GRADE RETENTION EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH IN EUROPE:
STATE OF THE ART
Symposium at the EARLI 2021 virtual conference
Symposium overview
̶̶ Study 1: Effects of retention in grade 5-6 on Portuguese students’ psychosocial development in middle school (Joana Pipa, Francisco Peixoto & João Daniel, ISPA)
̶̶ Study 2: Effects of retention in grade 7 on multiple socioemotional outcomes among German repeaters (Paul Fabian, TU Dortmund & Katja Scharenberg, Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg)
̶̶ Study 3: Long-term effects of retention in grade 8 in Luxembourg (Florian
Klapproth, Medical School Berlin & Ulrich Keller & Antoine Fischbach, University of Luxembourg)
̶̶ Study 4: Does retention in grades 1-9 produce cynical citizens? A cross-national
multilevel analysis (Timo Van Canegem, Mieke Van Houtte & Jannick Demanet,
UGent)
Effects of retention in grade 5-6 on Portuguese students’
psychosocial development in middle school
Joana PIPA 1 , João R. DANIEL 2 , & Francisco PEIXOTO 1
1
CIE-ISPA, ISPA – Instituto Universitário, Portugal
2
William James Center for Research, ISPA – Instituto Universitário, Portugal
19
thBiennial EARLI Conference
23 – 27 August 2021, online
Introduction
In the Portuguese school system grade retention is often applied when students do not meet academic expectations and competencies for a given grade level
10% 12%
5
thGrade 6
thGrade
Grade retention rates 2012-2014 in middle school
urg m ain gal
any ile ce nd nds ly ria ico es ael ey lia nd ary
and da lic rea
ark en and
blic m ce nia nd ia nd pan ay
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Grade retention rates PISA 2018 (OECD, 2019)
Introduction
Being retained could constitute a negative psychological experience (Anderson et al., 2005;
Jimerson & Ferguson, 2007; Martin, 2011)
Studies on grade retention effects in psychosocial factors are less common and controversial:
Academic self-concept and self-esteem: Positive effects mainly in short-term Vs.
nonsignificant or negative effects in long-term (Ehmke et al., 2010; Klapproth et al., 2016; Kretschmann et al., 2019; Lamote et al., 2014; Mathys et al., 2019; Hwang & Cappella, 2018; Peixoto et al., 2016; Van Canegem et al., 2021)
Goal orientations: Less studied, less adaptive profiles for retainees (Peixoto et al., 2017)
Negative effects of grade retention in the long run found in recent meta-analysis (Goos, Pipa,
& Peixoto, 2021)
Need for studies considering the time-varying nature of grade retention and students’
development (Marsh et al., 2017; Vandecandelaere et al., 2016)
The present study
To analyse the effects of grade 5 or 6 retention on students’ trajectories:
academic self-concept self-esteem
goal orientations
RQ: What would have been the trajectories of retained students on
academic self-concept, self-esteem, and goal orientations, had they been
promoted instead of been retained?’
