Research Question 1: How do pupils perceive their learning experience

independent secondary girls’ school, comparing mixed ability lessons and ability grouped lessons?

The evidence was ambiguous about pupils’ perceptions of their learning environment, where both positive and negative aspects were identified for the learning environment in both ability grouped lessons and mixed ability lessons. For example, pupils in year 10 and 11 found that they were challenged and stretched more in their mixed ability lessons, yet they also reported finishing work more quickly than others in this environment. This inconsistency with the findings was similar to previous research, as Davies, Hallam, and

155 Ireson (2003) found that there was no easy method or decision for schools to determine how groupings were organised.

Pupils in year 10 stated that they preferred Mathematics sets compared to Science sets, this could be due to the fact that they had become used to the process of the Mathematics sets; this familiarity may have allowed them to have greater confidence in these lessons

compared to the Science sets. If the Science sets had been in place longer or the same amount of time as the Mathematics sets, then the pupils may have felt more positive about both curriculum subjects.

This study investigated a number of curriculum subjects across the Case Study school, and this allowed for a greater understanding of the pupils experiences across these curriculum areas as opposed to just focusing on one curriculum subject. It was interesting to consider whether the findings were a reflection of the curriculum subjects investigated, or the different teachers of the curriculum areas. Pupils could potentially have reacted differently to different teachers, and this could have been regardless of the way the curriculum subject was organised. This supported previous research, for example where Ireson and Hallam (2005) suggested that English teachers could demonstrate more empathy towards pupils in comparison to Mathematics or Science. This could be attributed to the type of teachers that the curriculum subjects may attract, or simply be due to the type of work that might be covered in the different areas. For example, English naturally lends itself to more group discussions, and opportunities for pupils to discuss their own thoughts in comparison to Mathematics or Science. These different types of approaches or different work covered could be more suited to certain individuals. This was why this research focussed on four curriculum subjects as opposed to one curriculum subject, as it was thought that this would

156 potentially combat any impact different teachers or preferences may have on the results. However, this was still thought to be a major factor when considering the results identified.

The analysis of the year 10 and year 11 focus group showed that the confidence and

increased self-esteem that can be gained from being placed in a top set, or being moved up, was potentially reinforcing for pupils that they were good at a particular subject. However, despite the increase in self-esteem that can be achieved, the data showed that it was far more challenging and potentially detrimental to an individual’s self-esteem being placed in a low set when an individual thought she was good at a subject. Previous research supports this finding, as it has been suggested that placement in a low ability set can have

implications on the levels of pupils’ motivation towards the subject, levels of self-efficacy, and their perceptions of competence (Bandura, 1997; Muijs & Dunne, 2010; Schunk & Parajes, 2005).

If pupils already felt particularly confident about a curriculum area, and then if this was reinforced by being placed in the top set this could have had potentially a positive effect on their levels of self-esteem. This supported previous literature which highlighted the benefit of ability grouping for pupils in a top set (Huang, 2009; Ireson, Hallam, Hack, Clark, & Plewis, 2002; Kim, 2012; MacIntyre & Ireson, 2002; Venkatakrishnan & Wiliam, 2003; Wiliam & Bartholomew, 2004).

Anxieties in relation to sets were also highlighted in year 11, due to not being pushed as much in lower sets compared to the top set. Pupils felt that teachers were content to let them work at the level they were at and not attempt to try and push them further. Such a difference in expectation has also been found in other research, where the expectation of teachers differed with regard to the pace of work from top set to bottom set, with increased

157 volumes of work and higher expectations for those in the higher sets (Ireson and Hallam, 2005).

The findings of this present research were in contrast to some previous research which highlighted the negative effects for low set pupils (Ireson & Hallam, 2005; Ireson & Hallam, 1999; Linchevski & Kutscher, 1998; Wiliam & Bartholomew, 2004). This research suggested that there can be benefits with regard to working at the same pace and smaller class sizes, which were experienced at this Case Study school in year 8 and 11, regardless of what set pupils were in. This linked to previous research by Dunne, Humphreys, Dyson, Sebba, Gallannaugh, and Muijs (2011), as they suggested that positive effects can be experienced by pupils regardless of which set they were placed in.

