Students’ Perception of Ability Grouping in a Private International School
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
This study investigated the perceptions of middle and high school students in a private international school in Indonesia toward ability grouping practiced in the school. A total of 640 students from middle school (grades 7–9) and high school (grades 10–12) responded to the ability grouping questionnaire constructed by the researchers. The findings indicated that the respondents had a neutral perception of ability grouping. There was no significant difference between male and female students’ perceptions. Similarly, there was no significant difference between low, middle, and high-ability students’ perceptions of ability grouping. However, there was a statistically significant difference in students’ perceptions when grouped according to grade levels. Responses to the open-ended items of the survey revealed that the majority of the respondents perceived ability grouping as more disadvantageous, especially for low-ability students. Implications of the findings and recommendations for further research were stated.
Introduction
Ability grouping is the practice of arranging students for learning into separate groups or classes based on academic performance (Gamoran, 2009; Oakes, 2005; Papachristouet al., 2021). Although educators have employed different terminologies to describe the practice with varying formats, ability grouping falls into two broad categories: within-class and between-class ability grouping (Bolick & Rogowsky, 2016). Within-class ability grouping happens as teachers assign students of similar abilities to work in small groups. Between-class ability grouping is the placement of students into different ability classes in which students stay in their assigned class for most of their subjects and as long as a semester to several years of schooling (Oakes, 2005; Webb-Williams, 2021).
Although the intended outcome of ability grouping is an increase in achievement with instruction tailored to students’ needs, the practice has proven controversial over the years. Ability grouping remained a dominant practice in the early years of the twentieth century in schools in the UK and the United States. It declined and fell out of favor during the latter part of the century as researchers began to question its merits and point out negative effects (Loveless, 2013). However, surveys show a resurgence of ability grouping as it is widely practiced in school systems in the UK, the United States, and other countries (Bolick & Rogowsky, 2016; Chmielewski, 2014; Franciset al., 2017; Gamoran, 2009; Loveless, 2013).
Studies on ability grouping focused mainly on its impact and yielded mixed results. Generally, ability grouping benefits the high-ability groups, negatively affects the low-ability groups, and has no significant effect on the middle-ability groups (Alam & Mohanty, 2023; Belfiet al., 2012; Ellison & Hallinan, 2004; Higginset al., 2015; Ireson & Hallam, 2001). Studies that explore the perceptions and attitudes of students toward ability grouping are limited (Hastieet al., 2023). As Tereshchenkoet al. (2018) observed, research on ability grouping is “abundant in quantitative analyses of outcomes” but “sparse in student voices” (p. 2). The purpose of the current study is to survey the perceptions of middle school and high school students in one private international school in Indonesia about the practice of between-class ability grouping implemented in the school. The study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What is middle and high school students’ overall perception of ability grouping?
2. Is there a significant difference in the respondents’ perceptions of ability grouping when grouped according to (a) gender, (b) ability, and (c) grade level?
3. What do middle and high school students perceive to be the advantages and disadvantages of ability grouping?
In relation to the second research question, the following null hypothesis (HO) was formulated: There is no significant difference in the respondents’ perceptions of ability grouping when grouped according to (a) gender, (b) ability, and (c) grade level.
Mechanics of Ability Grouping
As stated earlier, the two most common variants of ability grouping are between-class and within-class grouping. Between-class ability grouping is intended to create homogenous classrooms to facilitate individualized learning as teachers adjust the pace and content of instruction to individual learners (Gamoran, 2009; Hornby & Witte, 2014). It also eliminates boredom for high achievers and encourages low achievers to participate (McCarter, 2014). The various types of between-class ability grouping schemes include the XYZ grouping, regrouping (setting), cross-grade grouping, and tracking (streaming).
The XYZ grouping is an arrangement in which same-grade students are segregated into high, middle, and low-ability classes. Students in all three groups receive the same content and are taught with standard methods (Bolick & Rogowsky, 2016). Regrouping (setting) happens when same-grade students are grouped based on their achievement in certain subjects (Ireson & Hallam, 2001). In this scheme, students stay in heterogeneous classes for most of the school day and are regrouped for some subjects. Cross-grade grouping is an arrangement where a class may consist of students from different grade levels. The Joplin plan, the most well-known cross-grade grouping, was first used in the 1950s, and it had a positive impact on students’ reading achievement (Bolick & Rogowsky, 2016; Steenbergen-Huet al., 2016). Tracking (streaming) is the practice of grouping students into different classes based on their general ability. Research findings consistently showed significant differences in the quality of instruction, competency, and expectations of teachers among the tracks, with lower tracks falling on the negative side of the spectrum (Worthy, 2010).
Within-class ability grouping is a feature typical of elementary schools, especially for reading and mathematics. It is noted that within-class grouping in elementary education meets the requirements for effective ability grouping plans as it leaves students “in heterogeneous classes most of the school day,” regroups “only for reading and/or mathematics,” flexibly changes student placement, and adapts the level and pace of instruction accordingly (Slavin, 1988, p. 73). Studies concluded that, generally, within-class ability grouping helps students’ academic achievement (Castleet al., 2005; Puzio & Colby, 2010).