Participants
Longitudinal Study
726 students from 12 schools
(M
ageT1= 10.43, SD
ageT1= 0.49, 47% boys )
Y1
2012/13 Y2
2013/14 Y3
2014/2015
5th grade 726 31 551
6th grade 691
27
+
47
R
R
Measures
Grade retention Grade 5 or 6
Self-concept and self-esteem scale (Peixoto et al., 2017) Reading self-concept (Y1-Y3: α = .60 - α = .66)
Math self-concept (Y1-Y3: α = .89 - α = .91)
Self-esteem (Y1-Y3: α = .79- α = .82)
Goal Orientations Scale (Pipa et al., 2016) Task orientation (Y1-Y3: α = .79 - α = .83)
Self-enhancing orientation ( Y1-Y3: α = .84 - α = .89)
Self-defeating orientation (Y1-Y3: α = .84 - α = .91)
Avoidance orientation (Y1-Y3: α = .80 - α = .83)
*Response scale 1-4 Students’ social background
School context
Baseline measures
Data analysis
*Same-age comparison
1) Handling missing data: Multiple imputation by chained equations
(van Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011)
2) Group comparison
2.1) Logistic regression > 1% of probability of being retained
2.2) Matching: Inverse probability weighting (IPW) with time-varying treatments
(Austin & Stuart, 2015; Vandecandelaere et al., 2016; van der Wal & Geskus, 2011)
3) Outcome analysis: Weighted linear regression models
Results
726 students
78 retained
students 70 promoted
students 1% probability of
being retained + IPW
Promoted Vs. 5th grade retained
Promoted Vs. 6th grade retained
Results
Language self-concept Math self-concept
Results
Self-esteem Task orientation
Results
Self-enhancing orientation Self-defeating orientation
Results
Avoidance orientation
Conclusions
If promoted, retained students would have more favourable trajectories, especially in terms of their self-perception of academic competence, self-esteem and motivation to master school-related tasks (Klapproth et al., 2016; Kretschmann et al., 2019; Mathys et al., 2019; Peixoto et al., 2016;
Peixoto et al., 2017)
Small benefit of being retained seem to not overcome the feeling of failure and the stigmatization that being a ‘retainee’ could bring ( Demanet & Van Houtte, 2016; Goos et al., 2013;
Kretschmann et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2010)
Dynamic nature of grade retention (Vandecandelaere et al., 2016). 6
thgrade retainees with less
adaptive trajectories, especially concerning self-esteem
Implications
Value-added in studying the effects of grade retention on students’ psychosocial development, considering different aspects
Psychosocial costs of retaining a student; Aspects to consider in retention decision-making
Support and monitoring students’ perception of competence, self-esteem and motivation, in the
case of retention
jpipa@ispa.pt
19
thBiennial EARLI Conference
23 – 27 August 2021, online
The effects of grade retentions on socio-emotional outcomes
Paul Fabian
Center for Research on Education and School Development, TU Dortmund University
Katja Scharenberg
Institute of Sociology, University of Education Freiburg EARLI 2021, Geneva (online)
26.08.2021
Outlining the problem
Grade retention (GR) is defined as non-promotion of students into the next grade if a set of goals is not met (cf. e.g. Hattie 2013, Roßbach &
Tietze 2010, S. 706).
No internationally defined set of goals that determine a grade retention
But: some similarities in individual characteristics that raise the
probability of being retained (e.g. EURYDICE 2011)
Outlining the problem: German context
Tendencies to abolish grade retentions (e.g. Hamburg, Berlin) or reduction of annual retention rates
18.1 % cumulated repetention rates (15-yo, OECD: 12.0 %, Sälzer et al. 2016)
ca. 2.3 % annual retention rate (combined, see Statistisches Bundesamt 2017)
Individual and (national) economic consequences (Fabian 2020; Klemm 2009)
Example - USA: aggravation of standards for promotion –
abolishing of social promotion
Research status
Allen, Chen, Willson & Hughes (2009):
Quality of Research-Design is a significant predictor in analyses of the effects of grade retentions
Socio-emotional development of retainees
As already shown in presentation of J. Pipa: mixed results, short-term- vs. long-
term-effects
Theoretical approaches to causes and effects of GR
Causes and effects were not questioned on a theoretical grounds
Possible reason: old, well established phenomenon with a clear pedagogical focus
The ecology of human development (Bronfenbrenner 1981, 1986)
Major life events (Filipp & Aymanns 2010)
Dimension of justice: Who repeats when and why?
Individual chances and risks:
effectiveness: does a grade retention lead to consolidation of low achievements?
Socio-emotional development: does GR impact „soft“
factors positively or negatively (or at all)?
Educational biography: does GR impact further education, qualification and long term perspectives (i.e. labour,
wellbeing)
Dimensions of GR
Research question and ypotheses (H1)
What effect does GR have on the development of reading-, mathematical- and more general socioemotional factors?
H1: We find postive effects on reading- and mathematic- related socioemotional factors.
H2: We find no effects on general socioemotional factors.
