Educational Psychology

ISSN: 0144-3410 (Print) 1469-5820 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

A Confirmatory Examination of Walberg's Model

of Educational Productivity in Student Career
Aspiration

Xin Ma & Jianjun Wang

To cite this article: Xin Ma & Jianjun Wang (2001) A Confirmatory Examination of Walberg's Model
of Educational Productivity in Student Career Aspiration, Educational Psychology, 21:4, 443-453,
DOI: 10.1080/01443410120090821

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410120090821

Published online: 01 Jul 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 184

View related articles

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedp20
Educational Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2001

A Con” rmatory Examination of Walberg’s

Model of Educational Productivity in Student
Career Aspiration

XIN MA, University of Alberta Edmonton, Canada

JIANJUN WANG, California State University at Bakers” eld, USA

ABSTRACT In this study, Walberg’s theory of educational productivity was used to guide
a con” rmatory examination of the relationship between student career aspiration and factors of
educational productivity, using data from the National Education Longitudinal Study
(NELS). The results showed a strong direct link between educational outcomes and career
aspiration. Indirect relationships were also found between factors of educational productivity
and career aspiration via education outcomes. Peer environment, motivation and instructional
quality had the most important indirect effects on career aspiration through education out-
comes. This con” rmatory examination implies that factors of educational productivity enhance
student career aspiration through improving education outcomes of students.

In the twenty-” rst century, the progress of a nation’s economy increasingly depends on
the success of competition in the world market. Wilson (1996) noted that ‘the demand
in the labor market has shifted toward higher-educated workers in various industries
and occupations’ (p. 33). This concern has placed student career preparation as a
major agenda for policymakers in the United States (Redovich, 1998). Decker (1997)
reviewed comparative statistics in education, and stated that ‘the industrialized coun-
tries with the highest productivity levels tend to have highly educated work forces, and
the convergence in productivity among these countries generally parallels that in
educational attainment’ (p. 5).
‘The most important problem U.S. schools face is preparing children for tomorrow’s
jobs’ (Murnane & Levy, 1996, p. 18). Because a large proportion of the economy
hinges on technology, a smooth school-to-work transition is contingent upon student
academic training, particularly in the core areas of mathematics and science (Murnane
& Levy, 1996; Hunt, 1997). Students with limited academic preparation in high school

ISSN 0144-3410 print; ISSN 1469-5820 online/01/040443-11 Ó 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0144341012009082 1
444 X. Ma & J. Wang

experience a particularly dif” cult path toward workplaces (Bishop, 1996; Wilson,
1996).
In the 1990s, the pro” t from cheap labors overseas lured many American companies
to move abroad. Consequently, unemployment and under-employment have become
serious problems facing most non-college bound students (Berliner & Biddle, 1995;
Bracey, 1996). Snyder et al. (1996) recollected that ‘persons with lower levels of
educational attainment were more likely to be unemployed than those who had higher
levels of educational attainment’ (p. 409). Because non-college bound students have
inadequate educational preparation, their career development could be severely ham-
pered by the anticipated dif” culties in the global market competition.
Two approaches have been proposed to smooth the school-to-work transition.
Schools may prepare students for jobs that do not require much education. This
approach demands less academic training and focuses more on attitudinal preparation.
Berliner & Biddle (1995) stated that ‘if schools are truly to serve the needs of business,
it appears they should concentrate less on skill training and more on the values that
students will need when they enter the workplace’ (p. 89). The hope is that this
approach will drive down labor wages so greatly that few American companies are
interested in moving overseas. The depressed job market, however, may create wide-
spread poverty problems for the non-college bound labour force.
The alternative approach is to upgrade the job market in the United States with
well-educated work forces. Hunt (1997) noted that ‘increasing evidence suggests that
the vast majority of jobs in the 21st century will require higher levels of mathematical
and technological skills in order for workers to be successful’ (p. 38). Therefore, this
approach emphasises academic training of students to retain the best jobs in the United
States. While job security is a protective measure against the potential unemployment,
the enhancement of education is an essential condition to prevent low-income under-
employment. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 1989) stated
that ‘mathematics has become a critical ” lter for employment and full participation in
our society’ (p. 4). It is therefore crucial to consider factors of mathematics education
in a study of school-to-work transition.
Medrich (1996) stated that ‘ensuring that all students are ready for work, especially
those who do not attend 4-year postsecondary institutions, requires a considerable
reappraisal of the relationship between school and the workplace’ (p. 1). Public schools
in the United States have been constantly asked to provide more services with less
resources. Ball & Goldman (1997) observed that:

Our schools today are caught between a rock and a hard place. The rock is
that they are being asked to deliver more teaching and learning than ever
before as the demands of the workplace rise … The hard place is that money
is tight and taxpayers are reluctant to increase funding. (p. 228)

Consequently, improving the level of educational productivity becomes an effective

solution to most problems in education. Walberg (1981, 1986) reviewed a large
number of theoretical and empirical inquiries, and identi” ed nine factors of educational
productivity critical to student academic progress. Reynolds & Walberg (1991) elabo-
rated that:

The nine productivity factors can be divided into three sets. First, the student
aptitude-attributes set includes (a) student ability or prior achievement, (b)
motivation, and (c) developmental level (e.g. age). Second, the instruction set
 Career Aspiration 445

is indexed by its (d) quantity (or amount of time) and (e) quality (or
appropriateness) for the student. The third set, psychological environment,
includes (f) class environment, (g) the stimulating qualities of the home
environment, (h) peer environment, and (i) exposure to mass media, particu-
larly television, outside of school. (p. 97)

Tyler (1984) commended Walberg’s model of educational productivity as a superior

interpretation of school learning.
With data from the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS), the purpose of
this investigation was to examine the empirical relationship between student career
aspiration and factors of educational productivity in the context of mathematics
education. In general, the NELS data cover various factors of educational productivity
and also contain rich information on issues of school-to-work transition. In particular,
the NELS data have indicators of job security and education demands. These condi-
tions made the NELS database a proper choice for the current study. The incorpora-
tion of survey indicators is an important method widely adopted in social and
behavioural sciences. Joreskog & Sorbom (1989) concluded that:

Most theories and models in the social and behavioral sciences are formulated
in terms of theoretical concepts or constructs, which are not directly measur-
able or observable. However, often a number of indicators or symptoms of
such concepts can be used to study the theoretical variables. (p. 2)

Speci” cally, we intended to investigate in this study the structural relationship between
student career aspiration and factors of educational productivity associated with math-
ematics education, to assess how well this structural relationship was supported by the
NELS data, and to interpret this structural relationship in terms of Walberg’s theory of
educational productivity.

Methods
Data
The current study employed data from the base-year sample of the National Education
Longitudinal Study (NELS). In the NELS, a two-stage, strati” ed sampling design was
adopted with schools as the unit of selection at the ” rst stage and students as the unit
of selection at the second stage. Meanwhile, schools were over sampled in certain strata
so that policy-relevant subgroups can be adequately represented in the sample. The
data described 24,599 students from a nationally representative sample of 1052 public
and private schools in the United States. To maintain an unbiased representation
across the nation, statistical weights were used to counter-balance the effect of over-
sampling (see Ingels et al., 1994). The stratum weight was employed in the current
study for relevant statistical computing.

Variables
Walberg’s model of educational productivity contains nine factors. One factor, the
developmental stage of students, often measured through their physical age, was
omitted in the current study because students in the sample all came from the same
grade level (see Reynolds & Walberg, 1992). The construction of the statistical model
446 X. Ma & J. Wang

TABLE I. Description of factors and indicators of educational productivity and loadings of indicators on
factors

Odd Even
Factor Indicator sample sample

Career orientation Importance of education to get a job 0.61 0.59

Importance of being able to ” nd steady work 0.29 0.32
Educational outcome Mathematics pro” ciency 0.27 0.27
Importance of being able to get good grades 0.55 0.55
Motivation Feel ” ne to be late for school 0.62 0.64
Feel ” ne to cut a couple of classes 0.76 0.75
Instructional quantity Time on mathematics homework in school 0.24 0.28
Time on mathematics homework out of school 1.35 1.12
Instructional quality The teaching is good at school 0.56 0.62
Teachers praise efforts of working hard 0.59 0.59
Most teachers liste n to me 0.71 0.68
Home environment Home socioeconomic status 0.98 0.95
Parents’ highest education level 0.87 0.88
Class environment Feel put-down by teachers in class 1.05 0.97
Feel put-down by students in class 0.31 0.33
Peer environment Schooling is important among friends 0.79 0.75
Good grades are important among friends 0.81 0.79
Mass media in‘ uence Weekday TV watching hours 1.34 1.98
Weekend TV watching hours 0.44 0.29