Impact on Academic Achievement
The evidence on the impact of ability grouping on academic achievement remains contested (Wanget al., 2021). The classic Slavin-Kulik debate is notable (Kulik & Kulik, 1982, 1984; Kulik, 1992; Slavin, 1987, 1990). These two prominent analysts of ability grouping conducted meta-analyses of studies and arrived at different conclusions. In his research review called “best-evidence synthesis,” Slavin (1987, 1990) asserted that ability grouping does not have significant positive effects on the achievement of elementary and secondary school students. Kulik (1992) emphasized the positive outcomes on academic achievement with an effect size greater in gifted and talented education. Both Slavin (1987, 1990) and Kulik (1992) agree that in elementary schools, while within-class ability grouping is positive and cross-grade ability grouping increases achievement, XYZ grouping has zero effect on achievement. While Slavin excluded data from gifted programs and special education, Kulik paid special attention to this data and concluded that ability grouping has a positive impact on achievement. While one believed that ability grouping is inegalitarian and anti-democratic and, therefore, schools should do away with it, the other argued that ability grouping “benefits high achieving students and harms no one” and so “its abolition would be a mistake” (Loveless, 1998, p. 21).
Gamoran (1992, 2009) noted two important considerations in studying the achievement effect of ability grouping: productivity and inequality. While productivity refers to “the overall level of achievement in the school or class,” inequality refers to “the distribution of achievement across the different tracks, classes, or groups” (Gamoran, 2009, p. 4). In their review of the literature, Ellison and Hallinan (2004) observed two types of research assessing the effect on achievement. The first group of research studies compares student achievement across homogenous groups, and the second group compares student achievement in heterogeneous and homogenous groups. According to the first group of studies, high-ability students register the greatest gains in achievement, while low-ability students register the least gains. According to the second group of studies, the average achievement is similar in both grouped and ungrouped classes. However, the achievement gap is higher in grouped classes. Studies consistently confirmed the achievement gap in ability grouping with more positive learning outcomes for the high-ability groups (Hallinan, 2000; Loveless, 2016).
Studies on the impact of within-class ability grouping also showed mixed results. Puzio and Colby (2010) reviewed studies in which within-class ability grouping was shown to improve reading achievement. A longitudinal study (Nomi, as cited in Bolick & Rogowsky, 2016) found that in schools with lower performance, within-class ability grouping did not influence achievement, while in private schools, it promised improvement and reduced inequality. Kaya (2015) examined students’ generation of questions in science between homogenous and heterogeneous within-class groups. The results revealed no significant difference in the amount or type of questions generated by the students in the two groups. Leonard (2001) conducted a similar study comparing homogeneous and heterogeneous within-class groups in mathematics achievement, and the conclusion was different from that of Kaya (2015). Another study (Castleet al., 2005) focused on the reading performance of students with low ability, low socioeconomic status, and minority groups. The results showed that the percentage of students reaching mastery level increased because of within-class ability grouping. The above results contradicted the findings of researchers who concluded that within-class ability grouping had a negative effect on students with low ability. In a study of teachers’ use of within-class ability grouping in primary schools, Webb-Williams (2021) found that children placed in the low-ability group were vulnerable to the negative effects of social comparison. They often compared themselves with others, and this, in turn, had an impact on their self-perception.
Impact on School-Related Attitudes
Some researchers concluded that ability grouping results in negative self-esteem in lower ability groups and positive self-esteem for students in higher groups. Gamoran (2009) asserted that ability grouping harms the self-esteem and motivation of students in the low-ability groups. Iresonet al. (2001) studied pupils’ self-concept in secondary schools in England that practiced setting and reported several findings. They found that the general self-concept was higher when the setting was implemented moderately. They also noted that setting in math and science did not have a significant effect on self-concept. In the English subject, the setting reduced the self-concept in higher groups and increased the self-concept in lower groups. Male students had a higher self-concept than female students. Generally, findings suggest that the effect of ability grouping on school-related attitudes is predominantly negative. Several studies reported negative outcomes such as anti-school attitudes, feelings of alienation, polarizing effects, and stereotyping (Ireson & Hallam, 1999; Shepherd, 2012, February 9).
As stated earlier, the research on students’ perception of ability grouping is insufficient. A few studies shed light on how students viewed ability grouping and reported both negative attitudes and approval of the practice. Boaleret al. (2000) conducted a longitudinal study of middle school students’ attitudes and achievement in math ability grouped sets in England. Their findings indicated that students preferred mixed-ability teaching. In a qualitative study of streaming in Queensland, Australia, Zevenbergen (2003) summarized the findings in four aspects, including quality of teaching, opportunities for learning, pacing, and self-concept. Students developed varied concepts about themselves and the ability grouping scheme. Maresca (2004) measured the attitudes of parents, students, and teachers towards ability grouping at an elementary school in New Jersey. The findings revealed that students in elementary grades 4 and 5 favored homogenous grouping over heterogeneous grouping.
Local Studies on Ability Grouping
Although there is some indication that ability grouping is practiced in Indonesian schools, it is difficult to determine how prevalent the practice is due to the scarcity of data. A few studies indicate that there is a growing research interest in the area (Jumanto, 2011; Novianaet al., 2016; Rahmawati, 2017; Rahmawati & Latief, 2013; Sumadi & Degeng, 2015; Sumadiet al., 2017; Wibowo, 2015). Most of these studies focused on the effect of ability grouping on achievement.