Data: the National Educational Panel Study (NEPS)
Grade 9 Grade 9 Grade 7
Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 8
Assessment:
Reading Mathematics
Assessment:
Reading Mathematics Assessment:
Reading Mathematics
Assessment:
Reading Mathematics
Questionnaire (Students, Teaching Staff) Interview (Parent)
Questionnaire (Students, Teaching Staff) Interview (Parent)
N
(S): 5.335
N
(S): 5.335 N N
(S)(S): : 5.335 5.335 N N
(S)(S): : 5.335 5.335 Questionnaire
(Students, Teaching Staff) Interview (Parent
Questionnaire (Students, Teaching Staff) Interview (Parent
Questionnaire (Students, Teaching Staff) Interview (Parent
Questionnaire (Students, Teaching Staff) Interview (Parent
Fig. 3: Assessment points, domains, Targets & sample size
Data: the NEPS
Grade 9 Grade 9
Assessment:
Reading Mathematics
Assessment:
Reading Mathematics
N
(S): 5.335 N
(S): 5.335 Grade 7
Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 8
Assessment:
Reading Mathematics
Assessment:
Reading Mathematics
Questionnaire (Students, Teaching Staff) Interview (Parent)
Questionnaire (Students, Teaching Staff) Interview (Parent)
N
(S): 5.335
N
(S): 5.335 N N
(S)(S): : 5.335 5.335 Questionnaire
(Students, Teaching Staff) Interview (Parent)
Questionnaire (Students, Teaching Staff) Interview (Parent)
Questionnaire (Students, Teaching Staff) Interview (Parent)
Questionnaire (Students, Teaching Staff) Interview (Parent)
G ra d e R et en ti o n , N = 9 4
Fig. 3: Assessment points, domains, Targets & sample size
Analytic strategies and -methods
Imputation of missing values (R 4.1 (R Core Team 2020), package mice (van Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn 2011), m=50)
Calculation of Propensity Scores followed by matching
1:1 Nearest Neighbor Matching with Caliper (0.2), no replacement
no exact matching
Sensitivity analyses
Standardised Mean Differences, Ratio of Variances, Ratio of
Variances of Residuals (vgl. Austin 2009, 2011, Stuart 2010)
Analytic strategies and -methods
Propensity Scores
32 variables in assignment model
Individual factors (i.e. Sex, migration background, HISEI)
Prior knowledge/control of outcome prior to retention
affective factors (i.e. self-concept/self-esteem, intellectual helplessness German/Math)
Classroom characteristics (i.e. level of interest, level of independence)
Teacher characteristics (i.e. views on multiculturalism)
Analytic strategies and -methods
Matching and weighted linear regressions (2/3 models)
M1: retention
M2: retention + outcome before Treatment
M3: retention + outcome + control variables
Prior knowledge (competence measure in reading/math)
Sex
Migration background
Socioeconomical Status (HISEI)
Cultural Capital (highest parental CASMIN)
Reading motivation, reading self-concept, reading quantity
School type
Outcomes
Reading motivation (M= 2.73, SD = .96, α =.91)
Reading self-concept (M= 3.05, SD = .65, α =.71)
Helplessness in german/math
German: M= 1.68, SD = .69, α =.86)
Math: M=1.74, SD = .64, α =.90)
School satisfaction (M= 6.69, SD = 2.35)
Joy of learning (M = 3.15, SD = .60, α =.85)
Willingness to make an effort
(M = 2.98, SD = .63, α =.70)
Descriptives of the sample
N = 5.335 M (SD)
Sex (male) 51 %
Migration background 32 %
Age 12.93 years (.51)
HISEI 50.44 (16.18)
HCASMIN 14.35 years (2.37)
M/N (in %)
Hauptschule 8%
Schule mit mehreren Bildungsgängen 14%
Realschule 22%
Integrierte Gesamtschule 10%
Gymnasium 47%
Descriptives of the sample
Math competence
(W5) Reading competence
(W6) GR
r p r p r p
1 Reading Motivation .27 .000 .32 .000 -.07 .000
2 Reading Self Concept .23 .000 .26 .000 -.04 .003
3 School Satisfaction .15 .000 .15 .000 -.11 .000
4 Helplessness German -.28 .000 -.17 .000 .08 .000
5 Helplessness Math -.17 .000 -.23 .000 .08 .000
6 Willingness to make an Effort .1. .000 .14 .000 -.11 .000
7 Joy on learning .03 .139 .07 .001 -.08 .000
Analytic methodics: Propensity Scores and Propensity Score Matching (PSM)
Control Treated
All 5.241 94
Matched 89 89
Unmatched 5.152 5
Matched Std. Mean Difference Propensity Score (d) .01
aRange Std. Mean Difference Covariates (d) -.08 < d < .09
aRatio of Variances 1.03
bRatio of Variances of Residuals .97
bmatched and unmatched Treatments/Controls
Sensitivity analyses for Propensity Scores
a
-.25 < d < .25: PS is well balanced (cf. Stuart 2010)
b
0 < ratio < 2 Ratio is well balanced (cf. ibid.)
