Folk Belief Theory, the Rigor Gap, and the Achievement Gap
Abstract
Folk belief theory is suggested as a primary cause for the persistence of the achievement gap. In this research-supported theory, culturally specified folk beliefs about learning and teaching prompt educators to direct more rigorous curriculum to high-advantage students but not to low-advantage students, resulting in impoverished pedagogy in disadvantaged schools. Folk beliefs tend to be resistant to change, which helps to explain why the achievement gap has proven so persistent. At the same time, various belief-change strategies have potential to promote use of rigorous curriculum with disadvantaged students.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A lack of rigorous instruction constrains students' academic achievement.
“Torff (2014) connected a lack of rigorous instruction with constraining students' academic achievement.”
From Differences of Mean Scores on the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) for Classical Christian Schools Compared to Non-Classical Christian Schools (2019) · cites this paper as Torff (2014)
Cites
Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions Are Robust
Chi, M. T. H. (2005) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1 · Cited by 894 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vaughan, C. A. (2019) · Journal of Research on Christian Education · doi:10.1080/10656219.2019.1704326 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Torff, B.
- Affiliations
- Hofstra University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Torff, Bruce
- Venue
- The Educational Forum
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-03-19
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 174-189
- ISSN
- 0013-1725 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-8098
- OpenAlex
- W2061270087
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 1.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2014-06-16)
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Educational Forum (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Keywords
- achievement gap, curriculum rigor, disadvantaged students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review