Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Academic outcomes from between-class achievement grouping: the Australian primary context

  • Published:
The Australian Educational Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Grouping students by academic achievement level has been practised in a wide variety of forms and contexts for over a century. Despite a general consensus in the research that between-class achievement grouping provides no overall benefit for students, the practice has persisted in various guises. Between-class achievement grouping is common in high schools, and is also practised in a number of primary schools in various countries. While the affective outcomes of such practices have been investigated recently, academic outcomes at primary level have not been studied in recent decades. This paper examines the academic outcomes of between-class achievement grouping in literacy and numeracy classes in Australian primary schools. Results from standardised tests are compared between two groups of schools—one regroups students for these areas, and one maintains mixed-achievement classes. It is argued that the current regrouping practice closely resembles streaming and provides no apparent academic advantage for students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alloway, N., & Gilbert, P. (1998). Reading literacy test data: Benchmarking success. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 21(3), 249–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansalone, G., & Biafora, F. (2004). Elementary school teachers’ perceptions and attitudes to the educational structure of tracking. Education, 125(2), 249–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babad, E. (1993). Teachers’ differential behaviour. Educational Psychology Review, 5(4), 347–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker Lunn, J. C. (1970). Streaming in the primary school: A longitudinal study of children in streamed and non-streamed junior schools. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blatchford, P., & Mortimore, P. (1994). The issue of class size for young children in schools: What can we learn from research? Oxford Review of Education, 20(4), 411–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (1997a). Setting, streaming and mixed ability teaching. In J. Dillon & M. Maguire (Eds.), Issues in secondary teaching. Becoming a teacher. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (1997b). Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex and setting. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J., Hallam, S., & Ireson, J. (2003). Ability groupings in the primary school: Issues arising from practice. Research Papers in Education, 18(1), 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Achilles, C. M. (2003). The ‘Why’s’ of class size: Student behaviour in small classes. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 321–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallam, S., & Ireson, J. (2006). Secondary school pupils’ preferences for different types of structured grouping practices. British Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 583–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallam, S., & Ireson, J. (2007). Secondary school pupils’ satisfaction with their ability grouping placements. British Educational Research Journal, 33(1), 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallam, S., Ireson, J., & Davies, J. (2004). Primary Pupils’ experiences of different types of grouping in school. British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 515–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallam, S., Ireson, J., Lister, V., Andon Chaudhury, I., & Davies, J. (2003). Ability grouping practices in the primary school: A survey. Educational Studies, 29(1), 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallinan, M. T., & Sorensen, A. B. (1985). Ability grouping and student friendships. American Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 485–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research Conference, Melbourne.

  • Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (1999). Raising standards: Is ability grouping the answer? Oxford Review of Education, 25(3), 343–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireson, J., Hallam, S., Hack, S., Clark, H., & Plewis, I. (2002). Ability grouping in english secondary schools: Effects on attainment in english, mathematics and science. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8(3), 299–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, B. (1964). Streaming, an education system in miniature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 415–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(2), 73–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linchevski, L., & Kutscher, B. (1998). Tell me with whom you’re learning, and I’ll tell you how much you’ve learned. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(5), 533–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, H., & Ireson, J. (2002). Within-class ability grouping: Placement of pupils in groups and self-concept. British Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macqueen, S. (2009). Grouping Primary students by achievement for literacy and numeracy instruction: Who wins? Paper presented at National Conference for Teachers of English and Literacy, Hobart.

  • Macqueen, S. (2010). Primary teacher attitudes in achievement-based literacy classes. Issues in Educational Research , 20(2), 118–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSW DET (2007). Planning and innovation. Statistical Bulletin: Schools and Students in New South Wales, 2006. https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/reports. Accessed September, 17, 2008.

  • Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdenakker, M., & Van Damme, J. (2001). Relationship between school composition and characteristics of school process and their effect on mathematics achievement. British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 407–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterman, K. F. (1998). Student community within the school context: A research synthesis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

  • Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. F. (1993). Higher order instructional goals in secondary schools: Class, teacher and school influence. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 523–553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, K. J. (2003). The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling. Background paper to keynote address presented at the Australian Council of Educational Research Conference, Melbourne, 19–21.

  • Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best for students: Teacher expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 429–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitburn, J. (2001). Effective classroom organisation in primary schools: Mathematics. Oxford Review of Education, 27(3), 411–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D., & Bartholomew, H. (2004). It’s not which school but which set you’re in that matters: The influence of ability grouping practices on student progress in mathematics. British Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the feedback from members of the School of Education writing groups at the University of Newcastle on an earlier draft of this paper, and from the anonymous peer reviewers, which helped to get this work published.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2208, Australia

    Suzanne Macqueen

Authors
  1. Suzanne Macqueen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzanne Macqueen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Macqueen, S. Academic outcomes from between-class achievement grouping: the Australian primary context. Aust. Educ. Res. 39, 59–73 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-011-0047-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-011-0047-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation