The matthew effect in dutch primary education: Differences between schools, cohorts and pupils

Research Papers in Education

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 167-195

  Luyten, H ^a   Cremers Van Wees, L M C M ^a   Bosker, R J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Differential effects; Educational effectiveness; Longitudinal research; Matthew effect; Primary education; The Netherlands

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958262364     PISSN: 02671522     EISSN: 14701146     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0267152032000081922     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Aarnoutse, C. and VAN Leeuwe, J. (2000).‘Development of Poor and Better Readers During the Elementary School’, Educational Research and Evaluation, 6, 3, 252-78.
2. Bast, J (1995). The Development of Individual Differences in Reading Ability. Amsterdam: Paedologisch Instituut. Ph. D thesis VU.
3. Bast, J. and Reitsma, P. (1997). ‘Matthew Effects in Reading:A Comparison of Late Growth Curve Models and Simplex Models with Structured Means’, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32,2, 135-57.
4. Bast, J. and Reitsma, P. (1998).‘Analyzing the Development of Individual Differences in Terms of Matthew Effects in Reading: Results from a Dutch Longitudinal Study’, Developmental Psychology, 34, 6,1373-99.
5. Bosker, R.J. (1990). Extra kansen dankzij de school? (Extra opportunities thanks to the school?). Nijmegen: ITS/ OoMO.
6. Bosker, R. J. (2000). Veranderende onderwijskansen? (Changing educational opportunities?) SCP, Rijswijk: topical lecture paper for Dutch Association of Sociologists.
7. Bosker, R. J. and Luyten, H. (2000). ‘De stabiliteit en consistentie van differentiele schooleffecten (The stability and consistency of differential school effects)’ Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsresearch (Dutch educational research journal) 24, 308-21.
8. Burstall, C. (1978).‘The Matthew Effect in the Classroom’, Educational Research, 21, 1, 19-25.
9. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Equality and Achievement in Education. Boulder/ San Francisco/ London: Westview Press.
10. Goldstein, H., Rasbash, J, Plewis, I, Draper, D., Browne, W, Yang, M., Woodhouse, G. and Healy, M. (1998). A User' guide to MLwin. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
11. Gray, J., Goldstein, H. and Jesson, D. (1996). ‘Changes and Improvements in Schools’ Effectiveness:Trends Over Five Years’, Research Papers in Education, 11, 35-51.
12. Guthrie, J.T. and Wigfield, A. (2000).‘Engagement and Motivation in Reading’ (Chapter 24). In: Kamil, M. L. et al. (eds) Handbook of Reading Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
13. Hays, W. L. (1981). Statistics (third edition). New York: Holt-Saunders.
14. Heek, F.VAN et al. (1968). Het verborgen talent: milieu, schoolkeuze en prestatie (The hidden talent: social class, school choice and achievement). Meppel: Boom.
15. Luyten, H, Cremers-Van Wees, L. M. C. M. and Bosker, R.J. (2001). Mattheus-effecten voor taal, rekenen en non-verbaal IQ, Verschillen tussen scholen, lichtingen en leerlingen (The Matthew effect for language, arithmetic and non-verbal IQ; differences between schools, cohorts and pupils). Enschede: OCTO/Twente University Press.
16. Merton, R. K. (1968).‘The Matthew Effect in science’, Science, 175, 56-63.
17. Mulder, L., Vierke, H. and Petersen, B. (1997). De vierde fase van de OVB-cohort-onderzoeken in het basisonderwijs, het leerling-, school- en klasonderzoek in schooljaar 1994/1995 (Stage four of the primary education cohort surveys, the 1994/1995 pupil, school and classroom study). Nijmegen/Groningen ITS/GION.
18. Nuttall, D. L., Goldstein, H., Prosser, R. and Rasbash, J. (1989). ‘Differential School Effectiveness’, International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 769-76.
19. Sammons, P., Nuttall, D. and Cuttance, P. (1993). ‘Differential School Effectiveness: Results from a Reanalysis of the Inner London Education Authority’s Junior School Project’, British Educational Research Journal, 19, 4, 381-405.
20. Scheerens, J. and Bosker, R.J. (1997). The Foundations of Educational Effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon.
21. Shaywitz, B.A., Holford, T. R., Holahan, J. M., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D.J. and Shaywitz, S.E. (1995). ‘A Matthew Effect for IQ but not for Reading: Results from a Longitudinal Study’, Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 3, 359-73.
22. Snijders, T.A. B. and Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel Analysis, An introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modelling. London: SAGE Publications.
23. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). ‘Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy’, Reading Research Quarterly, 360-407.
24. Tesser, P., Mulder, L. and Werf, G.Van der (1991). De eerste fase van de longitudinale OVB- Onderzoeken, het leerlingenonderzoek (The first stage of the longitudinal cohort surveys, the pupil study). Nijmegen/Groningen: ITS/RION.
25. Toonder, M. (1983) Geld speeltgeen rol (Money does not matter). Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij.
26. Walberg, H. J. and Tsai, S. L. (1983). ‘Matthew Effects in Education’, American Educational Research Journal, 20, 359-73.