Full version

Primary pupils' experiences of different types of grouping in school

Introduction

Authors

Publisher

Why group by ability?

Although educational theory had decided against ability grouping (‘setting’ and ‘streaming’) from the 70s onwards, over the last ten years it has been making a comeback.  The increase in the level of setting in both primary and secondary schools has been as a result of government guidance and because setting generally is seen as a means of raising standards.

This study looked at primary school pupils’ perceptions of the purposes and practices of ability grouping; their experiences of these practices, and how their attitudes, behaviour, self-esteem, social interaction, and feelings towards school were affected.  It did not look at performance.

It found that pupils were aware of the purposes of ability grouping, and that most supported the practices used in their school.  They saw the main advantage of ability grouping as having their work set at an appropriate level and the main disadvantage as the stigmatisation of lower level pupils.  Interestingly while most of the children expressed positive feelings about their school, neither positive nor negative attitudes were related to ability grouping.  Grouping did affect pupils’ awareness of their place in the ‘pecking order’ and the nature of teasing in the school.  The findings suggest that whether or not they were grouped by ability was of less importance to pupils than a supportive school ethos.

This study formed part of a larger study Grouping pupils and students – what difference does the type of grouping make to teaching and learning in schools? (Click to Where can I find out more? for details)

Keywords:
United Kingdom; England; Key Stage 2; Primary schools; Setting; Streaming; Attitudes; Self-esteem; Social skills; Friendship

The benefits and disadvantages of grouping by ability

The practice of grouping by ability in school was popular after the Second World War.  It subsequently fell into disfavour, according to the authors, for a combination of reasons.  These included:

• evidence of low self-esteem and social alienation of lower stream pupils;
• inconclusive evidence for positive effects on attainment;
• a shift of educational focus towards equality of educational opportunity.

Over the last decade ability grouping in at least one subject has again become common in primary schools because it is perceived as a means of raising standards.

There are two common forms of grouping primary school pupils between classes:

• streaming -separating children into groups by global ability and teaching them in the same class for all subjects;
• setting – separating children into different groups by ability for individual subjects.

Within class grouping where the teacher makes ability groups within the class is the most common type of grouping.

Although there has been a lot of research on the academic, social and personal outcomes of grouping pupils by ability, there has been little from the pupils’ perspective.  According to the authors, what research there is suggests that:

• streaming may play a major role in polarising pro-and anti-school attitudes amongst pupils (with higher level students being pro and lower ones anti);
• setting may produce more negative than positive consequences amongst mathematics students, with a high proportion of students wanting to move sets or change to mixed ability teaching; and
• ability grouping - when it involves setting – is the preferred form of grouping amongst secondary pupils, but that the greater the level of mixed ability teaching in the school, the more mixed ability teaching is the preferred option among students.

At primary level, the authors cite previous research on ability grouping to suggest that:

• (in reading) most pupils wish to be in the top group because it confers status and a feeling of superiority; however, most pupils (excluding the top groups) prefer whole class or individual work for reasons of inclusion;
• social adjustment, social attitudes, and attitudes to peers of different ability were ‘healthier’ among children in non-streamed classes;
• the more streams, the more negative the attitudes of those in the lower streams;
• pupils of below average ability  who were taught by teachers who believed in streaming within non-streaming schools  could become friendless or neglected by others.

Back to top^

What the study found

Overall, the pupils felt:

• the ways they were grouped were effective and 55% indicated that they would not make any changes to the practices currently in place in their school;
• that the main advantage of setting was having  work set at an appropriate level (27%) and working at a pace commensurate with their ability; (very few pupils responded in relation to the advantages of streaming);
• the main disadvantage of setting was a concern about stigmatisation of lower level pupils (23%) and teasing of pupils in higher sets (5%); the main disadvantage of streaming was not being in the same stream as friends (17%);
• that teachers manipulated groupings to reduce class conflict and promote good working relationships.  However, pupils  did not always perceive this as a good idea;
• they were happy in the groups they were in.  Where children did want to change groups, 25% said they did so because they wanted to do harder work and only 2% said they wanted to move because the work was too difficult;
• that while it was technically possible to change to a different ability group, in some cases this was perceived to be difficult;
• positively towards school. Although there was considerable variation on this one between schools, 71% of pupils expressed positive attitudes. Interestingly, neither positive nor negative attitudes were related to ability grouping.

Other findings emphasised by the authors were that:

• for those children who preferred mixed ability teaching their main reasons had to do with the ways pupils could help, inspire and motivate each other, while avoiding stigmatising those in lower sets;
• the children whose self-estimation reflected most accurately their teachers’ perception of their abilities were the pupils at the school which had the greatest degree of streaming and setting.  Contrary to popular belief, children were not always accurate judges of their own ability.  Of the pupils who overestimated their own ability, 64% were boys; of those underestimating their ability, 55% were girls;
• grouping by ability caused pupils’ status to be defined by their ability and the authors found a link between teasing and grouping practices.  In schools that grouped by ability, children of lower ability were at greater risk of stigmatisation (or at least teasing).  There was much less stigmatisation of lower ability children in the school that taught in mixed ability groups, but  in this school there was a higher proportion of able children who were teased;
• over 40% of pupils reported being teased or having witnessed teasing connected with levels of ability in the classroom.

Back to top^

What was the aim and the design of this study?

The researchers aimed to explore primary-aged pupils’ experiences of different forms of grouping within and between classes including:

• their perceptions of the purpose of these groupings;
• how they felt they should be grouped;
• whether these groupings had adverse social implications;
• whether the grouping  had an impact on their own perceptions of their ability; and
• whether these groupings affected their attitudes to school.

This study did not investigate the effects of ability grouping on pupils’ performance.

The research was undertaken:

• in six primary schools with different grouping practices (ranging from high levels of ability grouping, to no structured ability grouping).  The schools were separated by geographical location, size, and demographics;
• by interviewing three mixed gender pairs of pupils from each Key Stage 2 year group in every school.  In each case the three pairs represented above-average, average and below average ability.  In total 134 pupils were interviewed.

These pupils were questioned on:

• their attitudes to school;
• how they were grouped;
• why they thought they were grouped this way;
• whether the groups did different work;
• what they saw as the advantages and disadvantages of the grouping structure;
• whether they were happy in their groups;
• whether they would like to change groups, and why;
• how they would set up groups if they had the opportunity;
• whether they were teased for being in a particular group;
• what group they thought they would be in if the teacher allocated them to one of three groups: top, middle and bottom.

Data were categorised and then evaluated using the NUD*IST 4 software package to establish percentages.

Back to top^

What are the implications of the study?

In completing this digest the authors began to ask the following questions about implications for practitioners:

• The issue of stigmatisation was identified by children as a problem.  The authors assert that the greater the extent of structured ability groupings, the greater was the degree of apparent stigmatisation of those in lower ability groups.  Stigmatisation of lower ability pupils was least in the school with mixed ability grouping as the norm - however this was the school which had the highest proportion of able children being teased.  Do schools need to ensure that a range of skills and personal qualities are clearly seen to be valued, and ensure that such qualities as hard work, improvement, and reaching personal attainment goals are rewarded?
• Does the wide variation in pupil attitudes to school (which seemed to have no direct relation to the type of ability grouping the school adopted) suggest that a caring supportive ethos in the school is most important and can be created whatever the academic grouping structure?
• As teachers generally use groupings within the class to encourage good behaviour and concentration on work, the authors ask whether it might not be more effective to consider forming specific groups for the task at hand, so as to suit both those who benefit from mixed ability learning, equally with those who are better suited when learning with their academic peers.

Back to top^

Where can I find out more?

The larger study of which this is a part has been summarised in a Research of the Month web feature: Grouping pupils and students – what difference does the type of grouping make to teaching and learning in schools? http://www.gtce.org.uk/research

Students’ Experiences of Ability Grouping - disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure.
You can read this digest of another study on ability grouping here:

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/research/themes/pupil_grouping/FriOct110934232002/

Boaler J. (1997) Setting, social class and the survival of the quickest, British Educational Research Journal, 23, 575 – 595.

Boaler J. (1997) When even the winners are losers: evaluating the experiences of ‘top set’ students, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29, 165 – 182.

Boaler J. (1997) Experiencing school mathematics: teaching styles, sex and setting.  Open University Press.

DfEE (1997) Excellence in Schools. HMSO.

Hallam S. (2002) Ability Grouping in Schools: a literature review.  Institute of Education.

Hallam S., Ireson, J. & Davies, J. (2002) Effective Pupil Grouping in the Primary School. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Hallam S, Ireson J, Lister V, Andon Chaudhury I, & Davies J. (2003) Ability grouping in the primary school: a survey, Educational Studies, 29, 69-83.

Hallam S, Ireson J, Lister V, Andon Chaudhury I, & Davies J. (2004) Grouping practices in the primary school: what influences change? British Educational Research Journal, 30, 117-140.

Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (1998) Setting in Primary schools: a report from the Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools.

Sukhnandan L & Lee B. (1998) Streaming, setting and grouping by ability. Slough: NFER.

Back to top^