How peer effects affect students’ cognitive abilities

ZHAO Ying1

(1.School of Public Finance and Taxation, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law)

【Abstract】Equity in compulsory education includes not only the rational distribution of educational opportunities among different groups at the explicit level, but also the guarantee of education quality at the implicit level. Previous research has paid more attention to the former than to the latter. This paper used China Education Panel Survey random survey data of junior middle school students in China from 2013 to 2014 to study the peer effects on individual cognitive ability from the perspective of student peer effects. The analysis shows the following. (1) The peer effects in the stage of compulsory education in China have negative impacts on students’ performance, which is magnified by the increasing class and school sizes in the process of promoting compulsory education; (2) students with better academic performance benefit from interaction with students at the same level, but students with worse academic performance suffer in the process; (3) as far as the transmission mechanism is concerned, the class size and teacher characteristics are the main factors. In the new era, China’s compulsory education policy should gradually shift its focus from quantity growth to quality improvement, giving consideration to both explicit equality in access to education and implicit equality in education quality.

【Keywords】 peer effect; nonlinear effect; individual cognitive ability; class size;

【DOI】

【Funds】 National Natural Science Fund of China (71804193) Youth Fund Project of the Ministry of Education (16YJC790148) Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2722019JCG017)

Download this article

(Translated by LI Mengling)

    Footnote

    [1]. (1) In the 13th Five-Year Plan, poverty alleviation targets and eight measures are clearly put forward, among which improving the overall quality of education is the core content of education poverty alleviation. [^Back]

    [2]. (2) According to the data in Overview of China’s Education: the Development of National Education in 2015, the net enrollment rate of primary school children reached 99.88% in 2015, and the net enrollment rate of junior middle school reached 104.0%. [^Back]

    [3]. (3) From 2001 to 2015, the number of primary schools withdrawn and merged in China was 363,100, down by 65.59%. [^Back]

    [4]. (4) The data are from CEIC. [^Back]

    [5]. (5) Unless there are transferred students. [^Back]

    [6]. (6) It is also found that there is no self-selection effect in the allocation of teachers in classes. [^Back]

    [7]. (7) Although this estimation method has been criticized a lot, such as the criticism of its assuming the substitution relationship between the mean and standard deviation of students’ scores, this paper takes it as a basic regression equation, and the relevant assumption will be loosened in the following analysis. [^Back]

    [8]. (8) Related results are available upon request. [^Back]

    [9]. (9) This paper explains this problem from the following two perspectives: class size and heterogeneity of beneficiary groups. [^Back]

    [10]. (10) Related results are available upon request. [^Back]

    [11]. (11) Restricted to the layout of the paper, here only the standardized results are reported, and other results are available upon request. [^Back]

    References

    1. Chen, B., Zhang, S. & Shen, G. Economic Research Journal (经济研究) (2018).

    2. Wang, C. & Zhong, J. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (12) (2018).

    3. Wang, D. & Zou, J. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (2018).

    4. Xia, Y. & Lu, M. Management World (管理世界), (10) (2015).

    5. Zhao, L. & Shi, Z. Economic Research Journal (经济研究), (2018).

    6. Albuquerque, M. A., Franco, G. D., & Rodrigo, S. V., Peer Choice in CEO Compensation. Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 108, No. 1, 2013, pp. 160–181.

    7. Anelli, M., & Peri, G., The Effects of High School Peers’ Gender on College Major, College Performance and Income. Economic Journal, Vol. 129, 2019, pp. 553–602.

    8. Argaw, B., & Puhani, P., Does Class Size Matter for School Tracking Outcomes after Elementary School? Quasi-Experimental Evidence Using Administrative Panel Data from Germany. IZA DP No. 11208, 2017.

    9. Altonji, J., & Mansfield, R., Estimating Group Effects Using Averages of Observables to Control for Sorting on Unobservables: School and Neighborhood Effects. American Economic Review, Vol. 108, No. 10, 2018, pp. 2902–2946.

    10. Black, S., Devereux, P., & Salvanes, K., Under Pressure? The Effect of Peers on Outcomes of Young Adults. Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2013, pp. 119–153.

    11. Booij, A., Leuven, E., & Oosterbeek, H., Ability Peer Effects in University: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 84, No. 2, 2017, pp. 547–578.

    12. Burke, M., & Sass, T., Classroom Peer Effects and Student Achievement. Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 31, 2013, pp. 51–82.

    13. Dube, A., Giuliano, L., & Leonard, J., Fairness and Frictions: Impact of Unequal Raises on Quit Behavior. Mimeo, 2015.

    14. Duflo, E., Dupas, P., & Kremer, M., Peer Effects, Teacher Incentives, and The Impact of Tracking: Evidence From a Randomized Evaluation in Kenya. American Economic Review, Vol. 101, No. 5, 2011, pp. 1739–1774.

    15. Fairlie, R., Hoffmann, F., & Oreopoulos, P., A Community College Instructor Like Me: Race and Ethnicity Interactions in the Classroom. American Economic Review, Vol. 104, No. 8, 2014, pp. 2567–2591.

    16. Feld, J., & Zölitz, U., Understanding Peer Effects: On the Nature, Estimation and Channels of Peer Effects. Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2017, pp. 387–428.

    17. Gong, J., Lu, Y., & Song, H., The Effect of Teacher Gender on Students’ Academic and Noncognitive Outcomes. Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2018, pp. 743–778.

    18. Lavy, V., & Sand, E., The Effect of Social Networks on Students’ Academic and Non-Cognitive Behavioural Outcomes: Evidence from Conditional Random Assignment of Friends in School. Economic Journal, Vol. 129, 2019, pp. 439–480.

    19. Lavy, V., & Schlosser, A., Mechanisms and Impacts of Gender Peer Effects at School. NBER Working Paper No. 13292, 2007.

    20. Lu, F., & Anderson, M., Peer Effects in Microenvironments: The Benefits of Homogeneous Classroom Groups. Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2015, pp. 91–122.

    21. Manski, C., Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 60, No. 3, 1993, pp. 531–542.

    22. Mark, T. L., & Roberts, M. R., Do Peer Firms Affect Corporate Financial Policy. Journal of Finance, Vol. 69, No. 1, 2014, pp. 139–178.

    23. Sacerdote, B., Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 116, 2001a, pp. 681–704.

    24. Sacerdote, B., Peer Effects In Education: How Might They Work, How Big Are They and How Much Do We Know Thus Far. Handbook of the Economics of Education Vol. 3, 2011b, 249–277.

This Article

ISSN:1002-8102

CN: 11-1166/F

Vol 40, No. 08, Pages 33-49

August 2019

Downloads:0

Share
Article Outline

Abstract

  • 1 Introduction
  • 2 Institutional background and literature review
  • 3 Data source and research method
  • 4 Empirical analysis and related test
  • 5 Further discussion
  • 6 Conclusion and enlightenment
  • Footnote

    References