Introduction
A complex environment that includes ability grouping, student experiences, and educational equity in the United Kingdom shapes students’ educational trajectories and results. Students are placed in different groups depending on their perceived academic skills, a process known as ability grouping, which might take the form of setting or streaming. Schools in the UK have been employing various factors to divide children into different achievement levels for quite some time. The relationships that form between students of different abilities are highly influential. There is a possibility that students in higher sets may receive more positive reinforcement from teachers and will be held to higher standards. On the other hand, students in lower sets may have to deal with lesser expectations and maybe less access to a varied curriculum. The effects on students’ self-esteem and academic performance might become self-fulfilling.
The effects of ability grouping on access to education are far-reaching. There may be inequalities in the distribution and consequences of grouping procedures since studies show that children from specific racial and socioeconomic backgrounds are over-represented in lower sets. This raises questions about the fair allocation of educational opportunities and resources and adds to the problem of existing achievement discrepancies. The demonstrated impacts of ability grouping threaten the United Kingdom’s dedication to educational fairness. While it is understandable that educators would want to meet their students where they are, doing so at the expense of equality and social justice is unacceptable. An analysis of these grouping techniques and their consistency to provide equal educational opportunities for everyone is warranted by the growing achievement disparity between students in various groups.
This project aims to critically examine, compare, and contrast three scholarly journal articles that investigate the experiences of British secondary school children transitioning from primary to secondary education (Makin, 2020). Each article focuses on a different aspect of the secondary school transition process, emphasizing the viewpoints of students with different abilities. The evaluation will thoroughly explore the authors’ selected paradigmatic approach, research design, and methodology, illuminating the many approaches used to study this critical point in schooling.
Paradigmatic Approach and Research Purposes
The research paradigms embedded in the included works will be discussed as the starting point for this critical comparison. Hallam and Ireson’s (2007) study of students’ attitudes toward their math, science, and English class placements uses a paradigmatic strategy with deep roots in the academic study of education. Their theoretical grounding is consistent with the positivist epistemological position of a mostly quantitative research paradigm. The positivist paradigm relies on systematic observation and measurement to unearth empirical regularities, demonstrate causation, and produce transferable knowledge. The authors take a positivist viewpoint and conduct a large-scale quantitative analysis with data from 45 secondary schools and over 8,000 pupils.
Thomas (2016) argues that this method is consistent with the positivist paradigm’s stress on empirical evidence and statistical testing to establish causality. Due to its quantitative character, this study can collect numerical data for statistical hypothesis testing and spotting patterns or correlations. The study’s use of questionnaires and surveys to collect data is consistent with the positivist commitment to using standardized, systematic assessment methods. Researchers use these tools to get a quantitative read on how happy students are with their class placements, how they feel about their sets, and why they want to switch sets. Steenbergen-Hu, Makel, and Kubilius (2016) cite statistical analysis, including chi-square tests, on the quantitative data collected by these instruments to determine the statistical significance of observed discrepancies. Hallam and Ireson’s study paradigm also reveals an objectivist ontological stance, the belief that there is an objective world apart from people’s subjective experiences. The goal here is to quantify how happy students are with their fixed placements in a way that is independent of their perspective. While the study mostly operates within a positivist paradigm, it is important to note that the qualitative examination of students’ motivations for seeking a set or class change may reflect an interpretivist approach. An interpretative aspect is introduced into an otherwise positivist framework through example quotations and the qualitative classification of these statements into themes, leading to a more nuanced understanding of students’ motives.
On the other hand, Boaler, Wiliam, and Brown (2000) use a qualitative research paradigm, taking an interpretative stance throughout their work. The interpretative paradigm is anchored on the belief that reality is socially created, and meaning is formed from people’s interpretations and experiences. This paradigm is frequently used in conjunction with qualitative research techniques to comprehend and make sense of the intricacies of human behavior and social events. The study’s overarching purpose is to inquire into and make sense of students’ perceptions of ability grouping in mathematics classrooms. Understanding people’s interpretations and points of view is central to the interpretative paradigm. Boaler, Wiliam, and Brown (2000) use in-depth interviews and classroom observations to collect qualitative data regarding students’ perspectives and experiences in the classroom. Particularly in the context of ability categorization, the researchers are curious to learn how students conceptualize and make meaning of their experiences inside the educational system.
Research that takes an interpretative approach focuses on how setting, procedure, and interpersonal dynamics influence participants’ reports. Boaler, Wiliam, and Brown (2000) will likely approach their study with an understanding that meaning is based on context and impacted by several social elements, unlike Hallam and Ireson (2007). Students can get insight into the social construction of mathematics education within the context of ability grouping by using this paradigm to investigate the fluid and individual nature of students’ experiences in the classroom. A constructivist epistemology, which holds that people actively develop their knowledge via their experiences and interactions with the environment, is also compatible with the interpretative paradigm. Researchers recognize that students’ understandings of mathematics and ability categorization are created in the context of their actual classroom experiences.
Hodgen et al.’s (2022) research paradigm is most often connected with a quantitative method, much like that of Hallam and Ireson (2007). The positivist tenets are consistent with the paradigmatic approach. The philosophical position known as positivism emphasizes using scientific methods and direct observation of the world as the basis for concluding those observations (Richardson, 2013). It is predicated on the idea that the scientific sciences’ emphasis on objectivity, quantifiable consequences, and generalizable discoveries may be applied to studying the social environment. Hodgen et al.’s (2022) study of how within-school achievement grouping affects learning outcomes demonstrates the quantitative paradigm, relying on statistical analysis and empirical measurement. Numerical data, such as test scores, are collected and analyzed methodically and structured to spot patterns, trends, and statistical significance. According to Nind et al. (2013), the quantitative paradigm is consistent with the positivist ethos since it seeks to show causal linkages and generalizable conclusions. The authors reflect this in their analysis of the systemic impacts of achievement grouping and their conclusions for educational policy and practice. Using effect sizes, statistical significance tests, and confidence intervals—all hallmarks of quantitative research that strive for objectivity and reproducibility—further underlines the positivist approach.
The article acknowledges the limits and difficulties of the educational research environment while noting that the study is mostly quantitative. The authors acknowledge the practical problems of applying some experimental designs within the educational context and use this as a springboard to discuss the challenges of conducting large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCT) (Jagers, Rivas-Drake, and Williams, 2019). This deeper understanding of the educational research process bodes well for a more pragmatic approach that considers the unique difficulties and settings of investigating educational phenomena.
All three authors take distinct philosophical approaches to the issue at hand, but this does not make one viewpoint more valid than the others; rather, the conclusions from the various perspectives are simply complementary. While the positivist paradigm works well for seeing broad tendencies and patterns, the interpretative paradigm is superior in explaining specific cases in depth. Because of the inherent difficulties in researching human behavior and educational phenomena, a mixture of both paradigms or a mixed-methods approach provides a more holistic perspective in educational research.
Research Design and Methodology
These three studies have much in common, including their longitudinal approach, demonstrating a dedication to tracking variations and shifts in the context of ability grouping procedures across time. By gathering information several times, researchers can draw more nuanced conclusions about the phenomenon under study via longitudinal analysis. Although this procedure is constant, the data gathering and analysis specifics make each research unique.
Hallam and Ireson’s (2007) study of ability grouping in secondary comprehensive schools illustrates a thorough and methodical approach. A dedication to reflecting the complexity and diversity of educational settings led to the selection of a stratified sample of 45 mixed-gender schools across England. These schools were chosen to represent a range of grouping techniques, intake levels, and geographic locations. The study’s external validity is improved by including schools from various locations, such as London, South Yorkshire, and East Anglia. Furthermore, the researchers’ efforts to minimize confounding factors and ensure internal validity by balancing the sample based on school size and socioeconomic mix (using free school meals as an indicator of social deprivation) are commendable.
The study has been strengthened by the several methods used to acquire data. The researchers interviewed school administrators and department heads to get qualitative insights beyond the standard quantitative indicators, such as Key Stage 2 and 3 exam scores (Gorski, 2016). A dedication to documenting students’ varied experiences in the context of ability grouping is demonstrated using pupil surveys that include self-concept scores, assessments of attitudes toward school, and open-ended questions. The researchers’ comprehensive approach to measuring the complex phenomena of ability grouping is on display in creating a sophisticated five-point scale to evaluate the amount of setting encountered by each student in each subject across three years.
Boaler, Wiliam, and Brown (2000) used a mixed-methods study methodology to investigate the effects of ability grouping on students’ attitudes and beliefs in mathematics in various contexts, in contrast to Hallam and Ireson’s (2007) approach. The holistic comprehension of the study topics required incorporating qualitative and quantitative methods. As Gillborn, Warmington, and Demack (2017) argued, incorporating quantitative methodologies helped the researchers effectively manage massive datasets. 120 hours of classroom observations and end-of-year surveys were used to compile the quantitative data. The surveys and statistical analyses used here, which feature closed-ended questions, are consistent with the scientific method’s recommendation that we seek basic and objective insights.
The study is motivated by a few core ideas: how ability grouping affects students’ mathematical beliefs and attitudes, how classroom settings vary from school to school, and how to combine qualitative and quantitative research techniques. The study’s authors aimed to explore how various ability-based approaches to class placement affected students’ attitudes about mathematics instruction. Francis et al. (2016) acknowledge the usefulness of using pre-established instruments to assess these notions since this strategy permits the operationalization of abstract ideas into quantifiable constructs. Datnow and Park (2018) and Cahalan and Perna (2015) are cited as saying there is a risk of depersonalization in quantification, and this study acknowledges this concern. However, per the viewpoint of academics like Thomas (2016), who highlight the supplementary significance of exploratory narrative analysis, the researchers tried to alleviate these issues by including qualitative data.
The influence of location on English and mathematics achievement results was also studied by Hodgen et al. (2022), who used a similarly rigorous mixed-methods study methodology. The Education Endowment Foundation supported a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) and intensive data collecting through surveys and interviews for the ‘Best Practice in Setting’ project. Given the multifaceted nature of the study topics and the need to fully comprehend how school environments affect children of varying skill levels, a mixed-methods strategy was used. A large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted with 126 secondary schools to measure the effect of the intervention on students’ placement in English and mathematics courses in grades 7 and 8. High expectations for all students were emphasized in this setting-focused intervention (Nind et al., 2013), which included recommendations for how schools should organize children and assign instructors. The randomized controlled trial was designed to prove the intervention’s efficacy by being pre-specified and registered.
The study’s overarching topics include the influence of context on students’ achievement results, the elucidation of best practices in mixed-attainment education, and the perspectives of students subjected to varying degrees of grouping based on their abilities. Exploring the potential of setting to increase students’ development, the components of excellent practice in mixed-attainment teaching, and the overall experiences of learners in English and mathematics, Hodgen et al. (2022) systematically addressed gaps in the research. The researchers collected quantitative data from standardized tests and qualitative insights from surveys and interviews thanks to the mixed-methods methodology, which allowed for a more nuanced analysis. This multi-pronged approach is consistent with authors like Francis et al. (2016), who argue for recognizing the limits of simply quantitative techniques and stressing the value of a holistic viewpoint. Hodgen et al. (2022) negotiated the issues of reductionism by employing a mixed-methods approach, presenting a more comprehensive perspective of the influence of setting on students’ experiences and outcomes in English and mathematics.
Findings and Evaluation
After two years of schooling, the findings from the hierarchical regression models (M1, M2, and M3) in the research by Hodgen et al. (2022) showed substantial impacts on student achievement. In both English and mathematics, the top set demonstrated significantly higher achievement levels than the intermediate group(s). All three versions had the same result, demonstrating its durability. However, the effect seems more subject-specific to studying English than mathematics. The English bottom group often performed worse than the middle set, but this disparity was not replicated across all models, raising concerns about possible bias caused by missing data. After two years, the lowest-performing students’ mathematical achievement did drop somewhat. However, this trend was not statistically significant across all models, and imputation analysis indicated an effect close to zero. The study concluded that the difference between the top and bottom sets is expanding, with the top set students performing better than the bottom set students across the board, especially in English.
On the other hand, Boaler, Williams, and Brown (2000) published research that cast doubt on the value of the environment. According to their findings, setting children according to ability has detrimental consequences, especially for upper-level children. Those students in the highest set who wanted to take their time and master the content fell at a disadvantage in this fast-paced, high-stakes atmosphere. Lessons in the top set were seen to be more procedural and competitive, with teachers placing a premium on time above student understanding. Girls were shown to be more disadvantaged in high sets, which contributed to the gender gap in mathematical achievement. Negative experiences and unhappiness were common among students in lower sets due to a lack of challenge, frequent instructor turnover, and an overload of elementary-level assignments.
In a separate vein, Hallam and Ireson (2007) investigated whether or not students were happy with their math, science, and English class placements. A significant number of pupils, especially those doing arithmetic, were found to be dissatisfied with their set or class placement. Students’ preferences for swapping sets varied by gender and by institution type. Those in the lowest set, presumably unhappy with their current location, were the most likely to want to switch sets. Several elements, including topic matter, affected students’ opinions and preferences on where to arrange classroom furniture.
Hodgen et al.’s (2022) analysis of these results gives quantitative evidence for the beneficial effect of setting, notably for top sets in English. However, it is important to consider the potential for subject-specific bias due to the absence of data and the nature of the impact itself. The qualitative research conducted by Boaler, Williams, and Brown (2000) provides insight into the possible downsides of setting, especially for students in high sets, with an emphasis on the detrimental impact on girls. The research by Hallam and Ireson (2007) provides new information about students’ levels of contentment with their assigned schools, revealing significant differences in preferences based on students’ majors, gender, and school setting.
While the quantitative method taken by Hodgen et al. (2022) provides statistical rigor, it is important to recognize limitations such as possible bias. Boaler, Williams, and Brown’s (2000) rich qualitative insights into students’ lived experiences across groups highlight the need to consider the influence of the learning environment. Hallam and Ireson’s (2007) recognition of the relevance of student happiness in fixed placements significantly contributes to this knowledge. When these many techniques to research are combined, a fuller picture of the intricate dynamics at play in educational settings emerges.
Conclusion
The study uses various research paradigms to examine the impact of ability grouping on student outcomes. Hallam and Ireson’s (2007) positivist approach provides quantitative insights into student satisfaction, while Boaler, Wiliam, and Brown’s (2000) interpretive approach explores students’ subjective experiences in different ability groups. Hodgen et al.’s (2020) positivist approach supports the positive impact of setting on attainment, particularly in top sets, but acknowledges potential biases. The study emphasizes the need for a balanced perspective in studying educational complexities and the importance of adopting a holistic approach to understanding the multifaceted nature of ability grouping in shaping students’ educational experiences.
References
Boaler, J., Wiliam, D. and Brown, M. (2000). Students’ Experiences of Ability Grouping – disaffection, Polarisation and the Construction of Failure. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), pp.631–648.
Cahalan, M. and Perna, L. (2015). Indicators of Higher Education Equity in the United States: 45 Year Trend Report. [online] ERIC. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED555865.
Datnow, A. and Park, V. (2018). Opening or closing doors for students? Equity and data use in schools. Journal of Educational Change, [online] 19(2), pp.131–152. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9323-6.
Francis, B., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Pepper, D., Taylor, B. and Travers, M.-C. (2016). Exploring research’s relative lack of impact on ‘ability grouping’ in England: a discourse analytic account. Cambridge Journal of Education, 47(1), pp.1–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2015.1093095.
Gillborn, D., Warmington, P. and Demack, S. (2017). QuantCrit: education, policy, ‘Big Data’ and principles for a critical race theory of statistics. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), pp.158–179. doi https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1377417.
Gorski, P. (2016). Rethinking the Role of ‘Culture’ in Educational Equity: From Cultural Competence to Equity Literacy. Multicultural Perspectives, 18(4), pp.221–226. doi https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2016.1228344.
Hallam, S. and Ireson, J. (2007). Secondary school pupils’ satisfaction with their ability grouping placements. British Educational Research Journal, 33(1), pp.27–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920601104342.
Hodgen, J., Taylor, B., Francis, B., Craig, N., Bretscher, N., Tereshchenko, A., Connolly, P. and Mazenod, A. (2022). The achievement gap: The impact of between‐class attainment grouping on pupil attainment and educational equity over time. British Educational Research Journal, 49(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3838.
Jagers, R.J., Rivas-Drake, D. and Williams, B. (2019). Transformative social and emotional learning (SEL): Toward SEL in service of educational equity and excellence. Educational Psychologist, 54(3), pp.162–184. doi https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1623032.
Nind, M., Rix, J., Sheehy, K. and Simmons, K. (2013). Curriculum and Pedagogy in Inclusive Education: Values into practice. [online] Google Books. Routledge. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zRaPAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA41&dq=Ability+Grouping [Accessed 14 Nov. 2023].
Richardson, J.T.E. (2013). The under-attainment of ethnic minority students in UK higher education: what we know and what we don’t know. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(2), pp.278–291. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2013.858680.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M.C. and Kubilius, P.O. (2016). What One Hundred Years of Research Says About the Effects of Ability Grouping and Acceleration on K–12 Students’ Academic Achievement. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), pp.849–899. doi: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417.
Thomas, L. (2016). Chapter 9 – Developing Inclusive Learning to Improve the Engagement, Belonging, Retention, and Success of Students from Diverse Groups. [online] ScienceDirect. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081002131000093.
write