Results
No significant effects for GR on
Reading motivation (retention year, two years later)
School satisfaction (retention year, two years later)
Willingness to make an effort (retention year)
Reading self concept (retention year, two years later)
Significant effects on
Postive effect on helplessness in german (retention year):
b = -.22, p = .06
Postive effect on helplessness in math (rentention year):
b = -.25, p < .000
Negative effect on Joy of learning: b = -.16, p = .09
Conclusion
Reduction of feeling of helplessness in math in
german (short term) in line with previous research (eg. Ehmke et al. 2010, 2017; Marsh et al. 2017)
Joy of learning negative tendency
Non-significant effects on reading self-concept
no effect on reading motivation, school satisfaction or
in willingness to make an effort
Limitations and strengths
Limitations:
Fewer repeaters in grade 7 than anticipated (1.7% in sample vs. 2.4% in K7, cp. Statistisches Bundesamt 2013)
Only few (repeated) measures of socio-emotional factors
No possibility of taking cluster-structures into account (multilevel analyses)
Methodological issues: why look at (i.e.) helplessness in
math for students who did not repeat because of deficits in
math?
Limitations and strengths
Strengths:
Strong methodologial approach - causal analyses (PSM)
Data from a longitudinal, representative sample (NEPS)
Control of all outcome variables prior to retention
High „Quality of Research Design“ (Allen et al. 2009)
Outlook
Incorporation of research results of Kleinkorres, Stang &
McElvany (2020) (wellbeing instead of socio-emotional factors)
Taking measurement errors (SEM) and measurment invariance into account
Further research on different dimensions:
Who repeats and why?
Very scarce information on the role of teachers in GR
Very scarce information on the role of school factors (i.e. schools with challenging socio-cultural/socio-economic situations)
Contact to european colleagues to identify potential for
collaboration
Thank you for your attention!
paul.fabian@tu-dortmund.de
Bibliography
Bibliography I
Allen, C. S., Chen, Q., Willson, V. L., & Hughes, J. N. (2009). Quality of research design moderates effects of grade retention on achievement: A meta- analytic, multi-level analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 480-499.
Austin, P. C. (2009). Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine, 28(25), 3083-3107.
Austin, P. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), 399-424.
Bless, G., Schüpbach, M., & Bonvin, P. (2004). Klassenwiederholung: Determinanten, Wirkungen und Konsequenzen. Bern, u.a.: Haupt.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1981). Die Ökologie der menschlichen Entwicklung: Natürliche und geplante Experimente. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Recent advances in research on the ecology of human development. In R.-K. Silbereisen, K. Eyferth & G. Rudinger (Hrsg.), Development as action in context – Problem behavior and normal youth development (S. 287-310). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Bibliography II
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 227-268. Verfügbar unter: http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2000_DeciRyan_PIWhatWhy.pdf [09.09.2018].
Ehmke, T., Drechsel, B., & Carstensen, C. H. (2010). Effects of grade retention on achievement and self-concept in science and mathematics. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36(1-2), 27-35.
Ehmke, T., Sälzer, C., Pietsch, M., Drechsel, B., & Müller, K. (2017). Kompetenzentwicklung im Schuljahr nach PISA 2012: Effekte von Klassenwiederholungen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(2), 99-124.
EURYDICE (2011). Grade retention during compulsory education in Europe: Regulations and Statistics. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Exectuive Agency.
