student responses:
• Tracking means to locate or following something specific.
• I believe that tracking is watching the progress in your class and working to improve it.
The majority of student responses indicated that the students’ understanding of tracking is
linked to following or keeping track of someone or something. In a study by Oaks, et al., (as
cited in Yonezawa & Jones, 2006), students admitted to “recognizing that tracking was shaped
by structural, cultural, and political forces that determined how students were placed; what kinds
of teaching and curricula were offered; and the importance of tracking in preserving a sense of
meritocracy among some students” (p. 17)
Survey question asked: “Which language arts track do you believe you should be placed
in? ”
This question aimed to gather data to address research question one. The purpose of this
question was to see if students felt they were correctly placed in the appropriate language arts
class. If they felt they belonged in a different class, students were asked to identify which class
they feel they should be assigned to attend. Students were asked to circle from the following set
of classes: support, general, or honors. (see Figure 2)
In the support class, the data results show that of the 15 students who completed the
survey, only two of them felt that they belong in support language arts. 87% of student
respondents in the support group identified themselves as placed incorrectly in the track system.
These students believe they belong in a higher class and reported that they have little to no
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 45

motivation in class, and spend less than 20 minutes studying due to lack of motivation. Six
students have a grade of C of lower.
In the general language arts class, the data results show that of the 30 students who
completed the survey, eight of the students believe they should be placed in the honors class
while five admitted they believe they should be in the support class.
In the honors class, the data results show that of the 26 students who completed the
survey, only one student reported they believe they should be placed in the general language arts
class. This particular student responded to a different question stating, “I have a hard time in this
class and feel stupid for not being as smart as everyone else in here.”
Survey question asked: “Do you believe that your current grade in class is a true reflection
of your ability and academic performance? ”
This question aimed to gather data to address research question one. The purpose of this
question was to see how students assessed their own abilities and to see whether or not they
believed their current grade was an accurate reflection of their abilities. Students were instructed
to answer yes or no and then had the ability to explain their response. (see Figure 3)
The data results show that of the 71 students who completed the survey, 54% of students
who completed the survey felt that their current language arts grade was not a true reflection of
their abilities and academic performance. The biggest discrepancy was in the general language
arts class with student responses split evenly.
The following are sample responses from students that share their opinions on their
current grade and their beliefs in their own academic abilities:
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 46

Support class student responses:
• No, most of the time I don’t even try. I am distracted by my friends in the class who don’t
seem to care either.
• I know I can do better; I just don’t try.
General class student responses:
• My grade in this class shows how much I’ve been slacking. I need to work harder.
• Yes, this grade shows my hard work and that I keep up with my assignments.
Honors class student responses:
• Yes, I am getting an A but it’s not easy. I know I can’t afford to miss any work and need
to turn everything in on time. It’s challenging for me but I work hard to keep my A.
• I struggle to keep my B in this class. I get A’s in all my other classes but since I’m not the
best at writing, I work hard at it. I am proud of my grade.
Survey question asked: “Do you believe that students like yourself are labeled based on the
classes they are placed in? If so, how has this affected you? ”
The question aimed to gather data to address question one. The purpose of this question
was to see what students responded to about labels and whether they believe tracking causes
students to be categorized and labeled. Students were instructed to answer yes or no and then
were given the opportunity to explain if they personally felt affected by such labels due to their
class placement. (see Figure 4)
In the support class, the data results show that of the 15 students who completed the
survey, 10 of them believe that labels are placed on them due to being in the support class. Three
students responded no and two students did not answer the question.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 47

Support class student responses:
• Yes, I believe [labels] are put on me because being in the support class, people think I am
dumb.
• Yes, because people are seen differently based on what class they are in.
• Yes, everyone knows how smart or stupid you are based on which classes you have.
In the general class, the data results show that 23 out of 30 total students who completed
the survey believe that labels are placed on them due to class placement, while six said no. One
student did not answer this question.
General class student responses:
• Yes, these classes put labels on students.
• Yes, because the students in the honors class act like they are better than everyone else.
• Yes, all students are labeled even if they don’t think they are.
In the honors class, of the 26 who completed the survey, 20 of them responded with yes,
labels are placed on students. Three students responded no and three students did not answer the
question.
Honors class student responses:
• Yes, I do think students are labeled. Being in honors has pushed me to work harder and
as a result, my grades are better than ever.
• Yes, I think that since I’m in the honors class, I am labeled as smart which makes me
proud and gives me confidence.
• No, everyone chooses their outcome. Labels shouldn’t define your abilities.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 48

Survey question asked: “True or False: Being in this class allows me to feel confident in my
abilities. ”
The question aimed to gather data to address question one. The purpose of this question
was to see how students gauged confidence in their own abilities due to their class placement.
Students answered true or false. (see Figure 5)
The following are sample responses from students that shared their own personal
opinions on class placement and how it affects them:
Support class student responses:
• I hate being in the support class. It doesn’t seem like most people care about learning in
here because there’s a lot of distractions.
• We all call each other dumb in here. Everyone knows that people in the support class are
not as smart as the others.
General class student responses:
• I wish I was in the honors class because I feel like the teachers are nicer to the honors
kids because they are smarter.
• Sometimes I feel labeled and sometimes I feel smart. At least I’m not in the support class.
Honors class student responses:
• I don’t think we are treated any differently other than the fact that we receive more
assignments to complete.
• I like being in the honors class and work hard to stay in this class. My friends in the other
classes call me the smart one because of it. This label makes me work harder and push
myself.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 49

The data results show that in the support class, only six of the 15 students who answered
this question state that their class placement of support in language arts allow them to feel
confident in their abilities. This means that 60% of the students in support feel less confident in
their abilities due to their specific placement. In the general class, 30 students responded to this
question. 56% of students answered true to this statement. In the honors class, 22 of the 26
students answered true to this statement and state that being in the honors class fosters
confidence in their abilities.
Research suggests that “the belief that students develop about their academic capabilities
help determine what they do with the knowledge and skills they possess” (Pajares & Valiante,
1997. p.2). This could explain why the academic outcomes of students are noticeably different
despite similar abilities.
Survey question asked: “True or False: Being in this class makes me feel dumb. ”
The question aimed to gather data for research question one. The purpose of this question
was to allow students to share if they felt “dumb” due to their class placement. Students
oftentimes form judgments about themselves which can be influenced by their opinions of their
peers. This question aimed to assess whether certain class placements caused them to possess a
negative self-esteem. (see Figure 6)
The data results show that in the support class, 6 of the 15students who answered this
question state that being placed in the support class makes them feel “dumb.” In the general
class, 4 of 30 students stated their class placement makes them feel dumb. In the honors class, 2
of the 26 students stated their class placement makes them feel dumb. Across all three classes, 59
out of 71 students do not feel dumb due to their class placement.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 50