was then based on the remaining eight factors of educational productivity (see the ” rst
two columns of Table I).
We did not build student background variables, such as gender and ethnicity, into
the model for a couple of reasons. The NELS career aspiration was indicated by
measures of job security and education demand. Clery et al. (1998) reported that ‘for
both men and women, education was positively associated with work consistency after
leaving school’ (p. 15). Thus, the indicators of career aspiration are pertinent to both
male and female students. The omission of ethnicity was based on Rock et al. (1995)
who stated that ‘the NELS:88 battery was speci” cally designed to reduce the gap in
reliabilities that is typically found between the majority group and the racial/ethnic
minority groups’ (p. 4).
The remaining factors of educational productivity were identi” ed following Wal-
berg’s framework. The factor, education outcome, describes student academic achieve-
ment and orientation. In the current study, this factor was represented by student
mathematics pro” ciency as well as student perceived importance of school grades. The
motivation factor was measured in the NELS by student reported reluctance to cutting
classes and being late for school. The school features are described by quantity and
quality of instruction. Speci” cally, quantity was assessed by the amount of homework,
and quality was assessed by student responses to the effectiveness of teaching and
teacher-student communication.
Student learning environment is categorised into four aspects: home, class, peer and
media in‘ uence (see Reynolds & Walberg, 1991, 1992). Home environment was
described by parental education and family socio-economic status. Class environment
was measured by student responses to whether they feel being put down by teachers
and classmates. Peer in‘ uence was represented by peer value about academic work and
good grades. The in‘ uence of mass media was described by the number of hours
 Career Aspiration 447

students spent on watching TV. Empirical studies suggested that these factors have a
profound impact on educational productivity (Reynolds & Walberg, 1991, 1992;
Young et al., 1996). In the current study, we aimed to examine their contribution to
student career aspiration using the NELS data.

Statistical Procedures
Like in most large-scale survey studies, missing values must be handled with proper
caution. To construct the correlation matrix among the variables (for structural equa-
tion modeling), pairwise deletion was adopted. The minimum number of observations
employed in the correlational analysis is 15,141 (above 86% of the sample size). To
facilitate the model recon” rmation, the achieved sample was split into even- and
odd-numbered halves according to student identi” cation. Cases in the odd-numbered
half were employed to develop a structural equation model, and the even-numbered
half was adopted to cross-validate the relationship between career aspiration and
educational productivity. To guard against potential type I errors in statistical analyses,
we used the minimum sample size in the LISREL program for parameter estimation.
‘The Walberg productivity model posits direct, simultaneous in‘ uences of the nine
factors on outcomes’ (Reynolds & Walberg, 1991, p. 98). However, the outcome in
Reynolds & Walberg (1991) was academic achievement. We considered it appropriate
to postulate both direct and indirect links between student career aspiration and factors
of educational productivity given the lack of theoretical and empirical guidance in using
career aspiration as the outcome. Correlation coef” cients were calculated among the
factors of educational productivity. The maximum likelihood method was employed to
estimate direct structural relations (see Fig. 1). Potential indirect relationships were
examined in the path analysis using the following formula:
pindirect 5 rpdirect
where r is the correlation coef” cient between the direct and indirect factors (Leohlin,
1992). To balance the effect of variable scaling, all indicators were standardized with
large values indicating positive responses. The LISREL8 software was employed to
compute the correlation matrix and path coef” cients.

Results
Correlation coef” cients among the factors of educational productivity are listed in
Table II. Coef” cients in the upper and lower parts of the table were obtained from the
odd and even samples. The relatively consistent coef” cients from the odd and even
samples were a good indication of the similarity between the two samples which gave
us more con” dence for the results of our con” rmatory examination. A careful inspec-
tion of Table II suggested a strong correlation between aptitude factors (education
outcome and motivation). Coef” cients between education outcome and factors de-
scriptive of instruction and psychological environment were among the highest in
magnitude. However, quantity and quality of instruction were weakly correlated. In
general, instructional quantity was weakly correlated with all other educational produc-
tivity factors. Weak correlation was also found among the four factors of psychological
environment: classroom, home, peer, and mass media. In particular, mass media
seemed unassociated with other educational productivity factors.
Based on the correlation matrices in Table II, parameters describing the direct link
448 X. Ma & J. Wang

F IG . 1. Structural relationships and parameter estimates of the direct effects of educational productivity
factors on student career aspirations.

TABLE II. Correlation coef” cients of factors of educational productivity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Educational outcome 0.65 0.37 0.56 0.35 0.36 0.68 2 0.10

2. Motivation 0.66 0.14 0.44 2 0.06 0.24 0.44 2 0.02
3. Instructional quantity 0.32 0.11 0.16 0.12 0.06 0.21 2 0.06
4. Instructional quality 0.54 0.39 0.07 0.02 0.52 0.34 2 0.04
5. Home environment 0.32 2 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.04 2 0.09
6. Class environment 0.30 0.17 0.00 0.51 2 0.01 0.17 2 0.01
7. Peer environment 0.77 0.42 0.15 0.37 0.05 0.16 2 0.04
8. Mass media 2 0.19 2 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.05 2 0.17 2 0.02 2 0.07

Note. Correlation coef” cients in the upper part are for the odd-identi” cation sample, whereas correlation
coef” cients in the lower part are for the even-identi” cation sample.

between educational productivity and career preparation were estimated by the maxi-
mum likelihood method (see the numerical values in Fig. 1). Because the data were
split into two halves (samples), the results on the even numbered half are enclosed
within boxes in Fig. 1. For both odd and even parts of the NELS data, the standardised
 Career Aspiration 449

root mean square residual (RMSR) was 0.045, and the goodness-of-” t index (GFI) was
0.97. Both the low RMSR (0 indicates a perfect ” t) and the high GFI (1 indicates a
perfect ” t) indicated a good ” t of the NELS data to the structural equation model (see
Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993).
For each educational productivity factor, factor loadings of its indicators were
calculated to indicate their contribution to the latent factor (see the last two columns
in Table I). A positive factor loading indicated a positive relationship between the
corresponding indicator and the latent factor, and a larger factor loading meant a
greater contribution of the corresponding indicator to the latent factor. Therefore, all
indicators contributed positively to the factors of educational productivity (positive on
indicators meant positive on factors). Some indicators contributed equally to the latent
variables. For example, the factor, peer environment, had two indicators with equal
contribution to it (0.79 and 0.81 for the odd sample; 0.75 and 0.79 for the even
sample). On the other hand, some indicators contributed more than others to the latent
variables. For example, the indicator, weekday TV watching hours, was a far more
important contributor to the factor, mass media in‘ uence, than the other indicator,
weekend TV watching hours (1.34 versus 0.44 for the odd sample; 1.98 versus 0.29 for
the even sample).
The two halves of the NELS data unanimously con” rmed a strong link between
education outcome and career aspiration (see Fig. 1). The positive effect was in fact the
largest in both halves (models). For the rest of the educational productivity factors,
apart from mass media that showed a trivial positive effect on career aspiration, the
effects of all other factors were negative although most were quite small. Therefore, we
concluded that the direct effects of these factors (motivation, instructional quantity,
instructional quality, home, class and peer) on student career aspiration were either
trivial or weakly negative. This situation led us to examine potential indirect effects of
these factors on student career aspiration.
We assumed direct effects of educational productivity factors on student career
aspiration as indicated in Walberg’s model. We also assumed that education outcome
was an intermediate factor bridging educational productivity and career aspiration (that
is, we assumed indirect effects of factors of educational productivity on student career
aspiration through education outcome). The indirect path coef” cients were calculated
based on the correlation matrices in Table II and the direct path coef” cients in Fig. 1.
The results are presented in Table III.
The results indicated that the indirect path coef” cients were much larger than the
corresponding direct path coef” cients. Furthermore, the indirect effects of educational
productivity factors (through education outcomes) on student career aspiration were all
positive (mass media in‘ uence was the only exception). Peer environment, motivation
and instructional quality, in that order, showed the most important indirect effects on
student career aspiration through education outcomes. Other factors of educational
productivity had secondary indirect effects on student career aspiration through edu-
cation outcomes except for mass media in‘ uence that showed trivial indirect effects.

Discussion
One of the most important ” ndings in the current study is the positive, large indirect
path coef” cients (see Table III) in comparison to the corresponding negative, small
direct path coef” cients (see Fig. 1). We suggest that education outcomes are a key ” lter
that greatly channels the in‘ uence of contextual factors of educational productivity
 450
X. Ma & J. Wang

TABLE III. Indirect path coef” cients of factors of educational productivity to career aspiration via educational outcome

Direct path Indirect path through educational outcome to career aspiration

Educational Instructional Instructional Home Class Peer Mass

outcome Motivation quantity quality environment environment environment media

Odd sample 4.50 2.97 1.44 2.43 1.44 1.35 3.47 2 0.86
Even sample 2.99 1.94 1.11 1.67 1.05 1.08 2.03 2 0.30

Note. Direct path coef” cient (pdirect ) is from educational outcome to career aspiration. Indirect path coef” cients (p indirect ) are from other factors of
educational productivity to career aspiration through educational outcome. pindirect 5 rpdirect.
 Career Aspiration 451

onto student career aspiration. This critical role of education outcomes appears to be
signi” cant in mathematics education. The National Council of Teachers of Mathemat-
ics (1989) stated that ‘although mathematics is not taught in schools solely so students
can get jobs, we are convinced that in-school experiences re‘ ect to some extent those
of today’s workplace’ (p. 4). The current study did indicate the importance of academic
training in mathematics to the enhancement of student career aspiration. Ball &
Goldman (1997) stated that:
Schools almost never ask corporations what they want future employees to
know, nor do they survey their graduates about how their schooling affected
their careers … For their [corporations] part, businesses rarely help schools
develop their courses or de” ne necessary skills. (p. 231)
It can be reasonably speculated that a smooth school-to-work transition is very much
achievable if mathematics curriculum forges a strong link between school and work-
place.
The unique characteristics of mass media in‘ uence deserve some discussion. This
factor showed a positive direct effect on student career aspiration (see Fig. 1), but the
magnitude was the smallest among all factors of educational productivity. While the
indirect effects of educational productivity factors (through education outcomes) on
student career aspiration were generally positive, mass media in‘ uence was the only
factor with negative indirect effects (see Table III). The in‘ uence of mass media was,
as typically done, measured by the number of hours students spend on watching TV.
Evidence has been abundant in the literature about mass media in‘ uence on student
learning. For example, Bishop (1996) emphasised the negative impact of watching TV
that takes away suf” cient time on homework. Most TV programmes are not education-
orientated, and the distractive impact of these TV programmes appear to have prevailed
as showed in the current study. We therefore encourage parents to exercise discretion
to develop a positive media environment that fosters educational progress and career
aspiration.
The current study also highlights the importance of peers. A peer environment that
values school work and academic success may not directly boost career aspiration of
individual students; rather, it improves student education outcomes that, in turn, allow
students to set higher goals for their careers. The same is true for the other two factors,
motivation and quality of instruction, that had the most important effects on student
career aspiration. For example, high motivation may not directly promote career
aspiration; rather, it helps students succeed in their school work. Better education
outcomes then give students con” dence and capital to pursue higher career goals.
Quality of instruction was found to have a more important indirect effect on student
career aspiration than quantity of instruction. Instructional quantity was measured by
the number of hours students spend on homework. ‘The reason most often cited for
giving homework is that it can improve students’ retention and understanding of the
covered material’ (Cooper et al., 1998, p. 70). Interpretation of the superior function
of instructional quality to instructional quantity demands some special attention.
Cooper et al. (1998) observed that ‘if students are required to spend too much time on
academic material, they are bound to grow bored with it, and achievement will decline’
(p. 70). We maintain this explanation for the above ” nding (note also the weak
correlation between instructional quantity and other factors of educational productivity
as shown in Table II).
In contrast, instructional quality was measured by effective teaching and teacher-
452 X. Ma & J. Wang

student communication. Not only was instructional quality among the most important
factors of educational productivity to student career aspiration, but also it was highly
correlated with other factors of educational productivity such as education outcomes
and classroom environment (see Table II). Therefore, it appears that teachers’ instruc-
tional practice and personal communication with students are more important than
homework hours when it comes to improving student career aspiration.
Based on the above discussions, we believe that the most important policy impli-
cation of the current study is the signi” cance of the indirect impact on student career
aspiration. That is, direct attempts to use factors of educational productivity to improve
student career aspiration may not bring fruitful results. Instead, the focus of educators
and administrators should be on improving education outcomes, and they should use
factors of educational productivity to boost student education outcomes, rather than
student career aspiration. In other words, resources for a direct campaign to promote
student career aspiration may well be spent in improving the chance of student
academic success.
In summary, analyses of the NELS data indicate a good ” t of the NELS data into
Walberg’s model of educational productivity. Not all factors of educational productivity
bear equal weights on enhancing student career aspiration. The effects of educational
productivity factors seem complex and interactive with direct and indirect links among
various factors of educational productivity. Walberg’s model of educational productiv-
ity suggests that education outcomes play a pivotal role in articulating contextual
factors of educational productivity for student career aspiration.

Correspondence: Xin Ma, 6–102 Education North, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB

T6G 2G5, Canada.

REFERENCES
Ball, G.C., & Goldman, S. (1997). Improving education’s productivity: Reexamining the system to get
the schools we need. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 228–232.
Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured crisis. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Bishop, J. (1996). Singling the competencies of high school students to employers. In: L. Resnick &
J. Wirt (Eds) Linking school and work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bracey, G.W. (1996). Schools should not prepare students for work. Rethinking Schools, 10(4), 11.
Clery, S.B., Lee, J.B., Knapp, L.G., & Carroll, C.D. (1998). Gender differences in earnings among young
adults entering the labor market. Washington DC: US Department of Education.
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J., Nye, B., & Greathouse, S. (1998). Relationships among attitudes about
homework, amount of homework assigned and completed, and student achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 70–83.
Decker, P. (1997). Findings from education and the economy: An indicators report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
Hunt, J.B. (1997). The national education goals report: Summary. Washington, DC: National Education
Goals Panel.
Ingels, S., Dowd, K.L., Baldridge, J.D., Stipe, J.L., Bartot, V.H., Frandle, M.R., & Quinn, P. (1994).
Second follow-up: Student component data ” le user’s manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SPSS.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scienti” c Software
International.
Leohlin, H.C. (1992). Latent variable models, 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Medrich, E. (1996). Preparation for work. Washington, DC: Government Printing Of” ce.
Murnane, R., & Levy, F. (1996). Teaching the new basics: Principles for educating children to thrive in a
changing economy. New York: Free.
 Career Aspiration 453

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school
mathematics . Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Redovich, D.W. (1998). Math, jobs, and the future. Phi Delta Kappan, 79. 719.
Reynolds, A.J., & Walberg, H.J. (1991). A structural model of science achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83, 97–107.
Reynolds, A.J., & Walberg, H.J. (1992). A structural model of science achievement and attitude: An
extension to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 371–382.
Rock, D.A., Pollack, J.M., & Quinn, P. (1995). Psychometric report for the NELS:88 base year through
second follow-up. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Snyder, T.D., Hoffman, C.M., & Geddes, C.M. (1996). Digest of education statistics 1996. Washington,
DC: US Department of Education.
Tyler, R.W. (1984). A guide to educational trouble-shooting. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 27–30.
Walberg, H. (1981). A psychological theory of educational productivity. In: F. H. Farley & N. Gorden
(Eds) Psychology and education, pp. 81–108. Berkerley: McCutchan.
Walberg, H. (1986). Synthesis of research on teaching. In: M. C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of research
on teaching, pp. 214–229. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Wilson, J.W. (1996). When work disappears. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Young, D., Reynolds, A., & Walberg, H. (1996). Science achievement and educational productivity:
a hierarchical linear model. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 272–287.