Fabian, P. (2020). Leistungskonsolidierung, Leistungssteigerung – oder etwas ganz anderes? Die Effekte einer Klassenwiederholung auf die Leistungsentwicklung. Münster: Waxmann. (Empirische Erziehungswissenschaft, Bd. 75).
Fend, H. (1981). Theorie der Schule (2. Aufl.). München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
Filipp, S.-H., & Aymanns, P. (2010). Kritische Lebensereignisse und Lebenskrisen: Vom Umgang mit den Schattenseiten des Lebens. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer.
Bibliography III
Gangl, M., & DiPrete, T. A. (2004). Kausalanalyse durch Matchingverfahren. In A. Diekmann (Hrsg.), Methoden der Sozialforschung (Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Sonderheft 44/2004, S. 396-420). Wiesbaden: VS.
Goos, M., van Damme, J., Onghena, P., & Petry, K. (2011, März). First-grade retention: Effects on children’s actual and perceived performance throughout elementary education. Spring Conference of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE), Washington, DC.
Karweit, N. L. (1999). Grade retention: Prevalence, timing, and effects. Report: Nr. 33. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR).
Kleinkorres, R., Stang, J. & McElvany, N. (2020).
Klemm, K. (2009). Klassenwiederholungen - teuer und unwirksam: Eine Studie zu den Ausgaben für Klassenwiederholungen in Deutschland. Gütersloh:
Bertelsmann Stiftung. Verfügbar unter: http://bildungsklick.de/datei-archiv/50768/studie_klassenwiederholungen.pdf.
Lamote, C., Pinxten, M., van den Noortgate, W., & van Damme, J. (2014). Is the cure worse than the disease? A longitudinal study on the effect of grade retention in secondary education on achievement and academic self-concept. Educational Studies, 40(5), 496-514.
Marsh, Herbert W.; Parker, John W. (July 1984). "Determinants of student self-concept: Is it better to be a relatively large fish in a small pond even if you don't learn to swim as well?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 47 (1): 213–231. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.1.213
Bibliography IV
Marsh, H. W., Pekrun, R., Parker, P. D. Murayama, K., Guo, J., Dicke, T., & Lichtenfeld, S. (2017). Long-term positive effects of repeating a year in school:
Six-year longitudinal study of self-beliefs, anxiety, social relations, school grades, and test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 425-438.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1962). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
Roßbach, H.-G., & Tietze, W. (2010). Sitzenbleiben. In D. H. Rost (Hrsg.), Handwörterbuch Pädagogische Psychologie (4. Aufl.) (S. 706-712). Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.
Sälzer, C., Prenzel, M., Schiepe-Tiska, A., & Hammann, M. (2016). Schulische Rahmenbedingungen der Kompetenzentwicklung. In K. Reiss, C. Sälzer, A.
Schiepe-Tiska, E. Klieme & O. Köller (Hrsg.), PISA 2015 – Eine Studie zwischen Kontinuität und Innovation (S. 177-218). Münster, New York: Waxmann.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2017). Bildung und Kultur: Allgemein bildende Schulen. Fachserie 11, Reihe 1: Schuljahr 2016/2017. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
Stuart, E. A. (2007). Estimating causal effects using school-level data sets. Educational Researcher, 36(4), 187-198.
Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25(1), 1-21.
