How do ability grouping practices affect students’ experiences of mathematics lessons in secondary schools in England?
Emily Winfield
BSc (Hons) Education Studies and Mathematics
Abstract
This small-scale literature review explores the impact of ability grouping practices in England on secondary school students’ experiences of mathematics lessons, focusing on ‘grouped’ (e.g., according to ability) and mixed-ability classes. Previous research into ability grouping has primarily examined the impact of grouping practices on attainment and progress, however students’ experiences are now being prioritised in school inspections above outcomes, meaning that a change of direction in research is required. Mathematics is frequently cited as a subject in which students have poor experiences, and therefore this is a focal point of the review. A systematic approach was taken to search for literature: a search protocol was created to outline the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and all studies that were considered for inclusion were rigorously assessed for relevancy and reliability. As a result of this, 9 pieces of literature were selected, and thematic analysis was implemented in order to analyse the data they presented. Overall, three broad themes were identified as having a bearing on students’ experiences in mathematics lessons: teaching and learning practices, pupils’ enjoyment of lessons, and pupils’ belief in their ability. It was found that the ability grouping strategies adopted did have an effect on these three areas, and some commonalities were found in the experiences of different students as a result. However, it was also clear that every student experienced lessons slightly differently, and therefore some alternative perspectives were demonstrated.
Introduction
Ability grouping refers to the practice of organising pupils based on their academic ability, commonly determined by test scores (Lleras, 2013). However, assessing ability in this way is problematic; therefore, ‘attainment grouping’ is used interchangeably with ‘ability grouping’, as some deem it to be a better descriptor (Adey & Dillon, 2012). This literature review will explore the effects of ability grouping practices on students’ overall experiences in secondary mathematics lessons, with a focus on ‘setting’ and ‘mixed-ability grouping’. A renewed interest for students’ experiences was driven by the changes made to the Education Inspection Framework (Ofsted, 2019), and with many students ranking mathematics, one of the most rigidly grouped subjects, as their least favourite, an opportunity for research was presented (Noyes, 2012).
It should be emphasised that this is a small-scale research project, and therefore there were constraints on the timescale for completion and on the resources available. This inevitably meant than an exhaustive search for literature was unable to be conducted, indicating a potential for bias. As the majority of studies into ability grouping have focused on the impact of attainment, however, the small scale of this research project may suggest avenues for further research in this area, which is important given the current emphasis on students’ experiences.
Context of Study
Ability grouping practices have been the subject of fierce debate since the 20th century. The strategies adopted in educational settings vary dramatically around the world and are frequently tied to the country’s ideology of education (Ireson & Hallam, 2001). For example, mixed-attainment grouping practices are the norm in Finland, where child-centred ideologies are held in high regard (Mazenod, 2017). However, in England, where a focus on knowledge is emphasised, students are separated more strictly by ability. In primary schools, within-class ability grouping is favoured, along with mixed-ability grouping. As pupils enter secondary school, however, methods of grouping become more rigorous. By the time students enter Year 11, they are typically organised into sets for the majority of their classes (Taylor et al., 2020). This involves grouping students by ability within their year groups for specific subjects. It should be noted that this differs to ‘streaming’, where pupils are grouped with other students of similar ability and stay with the same group for all subjects (Adey & Dillon, 2012).
Much of the previous research into ability grouping has concentrated on the effects that different practices have on students’ attainment and progress (Adey & Dillon, 2012). Given the previous emphasis on pupil outcomes in official inspections of schools, this research was pertinent. However, the Ofsted chief inspector announced in 2019 that this would no longer be a standalone item for scrutiny, and that exam scores would instead be used to complement a more general focus on the quality of education (Department for Education [DfE], 2018). Pupils’ behaviour and attitudes are a point of assessment within the new inspection framework, including students’ motivation and attitudes to learning (Ofsted, 2019). It is clear, therefore, that promoting a positive in-school experience for all pupils is now a priority in England. Ireson and Hallam (2001) highlight the importance of researching into the effects of ability grouping practices on students beyond their academic achievement, and it is now relevant to bring back this focus once again.
The literature surrounding ability grouping highlights the wide array of impacts that different practices can have on students and their experiences in school, as stated by Ireson and Hallam (2001). For example, Boaler (2013) discusses the effects that ability grouping practices can have on pupils’ mindsets. This is not only important for personal development, but it can also impact on students’ attitudes to learning, therefore drawing on two aspects of the new Ofsted inspection framework. Teachers’ mindsets, and therefore the perception of their students, can also be influenced by the grouping practices used in the classroom (Adey & Dillon, 2012). Moreover, the literature signals that the methods of grouping can dictate the teaching practices adopted and the quality of the teacher assigned to the class (Adey & Dillon, 2012). These factors can have a considerable impact on the quality of education that a child receives, and also on students’ enjoyment of the subject and belief in their ability.
In England, mathematics is a subject which applies rigorous setting, particularly in secondary school. Not only is this method of ability grouping advocated by the government as a means of raising academic standards (Boylan & Povey, 2013; Jackson, 2018), but it is also widely considered to be easier to teach mathematics to students of a similar ability (Adey & Dillon, 2012). Despite this, it has been indicated that there is very little difference in outcomes in mathematics when comparing sets and mixed-ability classes (Rycroft-Smith, 2017). Mathematics is a key area of concern when considering pupils’ experiences, however. This is due to the prevalence of maths anxiety, which Norman (2006) indicates could be linked to ability grouping practices. In 2020, 88% of secondary schools implemented setting in mathematics classes (Taylor et al., 2020), despite the research suggesting that this method of grouping could be detrimental to students’ motivation and self-esteem in mathematics across all levels of attainment (Rycroft-Smith, 2017; Boylan & Povey, 2013). Whilst some would argue, therefore, that mixed-ability grouping is the natural way forward, this strategy also has its challenges: the literature indicates that it may be linked to increased behavioural issues in the classroom, which can impact on students’ enjoyment (Rycroft-Smith, 2017). Mathematics is vital and can open many doors for all students, making it crucial that pupils have a positive experience of mathematics, in order to get the most out of their lessons.
Research Question
How do ability grouping practices affect students’ experiences of mathematics lessons in secondary schools in England?
Methodology (Protocol)
To ensure that an appropriate review type was selected, Grant and Booth’s Typology of Reviews (2009) was considered. Due to the small scale of the project, it was critical that comprehensive searching was not a requirement. Furthermore, it became clear from the context of study that a thematic analysis would be appropriate for answering the research question. As a result of this, it was decided that a literature review would be conducted (Grant & Booth, 2009). However, aspects of the systematic review research type (Grant & Booth, 2009) were also drawn upon, as it calls for rigorous and transparent methods of data collection (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2020), improving the quality of the research. The structure of this review was inspired by Okoli’s (2015) systematic guide to literature review development.
A protocol was created to adhere to when searching for data. A set of inclusion criteria was devised, in order to narrow down the scope and ensure that the studies were relevant to the focus of the literature review and were of a reasonable quality (Smith, 2012). This drew on the six broad questions suggested by Stewart and Kamins (1993).
Firstly, the literature must be relevant to the research question. This can be established through the use of appropriate search terms, so that only relevant literature is produced in the searches. The PICO method (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2020) was applied in order to develop the search terms: the ‘population’ of the study produced “secondary school”, “student”, “pupil*” and “England”. The ‘intervention’ related to “ability grouping” and “attainment grouping”. The ‘comparison’ aspect of the PICO structure was “mixed ability grouping”. The ‘outcome’ was “student experience” and “enjoyment”. The search term “math*” was included, encompassing “math”, “maths” and “mathematics”. “Maths” was also used as a standalone search term. The Boolean search terms “AND” and “OR” were also to be applied, in order to frame the searches (Machi & McEvoy, 2016).
Secondly, it was decided that only academic journal articles would be included for analysis. Three sources were searched in to obtain these articles: The Bishop Grosseteste University Worldcat database, Google Scholar, and the Taylor and Francis Journals: Social Sciences and Humanities Collection.
To maintain the relevancy of this literature review, only studies published between 2000 and 2020 were considered for inclusion. Many changes in educational practice have occurred during this time frame, meaning that students’ overall experiences in schools differ to those of 20 years ago, which could impact the results of earlier data in this time frame, presenting a potential limitation. However, as Oliver (2012) acknowledges, it is important to not limit the scope of literature to just include the most recent studies, in order to produce a wider variety of insights. The data must also have been obtained from England, and the participants have been of secondary school age (11-16).
Mixed-methods research was primarily considered for this project. As acknowledged by Newby (2010), research issues in education frequently require an analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data, in order to get a thorough understanding of a topic. In relation to students’ experiences in different ability grouping practices, it is crucial to get a deeper insight into students’ feelings through qualitative means, and then use quantitative data to back these up.
With regards to exclusion criteria, any sources which referenced attainment, impacts on academic ability or progress in the title or description were automatically excluded. Furthermore, any studies relating to an educational setting other than secondary school, such as primary school or early years, were automatically excluded.
Steps were taken to minimise any potential biases being presented in this literature review, in order to increase the validity and reliability of the findings of the study (Smith & Noble, 2014). Firstly, reporting bias was considered, and was reduced by strictly adhering to the research protocol outlined in this chapter, to ensure that the data presented were not selective (Drucker et al., 2016). Whilst only peer-reviewed studies were originally to be considered for inclusion, this decision was reversed, as it could have led to evidence selection bias, arising from publication bias (Drucker et al., 2016). Therefore, steps were taken to amend the search protocol to include all articles, to reduce this potential for bias. It should be noted that some degree of evidence selection bias via publication bias was present in this study, due to the timescale and small scope of the research project. Moving onto the risk of bias from competing interests, all studies were examined for any indication of a ‘spin’ on the findings (Drucker et al., 2016). If a ‘spin’ was presented, the study was excluded. Every article considered for inclusion was also inspected for bias statements, and judgements were made regarding the article’s inclusion based on the steps made to reduce this.
Data Extraction & Analysis
Data Extraction
The Bishop Grosseteste University Worldcat database was searched using the terms “(‘ability grouping’ OR ‘attainment grouping’) AND ‘England’ AND ‘math*’.” This produced 182 results. Filters were then applied to the search, in accordance with the inclusion criteria, refining the content type to articles only and the publication year between 2000-2020. This reduced the number of results to 171 and, after reading the titles and descriptions of the articles, 11 were considered for inclusion and the rest were excluded. A CRAAP test was then conducted for each of the remaining studies, in order to decide which were reliable and relevant enough to include (Rowan University, 2020). All 11 articles passed the ‘currency’ aspect of the test. Only four of the articles provided relevant information for answering the research question, and therefore seven articles were excluded. Two of the four studies were taken from a current large-scale research project, funded by the Education Endowment Foundation. The remaining studies were conducted by experts in the field, and all four of the studies were deemed to be authoritative. All four articles had been peer-reviewed, indicating their accuracy. Three of the articles demonstrated no bias; however, some issues were raised with the remaining article. The authors noted difficulties when conducting the research, due to the limited number of secondary schools in England adopting mixed-attainment teaching practices in mathematics, meaning that there were differences between the schools being compared that could have impacted the results. Additionally, it was acknowledged that one of the authors was the Head of Mathematics at one of the schools taking part in the research, which could lead to a risk of bias in the data. However, the researcher decided to still include this study for analysis, having considered the steps taken by the authors to minimise this. Therefore, all four studies passed this part of the CRAAP test, and none were excluded. With regards to the purpose of each article, the author’s intentions were clearly stated. In total, four articles from this search passed the CRAAP test and were selected for inclusion.
The Bishop Grosseteste University Worldcat database was searched again, this time using the search terms “(‘ability grouping’ OR ‘attainment grouping’ OR ‘mixed ability grouping’) AND ‘math*’ AND ‘secondary school’.” This produced 276 hits. After applying the filters used previously, 245 results were produced. Only three studies were considered for inclusion, as there were repeats from the previous search results. To obtain the most relevant and reliable information for this project, a CRAAP test was carried out (Rowan University, 2020). Firstly, the articles were examined for currency, and none were excluded. The relevancy of the articles to the research question was then investigated. One article passed this stage of the test, and two were excluded, as they focused on teachers’ experiences and practices rather than students’ experiences. Whilst the article was co-authored by a previously unpublished researcher, it was also written by an expert in educational research and was therefore still included. No evidence of bias was displayed in the study and was taken from a journal that conducts a rigorous peer-review process on all articles before publication, signalling its accuracy. With regards to the article’s purpose, the authors of the study stated the aims clearly, and demonstrated their objectivity and impartiality, therefore passing this stage of the test. In total, one article from this search was selected for inclusion.
Google Scholar was searched using the search terms “‘grouping’ AND ‘maths’ AND ‘England’ AND ‘secondary school’”, which produced 6,120 results. The search was then filtered by date to only show sources published between 2000-2020. This narrowed the number of results down to 4,840, five of which were considered for inclusion. Once again, a CRAAP test was conducted to filter these articles further, beginning with their currency (Rowan University, 2020). Four of the sources passed this stage of the test, and the other excluded as it had actually been published in 1999. Secondly, the relevance of each article was scrutinised. This led to another source being excluded, as it had little focus on mathematics. The three remaining articles, however, passed this stage of the test. Regarding the authority of the sources, one article formed part of a large-scale research project led by researchers at the University College London’s Institute of Education. Therefore, the study was conducted by a highly authoritative team, and was kept for inclusion. The second article was also deemed to be authoritative, as the author has a long-standing career in research in mathematics education. The remaining study was a doctoral thesis, which was supervised by a number of people, including two experts in educational research. No studies were excluded. Two of the articles were peer-reviewed, indicating their accuracy. One may have been subject to some degree of bias, as the students selected for interview were chosen by the head of mathematics and whilst the author does state that this was done at random, it was not acknowledged how this was conducted. However, the language used in the article did not demonstrate any bias, and therefore it was not excluded. The doctoral thesis demonstrated an acknowledgement of, and steps taken to mitigate, any bias. No articles were excluded. Lastly, the authors of both articles clearly stated their intentions, and therefore passed the test for purpose. In total, three articles from this search were selected for inclusion.
Google Scholar was searched again, using the search terms “‘grouping’ AND ‘maths’ AND ‘enjoyment’”, which produced 4,880 hits. The search was filtered by date to only show results from 2000-2020, which reduced the number of hits to 4,270. Only one article was selected to be considered for inclusion and a CRAAP test was conducted (Rowan University, 2020). Starting with the currency of the article, the study was conducted and published within the timeframe noted in the inclusion criteria and all links were fully functioning. Moving onto the article’s relevancy to the research question, whilst there was less of a focus on ability grouping, its emphasis on factors that influence students’ enjoyment of mathematics meant that the study was not excluded. The source was deemed to be authoritative, as the author has considerable background in mathematics education research, therefore passing this aspect of the CRAAP test. The article had been peer-reviewed and was deemed to be accurate. With regards to bias, however, some concerns were raised by the author regarding survey responses; they were administered by teachers during classes, which could have caused some interference in the data. However, the author also noted that steps were taken to acknowledge any potential patterns of bias in the findings, and therefore the study was not excluded. Finally, the purpose of the research was clearly stated by the author and raised no concerns. Therefore, this mixed-methods study passed the CRAAP test, and was included for analysis.
Other searches for literature were conducted but were unsuccessful. For example, the Taylor and Francis Online Library was searched using the terms “‘England’ AND (‘ability grouping’ OR ‘mixed ability grouping’) AND ‘student experience’”, however no sources from this search were considered for inclusion, as they had already been a result in previous searches.
Data Analysis
A thematic synthesis method of analysis was implemented (Lucas et al., 2007). Three broad themes were developed based on the research question:
• Teaching and learning practices;
• Enjoyment of lessons;
• Belief of ability.
These themes were used to form deductive codes, which were then applied in a line-by-line coding of the selected literature. This process was used to form Appendix A, which presents all of the excerpts which fit the codes. The data was then analysed further, and Table 1 indicates which of the derived sub-themes are discussed in each source.