Studies conducted in secondary schools reported that the quality of teaching and learning improved because of ability grouping (Jumanto, 2011; Novianaet al., 2016). Studies on the effect of ability grouping in primary school teacher education found significant differences in achievements due to the intervention (Sumadi & Degeng, 2015; Sumadiet al., 2017). Another study by Rahmawati (2017) examined ability grouping for grade 12 students and reported no significant difference in achievement scores. Rahmawati and Latief (2013) described the implementation of ability grouping in a vocational high school and reported that students had a positive attitude towards homogenous grouping. Wibowo (2015) examined the perceptions of students, teachers, and parents towards ability grouping in elementary school. Although the study reported an overall positive perception of students, it is not clear if there was a significant difference in perception among students of different ability levels.
Method
Research Design
The study followed a quantitative research perspective. Quantitative research employs statistical tools to obtain results. The research design was a descriptive cross-sectional survey method. The primary goal of this study was to survey and describe students’ overall perception of ability grouping in school. The study also showed whether perceptions differ across genders, ability groups, and grade levels. The survey design was appropriate to meet this goal as it “provides a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population” (Creswell, 2014, p. 201). Moreover, the researchers chose the survey design because it was more economical and allowed rapid data collection.
Research Context
This study was conducted in a K-12 private international school in Manado, Indonesia. As of the current study, the school had a total student population of 1,330, with 560 students in elementary school, 336 students in middle school, and 434 students in high school. Since its establishment, the school has been implementing between-class ability grouping for all students from grades 1 to 12. The administrators implemented this to make it convenient for teachers to adapt their lessons to students who came from public schools with lower English proficiencies. Gradually, grade point average (GPA) was added as a determining factor in classifying students into different ability groups. The ability grouping practiced in this school follows the XYZ grouping scheme discussed earlier, as students in all three ability levels experience an identical curriculum. At the beginning of each semester, same-grade students are placed into different ability groups, such as A (low ability), B (middle ability), and C (high ability), mainly based on their academic achievement. Students within the same ability group may be further subdivided into separate classrooms based on a range of GPAs specified by the administrators. English language proficiency is an important factor in the placement of new students from the surrounding public schools coming to this international school. Newcomers are required to take placement tests in English, Mathematics, and general aptitude.
Participants
The participants of this study comprised middle school (grades 7–9) and high school (grades 10–12) students. As of this study, the total student population of middle and high school was 770 students (679 in the natural science stream and 91 in the social science stream). The social science students were excluded from this study as they did not experience ability grouping. The target participants of the current study were the 679 middle and high school students in the natural science stream. As the researchers intended to survey the entire population, no sampling procedure was followed. Out of the target population, 640 students were granted parents’ permission, personally consented to the study, and responded to the survey questionnaire. The distribution of respondents in the three demographic variables of gender, ability group, and grade level is shown in Table I.
Demographic variables | f | % |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 256 | 40 |
Female | 384 | 60 |
Ability group | ||
A | 153 | 23.9 |
B | 150 | 23.4 |
C | 337 | 52.7 |
Grade level | ||
7 | 113 | 17.7 |
8 | 101 | 15.8 |
9 | 121 | 18.9 |
10 | 100 | 15.6 |
11 | 122 | 19.1 |
12 | 83 | 13.0 |
Research Instrument
The instrument for data collection was a questionnaire developed by the researchers. The items draw upon the literature on perceptions of students and teachers towards ability grouping and its perceived advantages and disadvantages (Boaleret al., 2000; Hornby & Witte, 2014; Kim, 2012; Zevenbergen, 2003). The instrument contained three sections: (a) four questions regarding participants’ profiles, (b) 10 items to measure participants’ perception of ability grouping to be answered through a 5-point Likert scale, and (c) two open-ended questions for participants to express their views on the perceived advantages and disadvantages of ability grouping. The 10 items were designed in such a way that there was a good balance between positive and negative indicators. Content validity of the instrument was established through consultation with a panel of four experts in the content area and construction of research instruments. Internal validity was established by pilot testing the instrument with a sample of 35 randomly selected middle and high school students in the social science stream. Reliability analysis yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.81, further establishing the validity and reliability of the instrument.
Data Collection Procedure
Data was collected through a survey questionnaire described above. Informed consent forms were sent out to parents through students prior to the distribution of the survey questionnaire. The survey questionnaire, along with students’ consent form, was distributed to students electronically through Google Forms. Out of the 679 possible respondents, 640 of them consented, filled out the questionnaire, and at the same time returned the signed parents’ consent. The researchers sought assistance from three subject teachers (1 for middle school and 2 for high school). Each teacher was delegated to distribute and supervise the survey link in their respective class. The teachers also emphasized to the students the independent nature of the study. They explained to them that their participation in the study was voluntary and not part of their school requirements. The data collection lasted for a week to increase the possibility of more students participating in the study.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) application. The analysis involved descriptive statistics, independent samples t-test, and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The descriptive statistics resulted in the frequency distribution of the respondents in terms of gender, ability group, and grade level. It also showed the characteristics of data in terms of the assumptions of normality. Descriptive statistics also answered the first research question regarding the overall perception of students. The t-test was performed to show whether there was a difference in perceptions across genders, and the ANOVA determined whether there were differences in perceptions across three ability groups and six grade levels. The third research question was answered through responses to the two open-ended questions. However, the responses produced large amounts of qualitative data, and the analysis involved mainly a quantitative approach. Similar perceived advantages and disadvantages were grouped into summary statements by using keywords in the students’ responses.