The data analysis of the year 9, 10 and 11 focus groups identified that pupils lacked confidence in relation to the process and system of ability grouping, and it was felt that more transparency with the system was needed, with teachers being more open and honest. It was found that information regarding how sets were organised was not given openly and pupils felt the system of how sets were organised was not always fair or

transparent. It was evident that pupils strived for consistency and transparency within the system of ability grouping. This included how sets were determined in the first place, how any movements occurred and how these movements were discussed and explained to the pupils. This finding supported previous research by Muijs and Dunne (2010) which

suggested that pupils’ experiences of setting processes were highly influential to their school experience, and this therefore also supported what Hallam and Parsons suggested in 2012 when they implied that further research was still required in this area.

158 Pupils in year 11 felt that the sets were decided purely by examination results, and they felt that if sets were organised in this way this should be communicated openly, however, this also highlighted the injustice that was felt towards sets being determined in this way, suggesting that their class work, homework and previous performances in classes should be taken into account. This finding links with previous research, which suggested that when sets were organised according to test results it can be unreliable (Davies, Hallam, & Ireson, 2003). The importance of information regarding sets and movement between sets

identified in this study was similar to previous research, which suggested that for ability grouping to be effective it was essential for there to be movement between groups (Devine, 1993; Gillborn & Youdell, 2000; Ofsted, 1998; Winstanley, 2010). However, previous

research has highlighted issues that occurred with movement between ability groups, due to different sets potentially following different courses or a different syllabus, or taking into account the fact that different sets would have progressed at different rates (Davies,

Hallam, & Ireson, 2003; Ireson & Hallam, 1999; Smith & Sutherland, 2003; Hallam & Toutounji, 1996), both of which could have made it difficult for pupils to move between ability groups. It can be understandable why movement between sets could be difficult if different sets were covering different work and would have progressed at different rates, however it seems perfectly acceptable for pupils to be made aware of the setting processes, and how decisions were made.

The data indicated much support from year 9 and year 10 for mixed ability groups in relation to learning from each other, and the benefits that can be gained from being surrounded by others who were good at a subject and hearing their views and ideas. This was supported by previous research which highlighted the benefit that pupils gained from

159 peer support, collaboration, and sharing different experiences and knowledge which

allowed for both cognitive and social development (Lyle, 1999; Smith & Sutherland, 2003). Interestingly, in this research pupils were able to describe increased confidence levels and reduced levels of stress in relation to mixed ability groups, and how they felt more

comfortable in this environment compared to a lesson organised by ability. This finding was similar to the work of Hallam and Ireson (2007), which also identified that pupils were more satisfied with their class when lessons were organised by mixed ability. This increased confidence and enjoyment could have been attributed to the satisfaction that pupils experienced when being able to help each when collaboratively.

However, the data analysis identified concerns raised about mixed ability groups, as despite the confidence mentioned above, pupils in year 8, 10 and 11 also experienced a lack of confidence from being surrounded by others who were stronger or who experienced more success. This related to experiences of not wanting to contribute to lessons or answer questions due to feeling self-conscious, feeling that others would have had better answers. This finding was in contrast to previous research by Benn and Chitty (1997) who identified that the type of grouping made no difference to academic achievement.

Therefore this research highlighted the impact that mixed ability grouping could have had on the learning of pupils, in terms of their confidence within lessons which in turn could have led to affecting their academic potential. It was important that schools were aware of the impact that different types of grouping can have, as being aware of these issues can allow schools and teachers to potentially counteract the issues raised to allow for a positive and comfortable learning environment for pupils to be created.

160

6.1.2 Research Question 2: Is the motivation of pupils affected by ability grouping, with