Primary pupils' experiences of different types of grouping in school

This digest found in

Pupil grouping and organisation of classes

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.

Your path: Home > Welcome to The Research Informed Practice Site (TRIPS) > Themes > Pupil grouping and organisation of classes > Primary pupils' experiences of different types of grouping in school > What the study found
Research Home Themes \| Find digests \| About the digests resources glossary researchers contact TRIPS Introduction The benefits and disadvantages of grouping by ability What the study found What was the aim and the design of this study? What are the implications of the study? Where can I find out more? Send us your feedback Collated digests To view/remove/add notes and save your collated digests click here Get Word Reader Primary pupils' experiences of different types of grouping in school This digest found in Pupil grouping and organisation of classes Send to a friend Word doc 80KB Printer friendly Collate for later 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.