While over 90% of students in the general and honors class state that their class
placement does not make them feel “dumb,” 40% percent of the students who answered this
question in the support class do respond that they feel “dumb” due to being placed in that
particular class.
Survey question asked: “True or False: I feel that my teacher thinks I am dumb. ”
The question aimed to gather data for research question one. The purpose of this question
was to find out if students believed their teacher had a negative opinion of their ability based on
their class placement. (see Figure 7)
In the support class, the data results show that of the 15 students who responded to this
question, only two stated that they feel they are labeled as dumb by their teacher. In the general
class, five out of 30 students stated they believe that their teacher thinks they are dumb. In the
honors class, four of the 26 students stated they think their teacher labels them as dumb.
Analysis of Findings: Research Question 2
How does the self-efficacy of eighth grade students who are assigned to different tracks
(support, general, honors) affect their academic achievement in language arts?
The second research question relates to determining if ability grouping using tracking
affects the self-efficacy of eighth grade students and their academic performance in language
arts? The data from the self-report surveys administered to eighth graders representing the three
language arts classes (support, general, honors) and the class observations were used to
understand the impact on tracking and self-efficacy and academic achievement.
The following questions from the student self-report survey directly aligned to gather
data with reference to research question two:
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 51

Survey question asked: “In your opinion, do you believe that the language arts class you
are in affects your own motivation in this class, as well as your beliefs about what you can
achieve in this class? ”
The question aimed to gather data for research question two. The purpose of this question
was to see if students felt there was a direct connection between their class placement and the
motivation they have and their personal beliefs about their abilities. A separate question extended
the students’ responses to explain how the connection between class and motivation applies to
them. (see Figure 8)
The data results show that across all classes, 70% percent of students said yes to having
their specific class placement impact their motivation and beliefs. The following are sample
responses from students that share their opinions on how class placement affects motivation and
beliefs:
Support class student responses:
• I don’t like the class I’m in and so I don’t really try that hard.
• I know I’m in the support class because I need help but I don’t try as much as I should.
General class student responses:
• The class I am in makes me want to work hard or not try. I am in a higher math class and
so I know I try hard. For language arts though, I am in the regular class and sometimes I
try, sometimes I don’t.
• Being in a class where everyone is smart makes you want to stay in that class.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 52

Honors class student responses:
• I believe that being in this honors class pushes me to work harder. It definitely makes me
feel encouraged to work hard.
• Yes, this class pushes me to work hard, keep up with my assignments, and not get lazy.
Survey question asked: “How does the language arts class you are in affect your own
motivation? ”
The question aimed to gather data for research question two. The purpose of this question
asked students to rate their motivation level in their current language arts class. Students were
given a rating of one through five, one being no motivation and high being defined as a high
motivation level. (see Figure 9)
The data results show that across all classes, 70% of students rate their motivation level
as three or higher. Using three as the baseline, the percentages across classes were 38% in
support class, 63% in the general class, and 100% in the honors class. This clearly shows that all
students in the advanced language arts class have high self-efficacy and the Support class had the
lowest percentage of students with motivation.
Survey question asked: “Do you believe that your language arts class challenges you? ”
The question aimed to gather data for research question two. The purpose of this question
asked students to rate the level of challenge they believe their assigned class provides. Students
were given a rating of one through five, one being no challenge and five being defined as very
challenging. (see Figure 10)
The data results show that across all classes, 86% of students rate their language arts class
as three or higher. Using three as a baseline, the percentages in the classes were 67% in the
support class, 77% in the general class and 96% in the honors class. This shows that students in
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 53

honors have the highest percentage of students feeling challenged and students in the support
class have the lowest percentage of students feeling challenged.
Survey question asked: “What is the average time you spend a day studying for language
arts? ”
The question aimed to gather research for question two. The purpose of this question was
to determine the average amount of time students report spending on language arts and if there
was a distinct difference between the various level of classes. Students were given a scale of zero
to 60 minutes, in increments of 20 minutes. (see Figure 11)
The data results show that no students reported spending more than over sixty minutes a
day studying for language arts. The average study time of students across all classes is fifty one
percent reporting spending more than 20 minutes but not more than 40 minutes.
Survey question asked: “On a scale of 1 – 5, how hard do you feel you try in your language
arts class? ”
The question aimed to gather data for research question two. The purpose of this question
was to see how students reported their own efforts in their assigned language arts class. Students
were given a scale of one through five to identify the effort expended in the class, zero indicated
no effort and five indicated dispersing a high degree of effort. (see Figure 12)
The data results show that there was a total of 71 students who answered this question. In
the support class, 40% rated their effort as a five, 40% rated their effort as a four, 33% rated their
effort as a three, and the remaining 20% rated their efforts in class as a two or below. In the
general class, 23% rated their effort as a five and a four, 33% rated their effort as a three, and the
remaining students rated their efforts as two or below. In the honors class, 38% rated their effort
as a five, 33% rated their effort as a four, and the remaining students rated their efforts as a three
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 54

or below. The results clearly show that across all classes, the majority of students rate their
efforts as a five, which is the highest degree of effort dispersed.
Survey question asked: “On a scale of 1 – 5, how interesting in your language arts class? ”
The question aimed to gather data for research question two. The purpose of this question
was to see how students viewed the interest level in the class and if there was a direct
relationship to their self-efficacy and academic performance. Students were given a scale of one
through five, one scoring as “not interesting at all” and five as “the most interesting.” (see Figure
13)
The data results show that 96% of all students across classes report their language arts
class as interesting. Although students in the support class report having a strong interest in
language arts, it doesn’t match their responses when they report self-efficacy and belief in their
academic abilities.
Survey question asked: “True or False: Being in this class pushes me to work harder. ”
The question aimed to gather data for research question two. The data results show that
across all three classes, at least 50% of students in each group believed that the class placement
pushed them to work harder. (see Figure 14)
Survey question asked: “True or False: Being in this class is frustrating because I don ’t feel
challenged or supported. ”
The question aimed to gather data for research question two. The data results show that
91% of all students across all classes do not agree with the statement that their class placement is
frustrating due to lack of challenge or support. This shows that students feel that their current
class placement offers enough support for them to be successful and is not too easy for their
abilities or effort. (see Figure 15)
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 55