Ethical Considerations
In this study, important ethical issues were considered. First, the researchers requested the principals of middle and high schools, through a printed letter, grant permission to use the facilities of the school to distribute the survey forms and collect data from students. Second, the researchers obtained verbal consent for their support and assistance in administering the survey in their respective homeroom classes. Finally, since data collection involved students below 18 years old, an informed consent form was provided to them and their parents. Both consent forms included the assurance of voluntary participation, confidentiality, and avoidance of harm. The study was also granted institutional Ethical Review Board approval.
Results and Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate students’ perception of ability grouping. Although ample research has been conducted on the impact of ability grouping on achievement and welfare, limited studies deal with perception towards the practice. The following section presents the findings of the study on the overall perception, statistical significance of differences, perceived advantages, and disadvantages of ability grouping.
Overall Perception of Ability Grouping
Participants responded to a 10-item survey designed to measure their perception of ability grouping through a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale is interpreted with scores of 1 and 2 representing negative perception, a score of 3 representing neutral perception, and scores of 4 and 5 representing positive perception. Descriptive statistics revealed that the overall perception is neutral M = 2.93 (SD = 0.698). The mean perception score per item is shown in Table II. Item No. 7, “Sectioning students by GPA makes some students feel superior to others,” generated the lowest perception score. As the item was reverse coded, the lower the perception score, the higher the degree of agreement with the statement. Thus, respondents were inclined to agree that ability grouping negatively affects students’ self-concept. This concurs with the finding that ability grouping creates negative self-concepts in both high and low-ability students (Hornby & Witte, 2014; Zevenbergen, 2003).
Survey items | M | SD |
---|---|---|
1. I prefer to be in a class with students who are similar to me in academic ability. | 3.20 | 1.163 |
2. Sectioning students by academic ability or GPA is helpful for their learning. | 3.10 | 1.149 |
3. It is important for me to be in the highest section. | 2.96 | 1.199 |
4. Sectioning students by GPA helps them improve their academic performance. | 3.13 | 1.150 |
5. I prefer to be in a class with students who are different from me in academic ability. | 2.92 | 1.136 |
6. It is better to mix students who have high and low GPAs. | 2.73 | 1.078 |
7. Sectioning students by GPA makes some students feel superior to others. | 2.49 | 1.254 |
8. Sectioning students by GPA is unfair to some students. | 2.80 | 1.224 |
9. Students should not be placed into different sections based on GPA. | 2.82 | 1.196 |
10. I like the sectioning system in my school. | 3.09 | 1.168 |
Perception Across Gender
As can be seen in Table III, male students (N = 256) were associated with a perception score of (M = 2.97, SD = 0.68). By comparison, female students (N = 384) were associated with a slightly smaller perception score of (M = 2.89, SD = 0.71). To test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in perception among male and female students, an independent samples t-test was performed. The results revealed that there was no significant difference in perception t (638) = 1.415, p = 0.158. Thus, we failed to reject the null hypothesis. Male and female students have the same neutral perception of ability grouping practiced in the school.
Gender | N | M | SD |
---|---|---|---|
Male | 256 | 2.97 | 0.677 |
Female | 384 | 2.89 | 0.710 |
Total | 640 | 2.93 | 0.698 |
Perception Across Ability Groups
Table IV shows the descriptive statistics of perception across ability groups. The C category (higher ability group) was associated with a lower mean perception score (M = 2.89, SD = 0.75). Numerically, respondents in the higher-ability group have a more negative perception towards ability grouping compared to the middle and low-ability groups. A one-way ANOVA test was performed to test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in respondents’ perceptions when grouped by ability level. The test revealed that there was no significant difference, F (2, 637) = 1.231, p = 0.293. Thus, we failed to reject the null hypothesis.
Ability group | N | M | SD |
---|---|---|---|
A | 153 | 2.98 | 0.592 |
B | 150 | 2.95 | 0.669 |
C | 337 | 2.89 | 0.751 |
Perception Across Grade Levels
Table V shows the descriptive statistics of perception across grade levels. The mean perception scores per grade are close to each other with respondents from grade 7 (N = 113) having the highest (M = 3.15, SD = 0.616) and respondents from grade 11 (N = 122) having the lowest (M = 2.71, SD = 0.682). To test the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in respondents’ perception when grouped by grade level, a one-way ANOVA test was performed. The test yielded a statistically significant difference, F (5, 634) = 5.101, p < 0.001. We reject the null hypothesis. There is a significant difference in the perception of respondents when grouped by grade level. To identify the significant difference between groups, post hoc comparisons through the Tukey test was performed. The test indicated that the mean score of grade 11 (M = 2.71, SD = 0.682) was significantly different from the mean score of grade 9 (M = 2.99, SD = 0.745) and the mean score of grade 7 (M = 3.15, SD = 0.616). Although the difference is statistically significant, the mean scores of grades 7, 9, and 11 are not meaningfully different as they are all below the neutral mark of 3. Moreover, the mean score of grade 11 students did not have a statistically significant difference from the mean scores of grades 8, 10, and 12.
Grade level | N | M | SD |
---|---|---|---|
Grade 7 | 113 | 3.15 | 0.616 |
Grade 8 | 101 | 2.89 | 0.644 |
Grade 9 | 121 | 2.99 | 0.745 |
Grade 10 | 100 | 2.91 | 0.740 |
Grade 11 | 122 | 2.71 | 0.682 |
Grade 12 | 83 | 2.90 | 0.679 |
Perceived Advantages of Ability Grouping
In Table VI, we listed the perceived advantages into 10 summary statements. Most of the respondents (f = 194, 30.31%) perceived the advantage of ability grouping in terms of the pace of teaching and learning. They stated that teaching and learning will be more efficient and effective as students learn based on their ability level and learning pace. Earlier research pointed out the adjustment of the pace of learning as a significant element in homogenous ability grouping (Gamoran, 2009; Hallinan, 2012; Hornby & Witte, 2014). In one study, the reason that teachers cited as to why they preferred homogenous grouping was because they can adjust the pace of instruction (Petrello, 2000). Moreover, students also expressed that the adjustment of pace in ability grouping helped them in their learning (Zevenbergen, 2003).
Perceived advantages | Keywords | f | % | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Teaching and learning will be more efficient and effective as students learn based their ability level with equal learning pace. | Pace, efficiency, ability level, easy, relevant, fair balanced learning, better learning, teacher, individual attention, extra help | 194 | 30.3 |
2. | It motivates students to study better to improve their performance, get a higher GPA, and move to a higher ability group. | Motivation, grades, GPA, achievement, improvement, performance | 103 | 16.1 |
3. | Students within a class can make friends easily, interact better, and build stronger social relationships. | Relationship, friendship, social bonding, communication, interaction, cooperation, teamwork | 81 | 12.7 |
4. | It creates a comfortable and enjoyable learning environment where students within a class feel safe, equal, respected, and united. | Environment, comfort, unity, fun, equal, same, respect | 58 | 9.1 |
5. | Students especially in the higher section can focus and concentrate more on their studies. | Focus, concentration, distraction, noise | 35 | 5.5 |
6. | It encourages positive academic competition especially among high performing students. | Competition | 32 | 5.0 |
7. | It challenges the advanced and gifted learners academically producing top-tier students. | Smart, gifted, advanced, top-tier, challenge | 23 | 3.6 |
8. | High achieving students will have a positive influence and inspire others. | Influence, inspiration | 17 | 2.7 |
9. | It helps students develop better self-confidence. | Self-confidence, confidence | 15 | 2.3 |
10. | Helps students identify their strengths and weaknesses. | Level, limits, ability, strengths, and weaknesses | 9 | 1.4 |
No responses | 73 | 11.4 | ||
Total | 640 |
The respondents in the second highest category (f = 103, 16.09%) perceived that ability grouping improves achievement. They expressed that they are motivated to study harder to earn a better GPA. This finding is in line with studies that reported a positive effect of homogenous ability grouping on achievement motivation (Kiss, 2017; Maurer, 2020). Responses 3 and 4 (combined f = 139, 21.72%) addressed social relationships and the learning environment. Respondents perceived that ability grouping helps students within a class build better social relationships, feel comfortable, and have a sense of equality. Responses 5, 6, 7, and 8 (combined f = 107, 16.72%) are perceived advantages especially attributed to students that belong in the high-ability group. Respondents perceived that ability grouping helps highly achieving students to concentrate in class better because of the absence of distractive students. This is consistent with the conclusion that ability grouping disproportionately benefits high-ability students (Hallinan, 2012; Hornby & Witte, 2014; Loveless, 2016; Scherrer, 2019). Responses 9 and 10 (combined f = 24, 3.75%) addressed student self-concept. Respondents perceived that ability grouping develops better self-confidence and helps them identify their strengths and weaknesses. Siu and Wu (2012) found no harmful effects of ability grouping in their comparative study of Hong Kong and Australian samples. A longitudinal study by Vogl and Preckel (2014) reported positive effects on student self-concept.
Perceived Disadvantages of Ability Grouping
Table VII lists the perceived disadvantages into 10 summary statements. Most of the statements (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, & 10; combined f = 511, 79.84%) were related to disadvantages for low-ability groups. One summary statement (No. 4; f = 76, 11.88%) was related to disadvantages for high-ability groups. Two summary statements (Nos. 6 & 9; f = 53, 8.28%) were related to disadvantages for all groups. An overwhelming majority (f = 511, 79.84%) perceived that ability grouping is more disadvantageous for students in the lower ability groups.