APPENDIX
Theoretical approaches to causes and effects of GR
Aim of GR (positive):
Consolidation of performance and academic achievement (i.e. Goos et al. 2011, Lamote et al. 2014)
Homogeneity of student groups(Fend 1981)
Time to develop maturity needed for further challenges (Piaget &
Inhelder 1969)
Remediation of learning deficits (Bless et al. 2004), more time on tasks (Caroll & Spearritt 1967)
Big-Fish-Little-Pond-Effect (Marsh & Parker 1984) higher sense of self (Deci & Ryan 2000) when doing social comparisons with
younger classmates (Festinger 1954),
Theoretical approaches to causes and effects of GR
(possible) side-effects of GR
Loss of autonomy, experience of failure, loss of peer-group (Deci & Ryan 2000)
Social Exclusion, stigmatisation/labelling (Becker 1963, Lemert 1967), Pygmalion-Effect (Rosenthal & Jacobson 1992)
Demotivation through repetition of whole curricula, low
intellectual stimulation
Long-term effects of retention
in grade 8 in Luxembourg
Florian Klapproth
1, Ulrich Keller
2& Antoine Fischbach
21
Medical School Berlin Berlin, Germany
2
University of Luxembourg,
Luxembourg
Grade retention as a pedagogical intervention
• When students fail to demonstrate sufficient grade-level
achievements, grade retention is one solution that is commonly applied
• In Luxembourg, about 50% of the students have repeated a
grade level within their school career (Klapproth & Schaltz, 2014)
Grade retention as a pedagogical intervention
• Many educators believe that children or teenagers who do not reach the academic and behavioral norms set by schools,
simply need more time in order to develop the degree of maturity needed for the next grade
(e. g., Grant & Richardson, 1998)
• Consequently, these students are retained in grade instead of
being promoted to the next grade
Effects of grade retention
• Most meta-analyses show negative or null effects of grade retention on achievement variables measured in the
subsequent grades (Hattie, 2009; Holmes, 1989; Jimerson, 2001)
• In addition, meta-analyses reveal mixed results concerning psycho-emotional outcomes, such as attendance, social
adjustment, attitudes toward school, or problem behaviors
(Holmes, 1989; Jimerson, 2001)
Effects of grade retention
• Some studies show that positive effects of grade retention persisted only in the short-term but diminished within 2 or
more years after the repeated year (Klapproth, Schaltz, Brunner, Keller, Fischbach, Ugen & Martin, 2016; Pierson & Connell, 1992; Wu, West & Hughes,
2008)
Effects of grade retention
• Possible reasons for positive short-term effects:
– Repetition of curriculum, encountering of the same learning content
• Possible reasons for negative long-term effects:
– Relatively low intellectual stimulation of retained students
– Social exclusion by peers
– Stigmatization of retained students
(Entwisle & Hayduk, 1982)
Hypotheses of the current study
• With respect to academic achievement, it was expected that in the long-term (from second to fourth year after retention),
retained students should experience losses from being retained, compared to promoted students
• This effect should be present in
– (a) lower school marks
– (b) retention in subsequent grades
Method
Participants
• The data were drawn from N = 2,835 students who completed primary school in the sixth grade in Luxembourg and began
secondary school in the seventh grade in the 2008/2009 school year
• 28 % had been retained in 7 th , 8 th or 9 th grade
Method
• The best methodological approach for testing the effects of grade retention would be the use of a randomized design
• But in this particular field, such an approach could never be applied for obvious ethical reasons
• To compensate for unwanted a priori differences between
retained and promoted students, one approach that could be
used is matching
Method
Propensity-Score Matching
• The following variables were used:
– Student gender
– Student nationality
– School track in secondary school – Student age
– SES
– 6
thgrade school marks in German, French, and mathematics – 7
thgrade school marks in German, French, and mathematics
– Results from standardized academic achievement tests in the 6
thgrade
Method
• After propensity-score matching, 139 students who repeated grade 8 were compared with 139 control students who were promoted to grade 9
• Control students were, according to their propensity scores, similar to the retained students
• Age (grade 7):
M = 10.9 years (SD = 0.6)
• Gender:
47% female, 53% male
• Nationality:
N = 238
Method
Variables
• „Independent“ variable:
– Grade retention versus promotion
• Dependent variables:
– School marks in grades 10, 11, and 12 in German, French, and Math
• Only for students who have not repeated another grade