Analysis of Findings: Research Question 3
How do the teachers’ perceptions of the eighth-grade students’ academic achievements in
language arts across different tracks (support, general, honors) relate to the students’ own
perceptions of their achievements in the same area?
The third research question is about learning if teachers’ perceptions of their students’
academic abilities across different language arts tracks align to the students’ own perceptions of
their academic abilities. Although the expectation is that teachers maintain high expectations of
all their students no matter their ability level or class placement, this is not always the case.
Some teachers hold high-ability students to greater expectations while maintaining minimal
expectations for the others. The data from the self-report surveys administered to eighth grade
teachers representing the five language arts classes (support, general, honors) and the class
observations were used to understand the impact on teacher perceptions and its relation to
student perceptions.
For the following survey questions, a total of five language arts teachers completed the
survey. The researcher used the data from each question to determine a theme from the five
responses:
Teacher survey question asked: “In your view, what is the purpose of tracking, which
results in ability tracking, for class placement? ”
The teachers’ responses:
• To show how students perform on their tests and what class they belong in.
• To place students with peers with similar needs so that instructors may more effectively
address said needs and in so doing raise students’ level of achievement.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 56

• The purpose of tracking is to keep similarly performing students together. It can also be
used for English learning levels of students to be kept together.
• Tracking allows for homogenous grouping of students by ability levels. I think it helps
students to be more confident in their abilities.
• To place students with similar abilities in appropriate classes.
The question aimed to gather responses for research question three. The data results show
a theme of homogenous grouping. 80% of teachers believe the purpose of tracking is to place
students in homogenous grouping, where students of similar abilities are placed in the same
class. Many believe that students will be more successful when grouped with students of similar
capabilities and see the benefits of homogeneous classes. However, heterogeneous grouping may
slow down the learning of high-achieving students as there is evidence that high achievers do
better in accelerated classes (Kulik, 1992).
Teacher survey question asked: “How would you describe your understanding of tracking?
The following are the teachers’ responses:
Teacher responses:
• Very good, I know how to track students’ progress.
• Basic – I know what tracking is but have not read the most recent literature on the topic.
• I don’t know the theories behind tracking, but I’ve seen the damage it can do when
implemented incorrectly.
• I understand that the data should decide what class a student in placed in.
• Same as ability grouping
The data results show a theme of basic understanding. 80% of teachers surveyed claim to
have a general understanding of tracking and relate it to homogenous grouping and student
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 57

ability. Teachers’ judgments about tracking commonly transfer to their biases about students and
abilities.
When teachers end up in specific tracks characterized by a specific group of students,
they need to adjust their general conceptions about teaching to the real context, which might
deviate from what they learned in teacher training (Fang, 2006). Over time, a colleague-group of
teachers develops common ideas and views as an answer to the questions implicit in their
circumstances and the problems peculiar to their work (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992). To do this,
they appeal to common stereotypes. As such, the allocation of students in tracks is a given for
teachers. Teachers usually do not make an independent, individual evaluation of students, but
start from the stereotype that lower-track students are academically lacking (Brandon, Avermaet,
& Van Houtte, 2011 as cited in Van Houtte, 2004). In other words, even before they have met
their classes, they have formed an image of their students’ academic abilities and developed
certain expectations, to which they adjust their educational goals and their interactions with
students (as cited in Van Houtte, 2004).
Teachers share certain beliefs concerning the nature of the students, education, and
school (Rossman, Corbett, & Firestone, 1988). As such, within low track classrooms, teachers
often demand less academically (Boaler, Dylan, & Brown, 2000). Generally speaking, the
attitude of many teachers in higher tracks is more apt to promote learning than it is in lower
tracks (Oakes 1985; Van Houtte, 2004) although there are also schools with apparently effective
instruction in lower tracks, characterized by high expectations of teachers.
Teacher survey question asked: “In your view, to what degree does ability tracking affect
an eighth grader ’s perception of their own abilities?”
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 58

Teacher responses:
• Students are fully aware of which classes are the “high” and “low” classes and some
praise/denigrate both themselves and their peers on the basis of which academic label
(e.g. honors vs. support) has been applied to the classes in which they are enrolled.
• Students are very “aware” of where they fall. Some are embarrassed to be in the
“support” classes because they feel they might be “dumb.” I spend a lot of time building
confidence in these students and tearing down their pre-conceived ideas about who they
are based on the classes they were placed in.
• Students know what class they are in, for example the students call the resource class the
“dumb” class. I think it hurts their self-esteem as well.
• Eighth graders (middle schoolers in general) are extremely sensitive to labels and what
their peers think. Many of them act similar to the peers they are surrounded by, which can
be positive or detrimental to their self-efficacy and academic performance.
• Students are greatly affected by their peers. The support class oftentimes has many low-
ability students who lack motivation. This lack of motivation sometimes pressures others
to “not try” so that they don’t get ridiculed for being too smart. On the other side, honors
students tend to be highly motivated which pushes others that may not be less motivated
to “keep up” so that they achieve like their peers.
The question aimed to gather responses for research question three. The data results show
a theme of awareness. 100% of teachers believe that ability tracking affects their students’
perception of their own abilities. (see Figure 16)
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 59

Teacher survey question:
“In your opinion, do you believe that the ability to transfer tracks affects eighth grade
students ’ self-efficacy and academic achievement? ”
Teacher responses:
• Yes, if they can move up in a class, they will think better about themselves and have
something to work toward.
• Yes, the honors students wish to remain in this advanced class and most will perform
accordingly; others may seem indifferent as to the possibility of their moving up (or
down).
• Yes, if students at our school knew they could/or saw other students being promoted, I
believe they would work harder for that opportunity.
• Yes, students want to have the label of “smart” and I believe most would work hard given
the opportunity.
• Yes, it would motivate many students if they knew this was a viable opportunity.
This question was aimed to gather data for research question three. The data results show
a theme of agreement. 100% of teachers believe that if students have and are aware of the ability
to move tracks, it can and will affect student self-efficacy and student performance. If students
knew of opportunities to advance in class level or even be placed in a lower class, they may work
harder. Bandura’s (1991) social-cognitive theory, which focuses on the role of self-efficacy,
suggests that higher self-efficacy can increase some motivational element like direction, effort or
persistence (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). Prior research also validates the considerable and direct
effects students’ self-efficacy has on academic expectations (Chemers et al., 2001; Lent et al.,
2008). Moreover, the theory also suggests that with appropriate task strategies (Audia, Locke &
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 60

Smith, 2000), such higher self-efficacy beliefs can improve overall performance. It can be
assumed that Bandura’s theory (1997) regarding self-efficacy causally impacts expected
outcomes of behavior.
Teacher survey question asked: “How often do you measure the self-efficacy of the students
in your class (by use of surveys, teacher-student conference, questionnaire)? ”
The data results show that 60% of teachers never measure self-efficacy of their students
and 40% claim to measure student self-efficacy monthly by use of informal surveys and
conferencing. Students who posses a belief that they can be successful at completing tasks are
likely to be more motivated and engaged. Therefore, it is important for teachers to encourage
students to maintain high goals and be aware of progress through self-evaluations (McMillan &
Hearn, 2009).
Teacher survey question: “In your view, do you believe that the majority of your students
care about the ELA track/course they are placed in (support, general, honors)? ”
Teacher responses:
• Yes, I think they care about their class but as long as they are with their friends, they may
not care as much.
• Yes, I teach the higher-level courses and the majority of my students want to succeed in
their class.
• Yes, the kids who care about tracking are the ones in honors (they’re proud) and the at-
risk/support students are ashamed. The others seem unaffected by it.
• Yes, they know what class they are placed in and are aware of how this will affect their
class placement for high school.
• Yes, definitely.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 61