Presentation and Discussion of Findings
The Effect of Teaching and Learning Strategies
Type of Work
The evidence suggests that the type of work that students are set can be influential on their experiences in the lesson. Survey responses indicate that 75% of students in setted classes “follow textbooks and worksheets closely” (Francome & Hewitt, 2020, p.485). Many students indicated a dislike for this method of teaching and learning; a year 9 student even expressed that mathematics lessons were now “Rubbish” because of it (Boaler et al., 2000, p.642). At the school that this pupil attended, students are taught in mixed-ability groups in years 7 and 8, therefore providing a direct point of comparison. The student also commented that they did more “fun” (Boaler et al., 2000, p.642) work in mixed-ability classes and another pupil elaborated, stating that “In year 8, sir [the teacher] did a lot more investigations” (p.642). This suggests that in mixed-ability classes, students are exposed to a wider variety of teaching and learning methods, in comparison to those in setted classes. This is particularly the case for students in top sets, where lessons are highly procedural (Boaler et al., 2000). Furthermore, whilst one student in a lower set acknowledged the importance of doing simple exercises to check for understanding, they also expressed a desire for different methods of teaching to be implemented, such as investigations (Solomon, 2007). The use of more hands-on teaching and learning strategies can have a positive impact on students’ experiences in the classes, as they create more memorable experiences (Vallori, 2014), which can boost motivation and engagement in lessons
However, Francome and Hewitt’s study (2020) also revealed that 54% of students in mixed-ability classes agreed that they do a lot of work from textbooks or worksheets. Whilst this statistic is significantly lower than the one for pupils in setted classes, it does indicate that traditional teaching methods are still frequently implemented in mixed-ability classes. When asked how mathematics classes could be improved, however, a year 7 student from a mixed-ability group commented that “I think maybe just occasionally we could have work set out of the textbook” (Francome & Hewitt, 2020, p.484). It could be implied that the ‘fun’ teaching and learning strategies experienced by students in the lower years in Boaler, William and Brown’s study (2000) are adopted because of their year group, and the fact that formal examinations are not imminent. This suggests that ability grouping practices may not, in fact, affect students’ experiences of secondary mathematics classes in this aspect.
Level of Work
Hallam and Ireson (2007) identified that the main reasons that pupils expressed for wanting to change which set they are in for mathematics was related to the level of difficulty of the work that they are given. In setted classes, all pupils are typically required to work at the same level. Some enjoy this, with one student in Row’s (2016) investigation commenting that “…in your sets it’s really nice because you are with people who are at the same level as you…” (p.81). This suggests that some students find comfort in the fact that everyone is doing the same tasks at the same time, as there is less comparison between the difficulty of tasks that others are completing, making them feel more at ease. However, other students expressed a clear dislike for this strategy. Whilst giving a whole class the same work may be beneficial for teachers, it operates on the assumption that all learners in the set are nearly identical to each other in terms of ability, which can negatively affect their experience, as this is not the reality (Adey & Dillon, 2012; Hallam & Ireson, 2001). This was reflected in pupils’ comments: “They [the teachers] could stop giving you as many questions that you are already good at” (Francome & Hewitt, 2020, p.488). As acknowledged by Boylan and Povey (2013), students in lower ability groups are particularly restricted by this strategy; pupils recalled that when they told their teacher that they had done the work being set before, “…he says ‘Well you can do it again.’ He’s nothing like ‘Oh I’ll set you with some harder work or nothing’” (Boaler et al., 2000, p.639). This suggests that students in these groups are being limited in the difficulty of the work that they are ‘allowed’ to do, which can have a negative impact on their experiences in the class, as they may not be challenged enough to sustain motivation and enjoyment.
In mixed-ability classes, teachers are required to set work that caters to a variety of needs. Boaler, William and Brown (2000) observed that this can be achieved in two ways, ‘differentiation by task’ or ‘differentiation by outcome’. Students, both in mixed-ability classes and setted classes, expressed their particular liking for the former, where different tasks are provided for different students (Boaler et al., 2000): one high-attaining student stated that “I think it’s nice because you can always start off with an easier bit of work and then build up” (Tereshchenko et al., 2019, p.432). Furthermore, a middle-attaining student commented that in their previous mixed-ability class “when we finished our work or anything miss would give us harder work to do” (Boaler, William & Brown, 2000, p.640). It could be surmised that by allowing students some element of choice over the level of work that they complete, their experiences could be improved, providing a more individualised experience that does not assume that ‘one-size-fits-all’ when it comes to learning (Adey & Dillon, 2012).
Factors Affecting Pupils’ Enjoyment of Lessons
Pace & Pressure
Questionnaire data from Boaler, William and Brown’s study (2000) revealed that students in the top sets of six schools presented the most negative attitudes towards their enjoyment of mathematics, in comparison to those in other sets and in mixed ability grouping. A variety of pupils in Set 1 for mathematics indicated that they wished to move down a set, as this would allow them to continue to do the same work but at a different pace (Boaler et al., 2000; Row, 2016). Pressure is placed on students in higher ability groups to “get it [the content] into our head the first time” (Boaler et al., 2000, p.636) and to “do really well and work at a fast pace” (Row, 2016, p.144) all of the time. Whilst some thrive from the pressure and competitiveness of this learning environment (Row, 2016), for many it can be detrimental to their experience in the lesson (Adey & Dillon, 2012), as they are unable to enjoy the process of learning and discovery. Some students in the top sets expressed that they preferred the mixed-ability classes in previous year groups as some of the pressure and demands to maintain a fast pace were alleviated (Row, 2016). In contrast, others conveyed their frustrations regarding the pace of mixed-ability classes. One higher ability student commented that “It is quite annoying because we’ve already learnt that stuff and we’re just going over it…we want to learn more, we don’t just want to carry on going over the same thing” (Tereshchenko et al., 2019, p.433). This indicates that students want to be engaged with mathematics, but as a result of being in a class where all levels of learning have to be adhered to, their enjoyment is being diminished and replaced with frustration.
Working with others
The research suggests that mathematics learning in the mixed-ability classroom is a collaborative effort. One student highlighted that they enjoyed “discussing my answers with other classmates” (Francome & Hewitt, 2020, p.484), and another remarked that “since there’s different abilities, you can help some people and some other people can help you in return” (Tereshchenko et al., 2019, p.435). This provides a stark contrast to the depiction of a typical mathematics lesson from one student in a setted class: “I sit alone and get on with my work” (Francome & Hewitt, 2020, p.486). Encouraging students to talk to and support each other in lessons can promote the development of positive relationships, which Hallam and Ireson (2001) indicates is one of the benefits of mixed ability grouping. This can help to enhance the student experience, as pupils are able to “make friends” (Tereshchenko et al., 2019, p.434) with a wider variety of people. It has been suggested that factors such as pupils’ race and socio-economic backgrounds, and the stereotypes which accompany these, can in some cases influence their set placement (Adey & Dillon, 2012; Leslie & Mendick, 2013; Hallam & Ireson, 2001). Therefore, it could be argued that the use of mixed-ability grouping could transform pupils’ experiences of mathematics lessons by promoting feelings of inclusion and equality of opportunity for all. This can also enhance pupils’ motivation to learn, as their love and belongingness needs may be met (Aubrey & Riley, 2017), which can help to improve the student experience further.
Despite this, the opportunities for working with peers of varying abilities are not enjoyed by all students. One high-ability pupil stated that it was annoying when lower ability students ask “loads of questions… when you just want to get it [the work] done” (Tereshchenko et al., 2019, p.438). Whilst some students view being able to learn from others as a chance to “learn something new” (Tereshchenko et al., 2019, p.432), it could be surmised that some feel that it restricts them from getting the most out of their learning, as they cannot focus on their own task. Additionally, another student reported that it was “humiliating” (Tereshchenko et al., 2019, p.438) when pupils who had already completed a task were asked to go and help others who had not yet finished. It could be argued that whilst being able to ask peers questions when required is helpful, having the help forced onto students could be detrimental to students’ experiences.
Factors Influencing Pupils’ Beliefs about their Ability
The labelling nature of setting can have significant impact on pupils’ beliefs surrounding it. One student in a lower set referenced this in an interview, stating that “We can try to hide it, but it is blatantly saying, ‘You are less intelligent than this person’” (Francis et al., 2017, p.14). Additionally, another student commented that “I’m in the lower group…I’m stupid” (Francis et al., 2017, p.14), signalling the detrimental effects that set placement can have on students’ beliefs about their ability. It also indicates that the student may have a fixed mindset because of it, which Francome and Hewitt (2020) suggest is more common in students in setted classes. A fixed mindset is defined as the belief that a person is either smart or not, and that intelligence cannot be changed; the link between these views and homogeneous ability grouping is evident (Boaler, 2013). For pupils placed in lower sets, these beliefs could have a significant impact on their motivation if they feel that they are never going to improve in mathematics, negatively affecting their experience.
Additionally, the evidence suggests that these views can be reinforced by teachers, with one student reporting that their teacher told them “‘You’re in the bottom group, you’re not going to learn anything’” (Boaler et al., 2000, p.639). Such comments can not only be highly damaging for pupils’ self-esteem, but can also decrease motivation and enjoyment, creating a more negative experience. However, one pupil commented that being in a lower set “doesn’t affect me, how I feel about myself” (Francis et al., 2017, p.23). Whilst this was an anomaly in the findings, it does indicate that not all pupils’ experiences are negatively affected by setting.
Despite this, the evidence suggests that the beliefs of ability presented by students in other sets can also be affected. One pupil in a higher ability set reported that “if you are…a bit slow and everyone else is going faster you start to worry about whether you should be in this set” (Row, 2016, p.145). This indicates that the high expectations of being in the ‘top set’ that are consistently placed on students can have a negative impact on their beliefs about their ability and can be of detriment to their experience in the lesson if they feel like they do not belong there.
In mixed-ability classes, it is suggested that students’ belief in their ability can also be negatively impacted. A student commented that “…there is always someone who is better than you and you don’t like feeling that you are worse than someone” (Row, 2016, p.150). It could be surmised that students have greater opportunities for comparison to their peers in mixed-ability classes, and that this can negatively affect students’ beliefs in their own ability, despite the differences in learning style, strengths and weaknesses that each student presents. However, this comparison may be beneficial for some students of middle and lower ability, as it helps them to “see things that I am able to do” (Tereshchenko et al., 2019, p.434), which can boost their motivation and promote a growth mindset, which stems from the belief that a person’s intelligence can ‘grow’ as the result of effort and practice (Boaler, 2013). This can create improved experiences in mathematics by encouraging a positive ‘can-do’ attitude and boosting pupils’ aspirations.
Conclusions and Implications
The following conclusion is drawn from the findings of the evidence generated from the literature review. It is apparent that ability grouping practices do affect students’ experiences in mathematics lessons in secondary school, specifically when comparing setted and mixed-ability classes. Synthesising the evidence gathered for this review indicated that there are differences in teaching and learning, in the factors influencing students’ enjoyment of lessons and how these grouping strategies effected students’ beliefs regarding their ability. However, the evidence did not point to one method of ability grouping being ‘better’ for students’ experiences than the other: in all three areas, both benefits and challenges were suggested by students for mixed-ability grouping and setted classes. The findings presented in this literature review could be useful for guiding future practice in all secondary mathematics classrooms, no matter the grouping strategy, as they provide an insight into students’ experiences, preferences and views.
One of the limitations of this study was that only three sources were searched for evidence, due to the limited timescale for the research to be conducted in. This study could be improved by searching a wider variety of databases, in order to obtain a better picture of the ways in which ability grouping practices affect students’ experiences.
Given the attention now being given to students’ experiences (Ofsted, 2019) and the continuing prevalence of ability grouping in education in England, it is clear that more research needs to be done in this area. The effects of other grouping strategies could be considered, for example, such as within-class ability grouping. Alternatively, methods of grouping in other subjects could be examined with regards to students’ experiences.
References
Adey, P., & Dillon, J. (2012). Bad education: Debunking myths in education. McGraw-Hill Education.
Aubrey, K., & Riley, A. (2017). Understanding & using challenging educational theories. SAGE.
Boaler, J. (2013). Ability and mathematics: the mindset revolution that is reshaping education. Forum for Promoting 3-19 Comprehensive Education, 55(1), 143–152. http://www.youcubed.org/ wp-content/uploads/14_Boaler_FORUM_55_1_web.pdf
Boaler, J., William, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students’ experiences of ability grouping – disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 631-648. https:// bishopg.on.worldcat.org/oclc/425639273
Boylan, M. & Povey, H. (2013). Ability thinking. In D. Leslie, & H. Mendick. (Eds.) Debates in mathematics education (pp.7-16). Routledge.
Department for Education. (2018). Amanda Spielman speech to the schools. North East summit. Gov.UK. https://www.gov.uk/ government/speeches/amanda-spielman-speech-to-the-schools-northeast-summit
Drucker, A. M., Fleming, P., & Chan, A. W. (2016). Research techniques made simple: assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 136(11), 109- 114. https://beaumont.cloud-cme.com/assets/beaumont/Presentations/3226/RTMS%20Nov%202016.pdf
Francis, B., Connolly, P., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Mazenod, A., Pepper, D., Sloan, S., Taylor, B., & Tereschenko, A. (2017). Attainment grouping as self-fulfilling prophesy?: A mixed methods exploration of self confidence and set level among Year 7 students. International Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 96-108. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/ id/eprint/10024781/1/Francis_confidence%20non-anonymised%20 FINAL.pdf
Francome, T., & Hewitt, D. (2020). “My math lessons are all about learning from your mistakes”: How mixed-attainment mathematics grouping affects the way students experience mathematics. Educational Review, 72(4), 475–494. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/00131911.2018.1513908
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Hallam, S. & Ireson, J. (2007). Secondary school pupils’ satisfaction with their ability grouping placements. British Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 27-45.
Hallam, S., & Deathe, K. (2002). Ability grouping: Year group differences in self-concept and attitudes of secondary school pupils. Westminster Studies in Education, 25(1), 7–17. https://doi. org/10.1080/0140672020250102
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2001). Ability grouping in education. Paul Chapman.
Jackson, C. (2017, February). Class, ‘ability’ groups and mathematics in English secondary schools: A review. CERME 10. 1488-1496. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01937386/document
Lleras, C. (2013). Ability grouping. In J. Ainsworth (Ed.), Sociology of education: An a-to-z guide (Vol. 1, pp. 1-3). SAGE.
Lucas, P., Baird, J., Arai, L., Law, C., & Roberts, H. (2007). Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7(1), 4–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-4
Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2016). The literature review: Six steps to success. SAGE.
Mazenod, A. (2017). International perspectives on ability grouping. UCL. https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/grouping-students/2017/05/24/ international-perspectives-on-ability-grouping/
Newby, P. (2013). Research methods for education. Routledge.
Noyes, A. (2012). It matters which class you are in: Student-centred teaching and the enjoyment of learning mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 14(3), 273–290. https://www-tandfonline-com.bishopg.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/14794802.2012.7349 74
Ofsted. (2019). The education inspection framework. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/801429/Education_inspection_framework.pdf
Okoli, C. (2015). A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(1), 879-910. https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=3908&context=cais
Oliver, P. (2012). Succeeding with your literature review : A handbook for students. McGraw-Hill.
Row, M. (2016). An investigation into the experiences of pupils in ability and mixed-ability grouping in an independent secondary girls’ school [Doctoral thesis, Brunel University]. Google Scholar. https:// bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/13088/1/FulltextThesis.pdf
Rowan University. (2020). Library research for exercise science: Evaluating tertiary resources. https://libguides.rowan.edu/c.php?g=620538&p=4321583
Rycroft-Smith, L. (2017). What are the effects of attainment grouping on mathematics learning? Cambridge Mathematics, 5(1). Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridgemaths.org/Images/espresso_5_attainment_grouping_in_mathematics_learning.pdf
Smith, E. (2012). Secondary data. In J. Arthur, M. Waring & R. Coe (Eds.) Research methods and methodologies in education. SAGE.
Smith, J., & Noble, H. (2014). Bias in research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 17(4), 100–101. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2014-101946
Solomon, Y. (2007). Experiencing mathematics classes: Ability grouping, gender and the selective development of participative identities. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(1-2), 8-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2007.07.002
Stewart, D. W. & Kamins, M. A. (1993). Evaluating secondary sources. In Secondary research (pp. 17-32). SAGE Publications, Inc., https:// www-doi-org.bishopg.idm.oclc.org/10.4135/9781412985802
Taylor, B., Hodgen, J., Tereshchenko, A., & Gutierrez, G. (2020). Attainment grouping in English secondary schools: A national survey of current practices. Research Papers in Education, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1836517
Tereshchenko, A., Francis, B., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Mazenod, A., Taylor, B. Pepper, D. & Travers, M-C. (2019). Learners’ attitudes to mixed-attainment grouping: Examining the views of students of high, middle and low attainment. Research Papers in Education, 34(4), 425-444. https://www-tandfonline-com.bishopg.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1080/02671522.2018.1452962?needAccess=true
Vallori, A. B. (2014). Meaningful learning in practice. Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(4), 199-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v3n4a18
Zawacki-Richter, O., Kerres, M., Bedenlier, S., Bond, M., & Buntins, K. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. Springer VS.