Perceived disadvantages | Keywords | f | % | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. | High-ability students feel superior and look down on others. This, in turn, leads to low self-esteem and a feeling of inferiority in low-ability students. | Superiority, inferiority, insecurity, bragging, arrogance, underestimation, intimidated, pride, self-esteem, confidence | 186 | 29.06 |
2. | The lower section is characterized by classroom disciplinary issues. Moreover, as there is a lack of role models, students become a negative influence on each other. | Disciplinary issues, noise, distractions, concentration, focus, disturbances, talkativeness, role model | 126 | 19.69 |
3. | Low-ability students are discouraged and demotivated to study. This impedes their growth and hence they get stuck in one level of learning. | Demotivation, effort, improvement, discouragement, desire, responsibility, growth, laziness | 85 | 13.28 |
4. | Too high expectations from teachers and parents make high-ability students overly grade oriented, competitive, and less sociable. | Pressure, high expectations, less socializing | 76 | 11.88 |
5. | Students experience favoritism, unfair treatments, discrimination, and stereotyping from teachers and students. | Favoritism, unfairness, bias, limited opportunities, discrimination, stereotyping, labeling, comparing, teasing, bullying, inequality | 66 | 10.31 |
6. | It separates friends, encourages cliques, or gangs, and creates relationship and communication gaps among students. | Gaps, separation, exclusion, isolation, divisions, cliques, gangs, jealousy, communication, relationship, lonely | 43 | 6.72 |
7. | When students get a lower GPA, they will get depressed. Sometimes they compromise their integrity just to get to a higher grade. | Negative feelings, depressed, broken-hearted, uncomfortable feeling, compromise, cheating | 29 | 4.53 |
8. | It creates additional work for teachers leading to wrong perceptions of students and inferior quality instruction in the lower classes. | More work, difficult, wrong perception, inferior instruction | 11 | 1.72 |
9. | It leads to homogeneity of thought processes, lack of diversity, variety, uniqueness, and creativity. | Homogeneity, diversity, variety, uniqueness, creativity, over-familiarity | 10 | 1.56 |
10. | The performance of high-ability students gets better while the performance of low-ability students gets worse. | The smart students get smarter, the weaker students get weaker, | 8 | 1.25 |
The majority (f = 186, 29.06%) pointed out that ability grouping makes high-ability students feel superior and create feelings of inferiority and insecurity in low-ability students. This observation is in line with the findings of the study by McGillicuddy and Devine (2020) where ability grouping is shown to evoke feelings of shame, upsent, and inferiority among students in the low-ability groups. Another group of respondents (f = 126, 19.69%) pointed out the prevalence of disciplinary issues in low-ability classrooms. Low-ability students tend to lose focus and concentration on the study, make noise and engage in sideline talks with classmates. Similar observations were made by Hornby and Witte (2014) in their study of ability grouping in New Zealand high schools. Other respondents perceived that ability grouping impedes the academic growth of low-ability groups. Others pointed out that low-ability students suffer from the stigma of being ranked low. Some respondents also perceived that low-ability students get depressed and are tempted to cheat just to obtain a higher grade. Congruent with the findings of Chisaka and Vakalisa (2003), respondents noted that the quality of instruction in the lower ability groups is inferior. A few respondents pointed out disadvantages mainly for high-ability groups. They perceived high-ability students to be under a lot of pressure due to high expectations.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The findings of this study showed that the students in the target school had an overall neutral perception of ability grouping. Their neutral perception toward the practice was an indication of their compliance with the status quo. On the other hand, although students identified several advantages of ability grouping mainly for high-ability students, an overwhelming majority of them perceived that ability grouping has many disadvantages, especially for low-ability students. Based on the findings, the researchers proposed some recommendations. Since it was found that ability grouping has more disadvantages to low-ability students, it is recommended that administrators design after-school enhancement programs and extracurricular activities especially targeting students in the low-ability groups. In the long run, this can improve their academic performance and boost their self-confidence. Since it was found that it is necessary to cater to the unique needs of students, especially in the low-ability group, it is recommended that the teachers and administrators enhance their practice through relevant training in differentiated instruction and inclusive education. Since it was found that the student population had a neutral perception of ability grouping, it is recommended that more comprehensive evaluation be conducted to establish a basis to continue, modify, or discontinue the practice. One limitation of this study was that the responses to the open-ended questions produced large qualitative data. However, the data was analyzed mainly in a quantitative approach. It will be beneficial to carry out further qualitative studies that explore the views of students, teachers, administrators, and parents toward the practice of ability grouping.
References
-
Alam, A., & Mohanty, A. (2023). Cultural beliefs and equity in educational institutions: Exploring the social and philosophical notions of ability groupings in teaching and learning of mathematics. International Journal of Adolescence & Youth, 28(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2023.2270662
Google Scholar
1
-
Belfi, B., Goos, M., Fraine, B. D., & Damme, J. V. (2012). The effect of class composition by gender and ability on secondary school students’ school well-being and academic self-concept: A literature review. Educational Research Review, 7(1), 62-74.
Google Scholar
2
-
Boaler, J., Wiliam, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students’ experiences of ability grouping-disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 631-648.
Google Scholar
3
-
Bolick, K. N., & Rogowsky, B. A. (2016). Ability grouping is on the rise, but should it be? Journal of Education and Human Development, 5(2), 40-51.
Google Scholar
4
-
doi: 10.15640/jehd.v5n2a6
Google Scholar
5
-
Castle, S., Deniz, C. B., & Tortora, M. (2005). Flexible grouping and student learning in a high-needs school. Education and Urban Society, 37, 139-150. doi:10.1177/0013124504270787
Google Scholar
6
-
Chisaka, B. C., & Vakalisa, N. C. G. (2003). Some effects of ability grouping in Harare secondary schools: A case study. South African Journal of Education, 23(3), 176- 180.
Google Scholar
7
-
Chmielewski, A. K. (2014). An international comparison of achievement inequality in within and between-school tracking systems. American Journal of Education, 120(3), 293-324. doi:10.1086/675529.
Google Scholar
8
-
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Google Scholar
9
-
Ellison, B. J., & Hallinan, M. T., (2004). Ability grouping in catholic and public schools. A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 8(1), 107-129.
Google Scholar
10
-
Francis, B., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Pepper, D., Taylor, B., & Travers, M. C. (2017). Exploring the relative lack of impact of research on ability grouping in England: A discourse analytic account. Cambridge Journal of Education, 47(1), 1–17. doi:10.1080/030576 4X.2015.1093095.
Google Scholar
11
-
Gamoran, A. (1992). Is ability grouping equitable? Educational Leadership, 50(2), 11-17.
Google Scholar
12
-
Garmoran, A. (2009). Tracking and inequality: New directions for research and practice In M. W. Apple, S. J. Ball, & L. A. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Education (pp. 213-228). Routledge.
Google Scholar
13
-
Hallinan, M. T. (2000). Ability group effects in high school learning outcomes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington, DC, August 15, 2000. https://files.eric.ed.gov /fulltext/ED467684.pdf
Google Scholar
14
-
Hallinan M. T. (2012). Effects of tracking and ability grouping on learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1098-1100). Springer.
Google Scholar
15
-
Hastie, P. A., Brock, S. J., Buchanan, A. B., & Moore, M. E. (2023). Stakeholders’ perceptions of within-class ability grouping in a primary school physical education unit. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17408989.2023.2219276
Google Scholar
16
-
Higgins, S., Katsipataki, M., Coleman, R., Henderson, P., Major, L., Coe, R., & Mason, D. (2015). The Sutton Trust-Education Endowment Foundation Teaching and Learning Toolkit. London, England: Education Endowment Foundation.
Google Scholar
17
-
Hornby, G., & Witte, C. (2014). Ability grouping in New Zealand high schools: Are practices evidence-based? Preventing School Failure, 58(2), 90–95.
Google Scholar
18
-
doi: 10.1080/1045988X.2013.782531
Google Scholar
19
-
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (1999). Raising the standards: Is ability grouping the answer? Oxford Review of Education, 25(3), 343-358.
Google Scholar
20
-
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2001). Ability grouping in education. Paul Chapman Publishing.
Google Scholar
21
-
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S., & Plewis, I. (2001). Ability grouping in secondary schools: Effects on pupils’ self-concepts British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 315-326.
Google Scholar
22
-
Jumanto. (2011). The implementation of ability grouping in attempt to improve students’ learning results in grade 11 Wood Construction Engineering subject in SMK Negeri 2, Surakata (Undergraduate thesis). https://digilib.uns.ac.id/dokumen/download /24607/NTIzOTc=
Google Scholar
23
-
Kaya, S. (2015). The effect of the type of achievement grouping on students’ question generation in science. Australian Educational Researcher, 42, 429-441. doi:10.1007/s133 84-014-0164-x
Google Scholar
24
-
Kiss, D. (2017). A model about the impact of ability grouping on student achievement. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter,
Google Scholar
25
-
(3), 1-10.
Google Scholar
26
-
Kim, Y. (2012). Implementing ability grouping in EFL contexts: Perceptions of teachers and students. Language Teaching Research, 16(3) 289-315.
Google Scholar
27
-
doi: 10.1177/1362168812436894
Google Scholar
28
-
Kulik, C. L., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 415-428.
Google Scholar
29
-
Kulik, C. L., & Kulik, J. A. (1984). Effects of ability grouping on elementary school pupils: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Ontario, Canada. August 24-28, 1984. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED255329.pdf
Google Scholar
30
-
Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED350777.pdf
Google Scholar
31
-
Leonard, J. (2001). How group composition influenced the achievement of sixth-grade mathematics students. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 3, 175-200. doi:10.1080/10986065.2001.9679972
Google Scholar
32
-
Loveless, T. (1998). The tracking and ability grouping debate. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Google Scholar
33
-
Loveless, T. (2013). The resurgence of ability grouping and persistence of tracking. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content /uploads/2016/06/2013-brown-center-report-web-3.pdf
Google Scholar
34
-
Loveless, T. (2016). Tracking and advanced placement. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Brown-Center-Report-2016.pdf
Google Scholar
35
-
Maresca, J. (2004). Measuring parent, student, and teacher attitudes towards ability grouping at the elementary school level (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3130230)
Google Scholar
36
-
Maurer, K. (2020). The effects of homogeneous ability grouping on low-level students’ self-esteem, confidence, and motivation in reading. (Master’s thesis). https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/80336/Maurer_Kristina %20%28Wortz%29_Thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Google Scholar
37
-
McCarter, A. K. (2014). Ability grouping in elementary education (Doctoral dissertation). https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/2459
Google Scholar
38
-
McGillicuddy, D. & Devine, D. (2020). ‘You feel ashamed that you are not in the higher group’ - Children’s psychosocial response to ability grouping in primary school. British Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.1002 /berj.3595.
Google Scholar
39
-
Noviana, A., Sumarni, S., & Waluyo (2016). The implementation of ability grouping to improve students’ achievement in Mechanical Technical subject at the tenth grade Civil Engineering in SMK Negeri 5 Surakarta (Undergraduate thesis). https://jurnal.uns.ac.id/ijcee/article/view/14772
Google Scholar
40
-
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). Yale University Press.
Google Scholar
41
-
Papachristou, E., Floouri, E., Joshi, H., Midouhas, E., & Lewis, G. (2021). Ability-grouping
Google Scholar
42
-
and problem behavior trajectories in childhood and adolescence: Results from a UK population-based sample. Child Development, 93(2), 341-358. https://doi.org/10.1111 /cdev.13674
Google Scholar
43
-
Petrello, N. (2000). Can ability grouping help educators meet higher educational
Google Scholar
44
-
standards? Rederived from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442743.pdf
Google Scholar
45
-
Puzio, K., & Colby, G. (2010). The effects of within class grouping on reading achievement: A meta-analytic synthesis. http://files.eric.ed .gov/fulltext/ED514135.pdf
Google Scholar
46
-
Rahmawati, A. K. (2017). Implementation of the ability grouping and peer tutoring method in trial of national examination towards achievement of students at “Unggulan Pondok Modern Selamat Kendal” high school (Undergraduate thesis). https://lib.unnes.ac.id/29648/1/1102413111.pdf
Google Scholar
47
-
Rahmawati, Z. N., & Latief, M. A. (2013). The implementation of ability grouping in English classroom in SMK Negeri 1 Singosari (Undergraduate thesis). https://lib.unnes.ac.id/29648/
Google Scholar
48
-
Scherrer, V. (2019). Students’ achievement motivation during the school career: Development, correlates, and effects of ability grouping (Doctoral dissertation). https://ubt.opus.hbz-nrw.de/opus45-ubtr/frontdoor/deliver/ index/docId/1381/file/Dissertation+Vsevolod+Scherrer.pdf
Google Scholar
49
-
Shepherd, J. (2012, Feb 09). Dividing younger pupils by ability can entrench disadvantaged, study finds. The Guardian. https://www.the guardian.com/education/2012/feb/09/dividing-pupils-ability-entrench-disadvantage
Google Scholar
50
-
Siu, A. C. K., & Wu, J. (2012). Effect of ability grouping on self-esteem and academic self-concept: A comparison between Hong Kong and Australian adolescents. Handbook on Psychology of Self-Esteem, 393-402.
Google Scholar
51
-
Slavin, R. B. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.
Google Scholar
52
-
Slavin, R. E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and secondary schools. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 67-76.
Google Scholar
53
-
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.
Google Scholar
54
-
Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (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), 849-899.
Google Scholar
55
-
Sumadi, & Degeng, I. N. S. (2015). Effect of ability grouping in collaborative learning and locus of control on individual achievements. International Journal of Science and Research, 6(4), 593-596. doi:10.21275/ART20172242
Google Scholar
56
-
Sumadi, Degeng, I. N. S., Sulthon, & Waras, 2017). Effect of ability grouping in reciprocal teaching technique of collaborative learning on individual achievements and social skills. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 6(3), 216-220. doi:10.11591/ijere.v6i3.pp216-220
Google Scholar
57
-
Tereshchenko, A., Francis, B., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Mazenod, A., Taylor, B., Pepper, D., & Travers, M. C. (2018). Learners’ attitudes to mixed attainment grouping: Examining the views of students of high, middle, and low attainment, Research
Google Scholar
58
-
Papers in Education. doi:10.1080/02671522.2018.1452962
Google Scholar
59
-
Vogl, K., & Preckel, F. (2014). Full-time ability grouping of gifted students: Impacts on social self-concept and school-related attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 51-68. doi:10.1177/ 0016986213513795
Google Scholar
60
-
Wang, H., King, R. B., & McInerney, D. M. (2021). Ability grouping and student performance: A longitudinal investigation of teacher support as a mediator and moderator. Research Papers in Education, 38(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02671522.2021.1961293
Google Scholar
61
-
Webb-Williams, J. L. (2021). Teachers’ use of within-class ability groups in the primary classroom: A mixed methods study of social comparison. Frontiers in Psychology. 12:728104. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.728104
Google Scholar
62
-
Wibowo, D. H. (2015). Implementation of ability grouping in elementary school. Jurnal Psikologi Undip, 14(2), 148-159. https://ejournal.undip.ac.id/ index.php/psikologi/article/view/10609/8443
Google Scholar
63
-
Worthy, J. (2010). Only the names have been changed: Ability grouping revisited. Urban Review, 42, 271–295. doi:10.1007/s11256-009-0134-1
Google Scholar
64
-
Zevenbergen, R. (2003). Ability grouping: A self-fulfilling prophecy? Australian Mathematics Teacher, 59(4), 2-7.
Google Scholar
65