This question was aimed to gather data for research question three. The data results show
a theme of coherence. 100% of teachers feel that the majority of their students do care about the
language class they are placed in. Tracking has been examined and scrutinized due to its harmful
effects on student self-efficacy, motivation and academic outcomes (Slavin, 1990). Numerous
studies offer that students in the lower tracks possess stronger feelings of failure and are more
prone to delinquency, absenteeism, dropping out and other social issues because of the
demoralization, weak behavioral models and lower expectations that tracking causes
(Wiatrowski, Hansell, Massey, & Wilson, 1982).
Teacher survey question: “To what degree do you feel peers ’ abilities have on a student ’s
own self-efficacy? ”
Teacher responses:
• They want to be with their friends so it may motivate them to do better or worse. It may
also help them to think better about their abilities if they are higher than their friends.
• Middle school students often look to their peers for affirmation of their own abilities, and
so I believe that they do look to their peers’ academic performance in order to gauge how
capable they are.
• Students know what classes they are placed in and how others perceive them and their
abilities.
• Students rely heavily on peer opinions so I feel there is a direct connection between peer
abilities and self-efficacy.
• If a child is surrounded by peers who are excelling and have strong self-worth, they will
also start to develop that confidence. Struggling students also may share negative feelings
about academics that may impact others who are on the edge.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 62

The data results show a theme of peer influence. One hundred percent of teachers believe
that peer abilities have a strong impact on a students’ own self-efficacy. All teachers rated this a
four out of five. (See Figure 17)
Studies of adolescents find that affiliation with peers who are highly academically
competent may, on the one hand produce benefits for academic effort by motivating
improvements in academic standards and performance, or by providing models for how to
complete challenging academic tasks, serving as a form of “socialization” or increased similarity.
(Altermatt & Pomerantz, 2005; Blanton, Buunk, Gibbons, & Kuyper, 1999; Gibbons, Blanton,
Gerrard, Buunk, & Eggleston, 2000). On the other hand, early adolescents are especially likely to
incorporate social comparisons into their academic self-concepts; as such, affiliation with high-
achieving peers may provoke social comparisons that undermine a youths’ academic self-
concept if a contrast is perceived between her own skills and her peers’ skills. (Altermatt &
Pomerantz, 2005; Dweck, 2002; Guay et al., 1999).
Summary
Chapter Four presented the results of this study using the results of the eighth-grade
students’ self-report surveys. Various questions addressed research question one and two that
focused on tracking and its relation to eighth graders’ perceptions of their own abilities as well as
how these tracks (support, general, honors) affected their self-efficacy in relation to academic
achievement. A total of 71 student surveys were completed. The student self-report survey
consisted of four questions with a Likert Scale for responses, three multiple-choice questions,
four short answer questions, and 11 questions with true or false responses. This chapter also
presents the results of this study using the results of the eighth grade ELA teachers’ self-report
surveys. Ten total questions addressed research question three that focused on teachers’
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 63

perceptions of students’ academic achievement in language arts based on students’ academic
tracks (support, general, honors). A total of five teacher self-report surveys were completed.
There were seven short answer response questions, one multiple-choice question, and three
questions with a Likert scale for responses. Further discussion of the data inclusive of the
limitations and implications for additional research will be discussed in Chapter Five.

TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 64

Chapter Five: Summary
Introduction
In this final chapter, a summary, selected findings and the interpretation of the results,
generalizations and the limitations of the current study will be presented. Recommendations
related to tracking in language arts among eighth graders at a middle school in the Beach City
District are also presented. A quantitative study was conducted where the researcher tabulated
the results from the student and teacher surveys, placed the results in charts, and analyzed the
data for themes.
Summary
For decades, tracking in schools across the country has been controversial in nature.
Research is not consistent on its impact on students’ academic performance and self-efficacy and
motivation. Over 85% of the research on tracking concludes that tracking is not beneficial to
students, yet over 80% of the schools continue to implement tracking (Crosby & Owens, 1993).
These percentages may not be the same during the time of the current study. Yet, despite the
controversy and negative literature surrounding the practice, school and district favorability
remains. The Beach City Unified School District implements tracking for student placement in
language arts in all three of the middle schools. The issue that there is a limited amount of
research on the perceptions of students on the topic propelled the current study to seek to gain
insight on tracking and see if it impacted 8th graders self-efficacy and academic performance in
language arts.
This study examined a middle school in Beach City Unified School District, a Title 1
district located in a high poverty urban area, and the impact tracking has on its eighth graders in
academic performance and self-efficacy. More specifically, the researcher examined eighth grade
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 65

students and language arts teachers at Oceanview Middle School. There are over 150 eighth
graders and five eighth grade language arts teachers. There is a total of four support classes, five
general classes, and one honors class. A total of 71 eighth grade students and five teachers
participated in the study.
Purpose of the Study
Despite the controversy around tracking, it is still implemented in schools across the
country. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to examine whether student placement in
support, general or honors due to tracking impacted students’ perceived self-efficacy and if it
further influenced their academic performance, specifically in language arts.
The study explored three research questions to determine factors that lead to the role of
tracking and its correlation to student self-efficacy and academic performance, including teacher
perception to student’s own perceptions.
Research Questions
1. How does ability grouping using tracking (support, general, honors) affect the eighth
graders’ perceptions of their abilities and achievements in language arts?
2. How does the self-efficacy of eighth grade students who are assigned to different tracks
(support, general, honors) affect their academic achievement in language arts?
3. How do the teachers’ perception of the eighth-grade students’ academic achievement in
language arts across different tracks (support, general, honors) relate to the students’ own
perceptions of their achievements in the same area?
Significance of the Study
In the district used for this study, tracking has been the norm for student placement in
math and language arts for decades. Students are typically grouped in lower, average or high
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 66