– Frequency of subsequent grade retentions starting
from the third year in secondary school
Method
Design
• Usually, there are two effective designs to compare retained and promoted students:
– same-age comparisons and same-grade comparisons
Method
Design
• In same-age comparisons, retained and promoted students were of the same age, but in different grades
– e.g., both student groups were on average 11 years old, but the
retained students were in grade 7 and the promoted in grade 8
Method
Design
• In same-grade comparisons, retained and promoted students were in the same grade, but of different ages
– e.g., both student groups were in grade 9, but the retained students
were on average one year older than the promoted students
Method
Design
• We used a mixture of the “same age, different grades” and the
“same grade, different ages” approaches
• We called this mixture the “same age-cohort, same grade, different times of measurement” approach
• In this comparison, outcome variables for the retained and
promoted students were compared at different times, but the
grade and age-cohort of the two groups of students were the
same
Results
10 G 10 F 10 M 11 G 11 F 11 M 12 G 12 F 12 M
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Retained Students Promoted Students School Subjects and Grade
School Marks
N = 46
Results
• ANOVA:
– Main effect of grade
• F(2, 88) = 3.19, p = .046, h
2= .07
– Main effect of retention
• F(1, 44) = 4.92, p = .032, h
2= .10
– Interaction grade x retention
• F(2, 88) = 3.10, p = .050, h
2= .07
– Interaction grade x school subject x retention
• F(4, 176) = 2.20, p = .071, h
2= .05
Results
• Frequency of grade retention after third year of secondary school (after grade 8 or grade 9)
• Difference between both groups is not significant, c Frequency of
Grade
Retention
Retained Students (n = 139)
Promoted Students (n = 139)
0 x 35 % 40 %
1 x 44 % 39 %
2 x 15 % 17 %
3 x 6 % 3 %
4 x 0 % 1 %
Average 0,92 x 0,88 x
Discussion
• Students who were retained in grade 8 showed lower school marks in grades 10-12 than students who were promoted to grade 9
– Previous results could be confirmed
– Grade retention does not seem to be an effective tool to compensate
for differences in achievement
Discussion
• However, no differences between retained and promoted
students were found in regard to the frequency of subsequent grade retentions
– School marks may be a more sensitive indicator of achievement
– Grade retentions are affected not only by school marks
Limitations
• Small sample size
– Limited possibility to detect differences between both groups of students
• Only effects of retention in 8th grade have been investigated
– Possible that repeating earlier or later grades would effect school
marks to a different degree
Outlook
• Future investigations should use larger samples
• Moreover, the effects of grade retention should be examined more closely depending on the respective grade and different subgroups of students
– Are there types of students who might even benefit from grade
retention?
Contact
Prof. Dr. Florian Klapproth Medical School Berlin
Berlin, Germany
florian.klapproth@medicalschool-berlin.de
Literature
• Grant, J., & Richardson, I. (1998). The retention/promotion checklist. Peterborough, NH : Crystal Springs Books.
• Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses on achievement. Abingdon: Routledge.
• Holmes, C. T. (1989). Grade-level retention effects: A meta-analysis of research studies. In L. A. Shepard & M. L. Smith (Eds.), Flunking grades:
Research and policies on retention (pp. 16–33). London: Falmer Press.
• Holmes, C. T., & Matthews, K. M. (1984). The effects of nonpromotion on elementary and junior high school pupils: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 54, 225–236.
• Jimerson, S. R. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 30, 420–437.
• Klapproth, F. & Schaltz, P. (2014). Wo is retained in school, and when? Survival analysis of predictors of grade retention in Luxembourgish secondary school. European Journal of Psychology of Education. DOI 10.1007/s10212-014-0232-7
• Pierson, L. H., & Connell, J. P. (1992). Effect of grade retention on self-system processes, school engagement, and academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 300-307.
• Wu, W., West, S. G., & Hughes, J. N. (2008). Short-term effects of grade retention on the growth rate of Woodcock-Johnson III broad math and reading scores. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 85-105.
DOES GRADE RETENTION
PRODUCE CYNICAL CITIZENS?
A cross-national multilevel analysis on the effects of being retained on respect for
people of other cultures
TIMO VAN CANEGEM, PROF. DR. MIEKE VAN HOUTTE, PROF. DR.
JANNICK DEMANET
DEPARTMENT SOCIOLOGY
RESEARCH GROUP HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
Introduction
̶̶ Grade retention: a rather controversial practice (‘time’ as a limited resource)
(+) Provides underachieving students with more time to master the curriculum
(+) Homogenizes class groups, which is believed to improve teachability,
(-) Strong predictor of dropping out early
(-) Grade replacement effect + negative non-cognitive outcomes
Respecting people from other cultures
– Globalism: superdiverse society
– Political polarization, increasing ethnic tensions – ‘Democracies require maintenance’
– Educational institutions as breeding ground for engaged, informed and honest citizens (instutitionalization of civic attitudes)
Social cohesion, sense of community, democratic
participation
Tension field grade retention – social cohesion
– GR creaties tension field between differentiation and social cohesion: curriculum stressing communal values <-> receiving fundamentally different treatment
– This friction might lead to democratic frustration, negatively affecting civic attitudes
– Is grade retention associated with having less respect for
people from another culture? (RQ1)
School retention composition
– Retention composition differs greatly between schools and countries – Experience of GR dependent on retention composition (analogy:
watching a football game)
– Is the association between grade retention and respect for people with another culture being moderated by school retention composition? (RQ2)
Strength of association decreases when school retention composition
increases
National retention composition
̶̶ How do countries heterogenize their students? (Mons, 2007)
Separation model (Ger, Austria, Swi, Lux, Bel, Neth, Cze, Hun, Svk)
Uniform integration model (Fra, Spain, Greece, Ita and Por)
À la carte integration model (USA, UK, Can, Ireland, NZL and Australia )
Individualized integration model (Den, Ice, Fin, Swe, Pol)
Is the association between grade retention and respect for people with another culture being moderated by the national retention composition?
(RQ3)
Strength of association decreases when national retention composition
increases
Dataset
̶̶ Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2018 wave (OECD)
̶̶ Respondents selected based on age (same-age comparison)
̶̶ Large scale cross-national analysis on 15-year-olds
122,246 students in 6,010 schools in 17 countries
Research design
̶̶ Multilevel analysis
Aim: contexualizing retention research
Educational system: individuals who are nested in schools, which are nested within countries
– Individual variables
Being retained in primary and secondary education, gender, ethnic minority, reading score, math score, sense of belonging, family wealth
– School variables
School retention composition, ethnic composition, SES composition, reading score composition, math score composition
– Country variables
National retention composition, heterogeneity management model, GDP per capita
Cross-level interactions between retention composition and grade retention
Results
1) Negative association between grade retention in primary education and respect (throughout all models)
2) Negative association between grade retention in secondary
education and respect after adding cross-level interaction terms
Confirmation of RQ1
3)No moderation effect of school retention composition
Rejection of RQ2 (no cross-level interaction effect)
4) National retention composition moderates association between
grade retention and respect (!): difference between retainees and non-retainees smaller in countries with high amount of retainees
Confirmation of RQ3
Implications and suggestions for reseachers
– Contextual effects often neglected, dynamics can change
Most harmful for retainees in countries with few other retainees
– Qualitative research crucial: what does it mean to be retained?
Might identify subsamples with regard to effectivity GR – Future research unfolding potential causal mechanisms:
frustration and/or stigmatization?
PISA currently lacks useful measurements to assess this
Implications and suggestions for policy makers
– Grade retention is not a ‘neutral’ educational practice, but a deliberate choice with regard to differentiatization strategy of students
Potentially harmful: associated with stigmatization and cynicism
– Additional evidence suggesting the need for alternatives
Getting teachers on board with findings of retention research
QUESTIONS OR SUGGESTIONS?
Prof. dr. Jannick Demanet
Jannick.Demanet@UGent.be Timo Van Canegem
Timo.VanCanegem@UGent.b e
Prof. dr. Mieke Van Houtte
Mieke.VanHoutte@UGent.be
Discussion
Mieke Goos, UCLL & KULeuven
General remarks
!!! Important topic !!!
It affects millions of students annually (post-covid?)
Colombia
Luxembourg
Belgium
Spain
Portugal
Germany
Chile
France
Switzerland
Netherlands
Italy
Austria
Mexico
United States
Israel
Turkey
Australia
Ireland
Hungary
New Zealand
Canada
vak Republic
Korea
Latvia
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Czech Republic
ited Kingdom
Greece
Estonia
Poland
Lithuania
Slovenia
Iceland
Japan
Norway
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
33.20%
28.26%
24.59%
18.78%
