Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T03:07:48.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Repetition on the Academic Performance of Primary School Repeaters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Dianna Kenny
Dianna Kenny*
Affiliation:
N.S.W. Department of Education
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Repetition has been extensively employed as a remedial tool for low achieving students. Test results on children’s learning report that approximately one third of students benefits from repetition while the remaining two thirds make fair to poor academic progress. This study attempts to define the characteristics which differentiate those students who respond favourably to repetition from those who do not. Sex, I.Q., the grade in which repetition occurred and the reason for repetition were the variables selected for investigation. Students were 78 boys and 54 girls who repeated in either grade 3, 4, 5 or 6. Position in year for the year before repetition, the year of repetition and the year following repetition were examined. The results indicate that the outcome of repetition cannot be predicted from sex, I.Q., grade in which repetition occurred, the position in year before repetition or the reason for repetition. It was hypothesised that non-intellect factors such as motivational and characterological variables may affect the outcome of repetition and therefore need to be explored further.

Type
Research and Review
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , November 1985 , pp. 16 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, H.V. The Identification and Evaluation of Differences among promoted, not promoted and considered for nonpromotion but promoted pupils in the third grades. Doctoral Dissertation, Boston University 1957, University Microfilms No. 24, 223.Google Scholar
Ames, L.B. Retention: A Step Forward. Early Years/Parent 1980–81, 10–11.Google Scholar
Bocks, W.M. Nonpromotion: “A Year to Grow?” Educational Leadership 1977, 34, 5, 379–382.Google Scholar
Chansky, N.M. Progress of Promoted and Repeating Grade I failures. Journal of Experimental Education 1964, 32, 3, 225–237.Google Scholar
Chase, J.A. Study of the Impact of Grade Retention on primary school children. Journal of Psychology, 1968, 70, 2, 169–177.Google Scholar
de Lemos, M.M., A.C.E.R. Newsletter, No. 48, July 1983.Google Scholar
Haddad, W.D. Educational and Economic Effects of Promotion and Repetition Practices. Staff Working Paper, No. 319 World Bank, Washington D.C., March 1979.Google Scholar
Holmes, C.T., and Matthews, K.M. The Effects of Nonpromotion on Elementary and Junior High School Pupils: A Mota-Analysis. Review of Educational Research Summer, 1984, 54, 2, 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, G.B. The Research Evidence on the Effects of Grade Retention. Review of Educational Research 1975, Vol. 45, 613–635 Google Scholar
Kenny, D.T. Patterns of Grade Repetition in N.S. W. Primary Schools. H.O. Library, Dept. of Education 1982.Google Scholar
Kifer, E. The Impact of Success and Failure on the Learner. Evaluation in Education: International Progress Vol. 1, No. 4 1979 pp281–359.Google Scholar
Mitchell, K. & Piatkowska, O. Characteristics Associated with Underachievement: Targets for Treatment. Australian Psychologist, 1974, 9, 3, 19–41.Google Scholar
Reinherz, H. & Griffin, C.L. The Second Time Around. The School Counsellor, Jan 1970, 213–219.Google Scholar
Rutter, M. Helping Troubled Children. England, Penguin, 1975 Google Scholar
Scott, B.A. & Ames, L.B. Improved Academic, Personal and Social Adjustment in Selected Primary School Repeaters. The Elementary School Journal 1969, May, 431–439.Google Scholar
Segal, J. A Child’s Journey: Forces that Shape the Lives of our Young. N. Y. McGraw Hill Co., 1978.Google Scholar
Stott, D.H. Helping Children with Learning Difficulties: A diagnostic teaching approach. London Ward Lock Educational, 1978.Google Scholar
Thorndike, R.L. The Concepts of Over — and Underachievement. Bureau of Publications Teachers College Columbia University N. Y. 1963.Google Scholar