ability groups. The criteria used for placement in their sixth-grade language arts classes are the
student CAASPP scores from their fifth-grade year. Most students remain in this track for their
sixth through eighth grade year, respectively. The general thesis that tracking diminishes the
chance of closing the achievement gap and hinders students’ full potential in the low ability
classes in relation to their peers placed in high ability classes prompted the researcher to
investigate 8th graders’ own perceptions about these methods. Historically, students of color face
overwhelming obstacles in having access to equal education. The results of this study will
benefit administrators working in high poverty schools with students of color that question
student perception on tracking and its overall impact on self-efficacy and academic performance.
Summary of Findings and Implications
Society today has more children at risk due to the rising problems of drugs, violence,
changes in family structure, and poverty. The ubiquitous presence of ethnic and racial diversity
places stringent demands on the public-school system to provide quality education to all
students. This study’s findings, together with research literature and previous studies, raises
concern about the practice of ability grouping using tracking to accomplish such a goal. The
analysis of the data demonstrated the complexities of the practice of tracking.
Clearly, this study revealed that the eighth-grade students that participated in this study
have similar perceptions about tracking and its impact on self-efficacy and academic
performance. The majority of these students hold the opinion that their class placement for
language arts (support, general, and honors) does affect motivation and performance and that
tracking does place labels on students. One student indicated that they are embarrassed to be in a
support class and admits to having low motivation because of this. On the other hand, another
student, who is in the honors class, indicated that the one thing that keeps him motivated to study
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 67

and perform well is his placement in the high-ability class. He admitted to being proud of the
“smart” label he is given by his peers and this provides him the intrinsic motivation needed to
stay focused.
The teachers that participated in this study also have similar perceptions about tracking
and the role it plays on students’ self-efficacy and academic performance. They all hold the
opinion that the purpose of tracking is for the homogenous grouping of students based on ability.
The teachers also believe that class placement affects their students’ perceptions of their own
abilities and that if students were made aware of opportunities to transfer classes, many of them
would push themselves and work harder. Students at Oceanview Middle School seldom see
students move within tracks once they are placed entering the sixth grade.
This practice of ability grouping using tracking is fixed in the minds of educators that it
seems to be accepted as the norm regardless of their own opinions toward or against it. On the
contrary, those who acknowledge the unfavorable effects from tracking argue that the rift
continues to expand between those who are successful and those who continue to fail.
Research Question One
How does ability grouping using tracking (support, general, honors) affect the eighth
graders’ perceptions of their abilities and achievement in language arts?
Research question one investigated the perceptions of eighth graders regarding their
academic achievements due to tracking. From the student self-report survey administered to the
eighth-grade students for language arts, the following questions addressed research question one:
• Which language arts track do you believe you should be placed in? Honors, General or
Support?
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 68

• Do you believe that your current grade in class is a true reflection of your ability and
academic performance?
• Do you believe that students like yourself are labeled based on the classes they are placed
in? If so, how has this affected you?
• True or False: Being in this class allows me to feel confident in my abilities.
• True or False: Being in this class makes me feel dumb.
• True or False: I feel that my teacher thinks I am dumb.
The research reviewed thus far points to the notion that tracking does impact students’
perceptions of their abilities and achievements in language arts. Overall, the current study found
that eighth graders at Oceanview Middle School have a mixed favorability toward tracking. Most
students in the support class feel the negative stigma of being in a support class and dislike the
unfavorable labels they believe it places on them. On the other hand, those in the honors class
feel pride and enjoy the positive labels associated with being in the high-ability class. Students in
the general class have mixed feelings about whether their class affects their own perceptions;
some wish to be in the honors class while others are content with the class they are in.
Research Question Two
How does the self-efficacy of eighth grade students who are assigned to different tracks
(support, general, honors) affect their academic achievement in language arts?
Research question two investigated how self-efficacy among eighth grade students differ
depending on the track and its relation to their academic performance. From the student self-
report survey administered to the eighth-grade students for language arts, the following questions
addressed research question two:
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 69

• In your opinion, do you believe that the language arts class you are in affects your own
motivation in this class, as well as your beliefs about what you can achieve in this class?
• How does the language arts class you are in affect your own motivation?
• Do you believe that your language arts class challenges you?
• On a scale of one through five, how hard do you try in your language arts class?
• True or False: Being in this class pushes me to work harder.
• True or False: Being in this class is frustrating because I don’t feel challenged or
supported.
The research reviewed thus far points to the notion that class placement can impact
students’ self-efficacy which can result in further impacting students’ overall academic
performance. The survey results convey the differences in student responses based on their class
regarding class placement and its correlation to the effort put forth in those classes. The students
in the support class admit to feeling the least challenged and many feels that they are labeled as
students who cannot succeed. Some admit that they exert less effort because they already feel
their teacher does not believe in them while others push themselves harder to prove their ability.
Students in the honors class claim to have real pride in their class placement and most work hard
to maintain a good grade. The positive peer influences in the honors class encourages and
promotes student rigor and academic success. The teachers seem to hold these students to a
higher standard in which the students rise to such expectations. The students expressed a sense of
pride in being in the honors class, which strengthens their sense of self-confidence.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 70

Research Question Three
How do the teachers’ perceptions of the eighth-grade students’ academic achievement in
language arts across different tracks (support, general, honors) relate to the students’ own
perceptions of their achievements in the same area?
Research question three investigated how eighth-grade teachers’ perceptions of their
students’ academic achievement relate to the students’ own perceptions of their achievements in
language arts. From the student self-report survey administered to the eighth-grade students for
language arts, the following questions addressed research question three:
• In your view, what is the purpose of tracking, which results in ability tracking, for class
placement?
• How would you describe your understanding of tracking?
• In your view, to what degree does ability tracking affect an eighth grader’s perception of
their own abilities?
• In your opinion, do you believe that the ability to transfer tracks affects eighth grade
students’ self-efficacy and academic achievement?
• How often do you measure the self-efficacy of the students in your class (by use of
surveys, teacher-student conference, questionnaire?)
• In your view, do you believe that the majority of your students care about the ELA
track/course they are placed in?
• To what degree do you feel peers’ abilities have on a student’s own self-efficacy?
The research reviewed thus far points to the notion that teachers believe that tracking
directly impacts students’ self-efficacy which can impact their academic success, resulting in
positive or negative outcomes. Of the teachers that participated in this survey, more than half
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 71

admit to never measuring the self-efficacy of their students in relation to motivation and
learning. Teachers were unanimous on the notion that students care about the class they are
placed in due to tracking as well as the impact that peer influence has on students’ beliefs
surrounding their own abilities.
Conclusions
After analyzing the data collected from both the teacher and student self-report surveys,
the researcher was able to gather information that ability grouping using tracking does affect
eighth graders’ perceptions of their own abilities and achievements in language arts. Also, self-
efficacy of students differs based on the class track students are placed in which consequentially
affects their academic performance. In regards to teachers’ perceptions of their own students’
academic achievements in relation to the students’ own perceptions of their achievement in the
same area, perceptions were similarly matched. Teachers’ perceptions of how they believed their
students felt about their abilities were aligned to what their students identified. The following
conclusions were based on the research questions supported by the data and literature collected
by the study:
1. Ability grouping using tracking (support, general, honors) has a direct correlation to
eighth grade students’ perceptions of their own abilities and achievements in language
arts.
2. The self-efficacy of eighth grade students assigned to different tracks (support, general,
honors) is affected in relation to their academic achievement in language arts. Students in
the honors track elicit a strong sense of confidence and are motivated to achieve at a
higher level. Students in the support track are less motivated due to the lower
expectations they believe are imposed on them by their teachers and peers. Students
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 72

placed in the general language arts class have varied perceptions of their abilities which
aligns to their academic achievement and self-efficacy.
3. Based upon the teachers’ responses to the survey, the data shows that teachers’
perceptions of their students’ abilities align to the students’ perceptions of their own
abilities.
Recommendations
The intent of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of how ability grouping using
tracking might impact students’ perception of self-efficacy, student academic achievement and
teachers’ perceptions of student self-efficacy and academic performance due to tracking. The
strengths of this study included the sampling numbers of student participants represented from
each language arts class (support, general, and honors), as all groups were represented. Another
strength is that all of the eighth-grade language arts teachers at Oceanview Middle were
represented in this study.
One weakness of the study was the use of only one middle school in the district out of
three participating in the study. This narrow focus weakens the results as the results will not be
able to be generalized to a larger population. For example, at Oceanview Middle School, there is
only one honors class. This limits the data to only one group of honors students at one middle
school where more accurate data could have been collected if all honors classes in the three
middle schools of Beach City Unified were given the opportunity to participate. On the same
note, another weakness is that only the eighth-grade teachers at Oceanview Middle School
participated in the study. The limited number of student respondents and teacher participants
created a potential for results not allowable for generalizations to a larger population.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 73

Another weakness of this study was the researcher-created student and teacher surveys
used to rate self-efficacy amongst eighth grade students and teacher perceptions of their students.
Additional questions could have been included in the student survey asking pointed questions
surrounding whether or not they favor the practice of tracking, what benefits they could identify
with this practice, and explore other ways students identify as factors for motivation. Additional
questions could have been included in the teacher self-report survey asking teachers what
alternative practices they feel could be used for student class placement and what they believe to
be strong motivators for students’ academic success. It is important to note that self-efficacy in a
specific content area can change based on how proficient a person feels in attaining goals or
overcoming learning challenges in specific content areas. These feelings of self-efficacy can
change between content areas (Chiu et al., 2001; Pajares & Schunk, 2001).
Furthermore, a number of questions remain to determine the impact of tracking on
student perceptions of self-efficacy and its relation to academic performance. While the student
self-report survey questions focused on student perception and opinions regarding their current
language arts class placement, more emphasis could have been placed on allowing students to
reflect on how they believe their class placement directly impacts their motivation.
Another area of improvement for this study would be the limited focus of linking teacher
perceptions of students’ self-efficacy due to tracking with specific students’ own perceptions and
academic performance. For example, the research design of the study could have connected both
student and teacher perceptions of self-efficacy to see if there were any direct relationships
between what the teachers believe their students feel to the actual feelings and perceptions of
those students.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 74

Finally, the ability to confirm all three research questions may be untenable due to the
numerous influences each research question is impacted by. For instance, there are multiple
factors that can influence student self-efficacy and academic performance. Having to isolate one
factor and determine its impact is challenging given the nature of the design for the study.
Ability grouping using tracking is only one potential influence on a students’ limited motivation
level and furthermore, that impact on one’s own academic performance. Additional influences
can be independent, social, and genetic and, other key influences can include family and
community, teacher impact, and psychological influences.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings from this study yield implications for future research and practical
applications for other schools. Concerns for future research that originate directly from this
inquiry should include a comparison of the perceptions of eighth grade students and self-efficacy
due to tracking with those of other eight grade students across different types of schools,
including private, charter, magnet, parochial and independent schools. Similarities and
differences as a function of socio-economic status and school type would be significant.
The researcher also recommends a longitudinal study of a cohort of students from the
time they are placed in their sixth-grade classes to the completion of their eighth-grade year. This
would allow for a deeper understanding of tracking and its influence on student perceptions of
self-efficacy and its relation to academic performance. Also, students’ academic performance
should be measured by the cohorts’ standardized assessments, specifically the CAASPP rather
than their language arts grade, which is subjective due to teacher bias. An extension of this
research would be the use of surveys or focus groups with the student cohort to seek students’
perceptions of being tracked in programs over multiple years.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 75

From the discourse, eighth grade language arts teachers articulated their perceptions that
tracking is associated with having negative effects for students in the lower-ability classes. These
students are most often identified as racial minorities and low-income students. As described in
Kliebard’s (1995) analysis of the Progressive Era during 1893 – 1958, the purpose of schooling
was to fulfill the demand for laborers for industries. Although the demands of society have
changed, the practice of tracking remains prevalent in multiple schools across the country.
Administrators and policy leaders acknowledge that more research is needed on tracking
and its effects. The long-term effects of tracking within the restrictions of middle school carry
over into high school and impact class placement and academic performance. More research is
needed to explore the ramifications of academic tracking relative to student self-efficacy and its
impact on academic performance as well as the connection of teacher perceptions of this practice
and how it directly aligns to the students’ beliefs.

TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 76

References
Adunyarittigun, D. (2015). Developing a scale to measure reader self-perception for EFL
students. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 50, 1-30.
Agirdag, O., Van Avermaet, P., & Van Houtte, M. (2013). School segregation and math
achievement: A mixed-method study on the role of self-fulfilling prophecies. Teachers
College Record, 115. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=
10.1.1.706.5666&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Altermatt, E. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2005). The implications of having high-achieving versus
low-achieving friends: A longitudinal analysis. Social Development, 14, 61-81.
Ansalone, G. (2010). Tracking: Educational differentiation or defective strategy. Educational
Research Quarterly. 34. 3-17.
Angus, D. L., & Mirel, J. E. (1993). Equality, curriculum, and the decline of the academic ideal:
Detroit, 1930-68; History of Education Quarterly, 33(2), 177-207.
Ascher, C. (1992). Successful detracking in middle and senior high schools (ERIC/CUE Digest
No. 82). Retrieved from http://ericae.net/edo/ED351426.htm
Audia, P. G., Locke, E. A, Smith, K. G. (2000). The paradox of success: An archival and a
laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change.
Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 837-853.
Austin, J. T., Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structural, process and
content. Psychological Bulletin,120(3), 338-375.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York,
NY: Holt Rinehart.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 77

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287.
Bandura, A. R. (1994). Self-Efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human
Behavior, 4, 71-81.
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527692
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York, NY: W H Freeman/Times
Books/Henry Holt & Co.
Barmby, P. (2018). Ability-grouping in primary schools: Case studies and critical debates.
Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 91-94. doi:10.1080/14794802.2017.1365007
Becker, M., Neumann, M., Tetzner, J., Böse, S., Knoppick, H., Maaz, K., ... & Lehmann, R.
(2014). Is early ability grouping good for high-achieving students’ psychosocial
development? Effects of the transition into academically selective schools. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 106(2), 555.
Better, J. R., & Shkolnik, J. L. (2000). The effects of ability grouping on student math
Achievement and resource allocation in secondary schools. University of California at
San Diego Economics Discussion Paper No. 96-25R.
Betts, J. R., & Shkolnik, J. L. (1998). The effects of ability grouping on student math
achievement and resource allocation in secondary schools. doi:10.1016/S0272-
7757(98)00044-2
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 78

Biafora, F., & Ansalone, G. (2008). Perceptions and attitudes of school principals towards school
tracking: Structural considerations of personal beliefs. Education, 128(4), 588-603.
Blanton, H., Buunk, B. P., Gibbons, F. X., & Kuyper, H. (1999). When better than-others
compare upward: Choice of comparison and comparative evaluation as independent
predictors of academic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,
420-430.
Boaler, J., Dylan, W., & Brown, M. (2000). Students’ experiences of ability grouping—
disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure. British Educational Research
Journal, 26(5), 631-648. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/204846953?accountid=14749
Brandon. K., Avermaetm P. V., & Houtte, M. (Eds.). (2011). Equity and excellence in education:
Towards maximal learning opportunities for all students. New York, NY: Routledge
Brim Jr, O. G., & Ryff, C. D. (1980). On the properties of life events. Life-span development and
Behavior, 3, 367-388.
Burris, C., & Garrity, D. T. (2003). Detracking for excellence and equity. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD
Bygren, M. (2016). Ability grouping’s effects on grades and the attainment of higher
education. Sociology of Education, 89(2), 118-136. doi:10.1177/0038040716642498
Butz, Toni R. (2011). Case Study: Influences of tracking on achievement, self-efficacy and
instruction. (Doctoral dissertation, Grand Canyon University. Available from ProQuest.
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college
student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55–64.
10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.55
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 79

Chiu, D., Beru, Y., Watley, E., Wubu, S., Simson, E., Kessinger, R. . . . Wigfield, A. (2008).
Influences of math tracking on seventh-grade students’ self-beliefs and social
comparisons. Journal of Educational Research, 102(2), 125-136. doi:10.3200/JOER.
102.2.125-136
Chubb, J., & Loveless, T. (2002). Bridging the achievement gap. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets and America ’s schools. Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institution.
Collins, C. A., & Gan, L. (2013). Does sorting students improve scores? An analysis of class
composition. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).
Cooper, R. (1996). Detracking reform in an urban California high school: Improving the
schooling experiences of African American students. The Journal of Negro Education,
65(2), 190. doi:10.2307/2967313
Cremin, M. (1998) The imagination, and originality, in English and classroom drama. English
in Education, 32(2), 4-13, doi:10.1111/j.1754-8845.1998.tb00144.x
Crosby, M., & Owens, E. (1993). The disadvantages of tracking and ability grouping: A look at
cooperative learning as an alternate. Retrieved from http://dropoutprevention.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/08/SS05.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (2016, June 18). Unequal Opportunity: Race and Education. The
Brookings Review, 16(2), 28. doi:10.2307/20080779
Drowatsky, J. (1981). Tracking and Ability Grouping in Education. Journal of Law and
Education, 10(1), 43.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 80

Dupriez, V. (2010). Methods of grouping learners at school. Paris: UNESCO, International
Institute for Educational Planning.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,41(10),
1040-1048. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
Dweck, C. S. (2002). The development of ability conceptions. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles
(Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 15-31). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Erikson, E.H. (1963). Childhood and Society (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.
Fang, Z. (2006). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research,
38(1), 47-65. doi:10.1080/0013188960380104
Fui, C. S., & Lian, L. H. (2011). Effect of track position on students’ attitude towards science.
Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 35, 135-148.
Gibbons, F. X., Blanton, H., Gerrard, M., Buunk, B., & Eggleston, T. (2000). Does social
comparison make a difference? Optimism as a moderator of the relation between
comparison level and academic performance. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 637-648.
Ginsburg, D. (2016, June 1). Ability grouping: Better for students or easier for schools?
Retrieved from https://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/coach_gs_teaching_tips/
Glass, G. V. (2002). School reform proposals: The research evidence: Grouping students for
instruction. Retrieved from https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/summary-
05.glass_.pdf
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. Prospects for the future. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 81

Guay, F., Boivin, M., & Hodges, E. V. E. (1999). Social comparison processes and academic
achievement: The dependence of the development of self-evaluations on friends’
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 564-568.
Hallinan, M. T. (1992). The organization of students for instruction in the middle
school. Sociology of Education, 114-127.
Hallinan, M. T. (2004). The detracking movement: Despite the efforts of the educational
progressives, tracking remains standard practice. Education Next, 4(4), 72-76.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1992). Understanding teacher development. New York, Teacher’s
College Press.
Hollifield, J. (1987) Ability grouping in elementary schools. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED290542.pdf
Holloway, J. H. (2001). Grouping students for increased achievements. Educational
Leadership, 59(3), 84-85.
Hornby, G., Witte, C., & Mitchell, D. (2011). Policies and practices of ability grouping in
New Zealand intermediate schools. Support for Learning, 26(3), 92-96.
Hultsch, D. F., & Plemons, J. K. (1979). Life events and life-span development. Life-span
development and behavior, 2, 1-36.
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (1999). Raising standards: is ability grouping the answer? Oxford Review
of Education, 25(3), 343-358.
Kliebard, H. M. (1995). Why history of education? Journal of Educational Research, 88(4)
194-199.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 82

Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and
contemporary perspectives. Report to the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, Grant No. R206R0001. Retrieved from
https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rbdm9204.pdf
Lefgren, L. (2004), Educational peer effects and the Chicago public schools. Journal of Urban
Economics, 56, (2), 169-191
Lent, R. W., Sheu, H. B., Singley, D., Schmidt, J. A., Schmidt, L. C., & Gloster, C. S. (2008).
Longitudinal relations of self-efficacy to outcome expectations, interests, and major
choice goals in engineering students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(2), 328-335.
LeTendre, G. K., Hofer, B. K., & H. S. (2003). Cultural expectations in the United States,
Germany, and Japan. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 43-90.
Locklear, T. M. (2012). A descriptive, survey research study of the student characteristics
influencing the four theoretical sources of mathematical self-efficacy of college freshmen
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky). Retrieved from https://uknowledge.uky.
edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=stem_etds
Loveless, T. (1998). The tracking and ability grouping debate. Volume 2, Number 8. Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED422454.pdf
Loveless, T. (1999). The tracking wars: State reform meets school policy. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Loveless, T. (2001). The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading and math.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Margolis, H., & Mccabe, P. P. (2006). Improving self-efficacy and motivation. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 41(4), 218-227. doi:10.1177/10534512060410040401
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 83

McCarter, A. K. (2014). Ability grouping in elementary schools. (Doctoral dissertation, East
Tennessee State University). Retrieved from https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3818&context=etd
McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2009). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student
motivation and higher achievement. The Education Digest, 74(8), 39-44. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/doc
view/1933126700?accountid=14749
Mirel, J. (1998). (Review of the book The once and future school: Three hundred and fifty years
of American secondary education). American Journal of Education, 106, 334-340.
Mühlenweg, A. M., & Puhani, P. A. (2010). The evolution of the school-entry age effect
in a school tracking system. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/466824/pdf
NCES. (n.d.). Achievement gaps. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
studies/gaps/
Oakes, Jeannie. (1985). Keeping Track: How school structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66(4), 543-578.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. (2000). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept,
and school achievement. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Rayner (Eds.), International
perspectives on individual differences, Vol. 2. Self perception (pp. 239-265). Westport,
CT, Ablex Publishing
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’ writing.
The Journal of Educational Research, 90(6), 353-360.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 84

Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2017). Ability grouping and differentiated instruction in an era of
data-driven decision making. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 281-306.
doi:10.1086/689930
Pritchard, R. R. (2012). The influence of ability grouping on math achievement in a rural
middle school (Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University). Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1784/d1f1b8f18e6a36606ec3adb1bb7ee2246dc1.pdf
Rand. (n.d.) Disadvantaged students. Retrieved from https://rand.org/topics/disadvantaged-
students.html
Ravitch, D. (1990). Diversity and democracy: Multicultural education in America. American
Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 14(1).
Rossman, G., Corbett, H., & Firestone, W. (Eds.). (1988). Change and effectiveness in schools:
A cultural perspective. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press
Rubin, B. C., & Noguera, P. A. (2004). Tracking detracking: Sorting through the dilemmas and
possibilities of detracking in practice. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(1), 92-101.
doi:10.1080/10665680490422142
Salmans, S. (1988, April 10). The tracking controversy. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.
com/1988/04/10/education/the-tracking-controversy.html
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-
evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.
Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 85

Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one hundred years
of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on k12 students’
academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849-899.
doi:10.3102/0034654316675417
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, by special arrangement with the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Useem, E. L. (1992). Middle schools and math groups: Parent’s involvement in children’s
placement. Sociology of Education, 65, 263-279.
Van Houtte, M. (2004). Tracking effects on school achievement: A quantitative explanation in
terms of the academic culture of school staff. American Journal of Education, 110(4),
354-388. doi:10.1086/422790
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing q-methodological research: Theory, method &
interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), 67-91. doi:10.1191/
1478088705qp022oa
Weibell, C. J. (2011). Principles of learning: 7 principles to guide personalized, student-
centered learning in the technology-enhanced, blended learning environment. Retrieved
July 4, 2011 from https://principlesoflearning.wordpress.com
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational
process. Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203-215.
Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003, May). Looking
inside the classroom: A Study of K-12 mathematics and science.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 86

Wiatrowski, M. D., Hansell, S., Massey, C. R., & Wilson, D. (1982)
Curriculum tracking and delinquency. American Sociological Review, 47(1), 151-60.
Wheelock, A. (1994). Alternatives to tracking and ability grouping. Arlington, VA: American
Association of School Administrators.
Yonezawa, S., & Jones, M. (2006). students perspectives on tracking and detracking. Theory
into Practice, 45(1), 15-23.
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 87

Figures

Figure A: Student Understanding of the Term Tracking

TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 88

Figure B: Student Choice for Language Arts Class
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 89

Figure C: Current Grade to Student Ability and Performance
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 90

Figure D: Tracking and Student Labeling

TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 91

Figure E: Student Confidence in Academic Abilities

TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 92

Figure F: Student Self-Labeling
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 93

Figure G: Student Opinions on Teacher’s Opinion about Them
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 94

Figure H: Direct Connection between Class Placement and Motivation
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 95

Figure I: Language Arts Class and Self-Efficacy

TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 96

Figure J: Language Arts Class and Challenge Factor
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 97

Figure K: Average Minutes Used for Study

TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 98

Figure L: Student Effort

TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 99

Figure M: Student Interest in Language Arts Class
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 100

General Honors Support Overall
TRUE 20 24 13 57
FALSE 10 2 2 14
20
24
13
57
10
2 2
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
No. of Students

Figure N: Student Effort Level

TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 101

Figure O: Responses to Lack of Challenge or Support

TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 102

Figure P: Tracking and Effect on Student Perception of Abilities
TRACKING AND THE IMPACT ON SELF-EFFICACY 103

Figure Q: Teacher Rating on Impact of Peer Abilities

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining the impact of continuation high schools on students' self-efficacy

PDF

Latino high school students: Self-efficacy and college choice

PDF

The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of instructional strategies for the gifted from differentiation professional development

PDF

Women's self-efficacy perceptions in mathematics and science: investigating USC-MESA students

PDF

Employing cognitive task analysis supported instruction to increase medical student and surgical resident performance and self-efficacy

PDF

Play, read, learn: building young Black males literacy skills through an activity-based intervention

PDF

Implications of a tracked mathematics curriculum in middle school

PDF

The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students

PDF

Musical self-efficacy of graduate students in South Korea and the United States

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

School connectedness and teacher reflective practices

PDF

Exploring the effects of media on the self-concepts and achievement of African American high school students

PDF

The impact of the mindful method Youth Empowerment Seminar (YES!) on students' self-efficacy, self-regulation, and academic performance for becoming college- and career-ready

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...

PDF

Effects of teacher autonomy support with structure on marginalized urban student math achievement

PDF

Raising cultural self-efficacy among faculty and staff of a private native Hawaiian school system

Asset Metadata

Creator Matsumoto, Anakonia Leeann K. K. (author)

Core Title The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 12/09/2019

Defense Date 12/07/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag ability grouping,ability grouping in education,ability grouping in middle school,education,middle school,motivational learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,secondary education,self-efficacy,student self-efficacy,Title 1,tracking,tracking in education

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra (committee chair), Manzone, Jessica (committee member), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email a2matsumoto@gmail.com,almatsum@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-249952

Unique identifier UC11674890

Identifier etd-MatsumotoA-8031.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-249952 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MatsumotoA-8031.pdf

Dmrecord 249952

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Matsumoto, Anakonia Leeann K. K.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA