The research from the questionnaire showed that levels of anxiety were higher with years 10 and 11 in the mixed ability lessons with regard to keeping up with others, however being able to maintain the fast pace of the lesson was also highlighted as a concern within ability grouped lessons in the focus group in year 10.
166 A significant finding here was in support of ability grouping, where it was found that pupils in all year groups rated finishing their work quicker than others in the mixed ability grouped lesson than in ability grouped lesson. This was also indicated in previous research where it was suggested that teachers aim their lessons at the middle of the group (Newbold, 1977), resulting in faster or slower working individuals having to adapt. Smith and Sutherland (2003) pointed out that the pace of lessons was a concern as well, when they suggested that mixed ability groups could be difficult to provide sufficient challenge for the most able pupils. Clearly this was a concern that was identified in this present research as well, where both the focus groups and questionnaire data showed that pupils were working at different paces, which could affect the progress of individuals.
In support of the above finding, higher levels of anxiety in years 10 and 11 were found with regard to keeping up with others in the mixed ability group compared to the ability set lesson was also identified. It was suggested that in the mixed ability group pupils felt left behind and found that work moved too quickly for them to keep up. As discussed
previously, this finding was in contrast to previous findings from Benn and Chitty (1997) who suggested that working in mixed ability groups made no affect to academic achievement and performance. The current research suggests that mixed ability grouping can affect the academic performance of individuals, if they were experiencing being left behind and felt not able to keep up with others which could in time have led to anxieties.
However, despite the finding above, the current study revealed that pupils in year 10 and 11 felt more stretched in their mixed ability group compared to the ability grouped lesson, which could suggest that teachers may have adopted wider ranges of teaching methods during these lessons to accommodate their wider range of abilities. This was similar to
167 previous research by Wiliam and Bartholomew (2004), who identified that teachers were more likely to use a wide range of approaches and take into account the individual
differences of pupils when mixed ability groupings were in place, which could account for the findings in this research with regard to pupils feeling more challenged and stretched. It could be argued that pupils felt more challenged and stretched in the mixed ability lesson, as it was possibly more obvious when they were being challenged more compared to other pupils, for example being set extension work or being given different tasks.
The benefits of ability grouping with regard to working at a similar pace with others was found across all age groups in this study, allowing individuals to feel at ease as everyone was working at the same pace and not feeling left behind. The analysis of the focus groups suggested that the appropriate pace actually forced individuals to work hard, which allowed them to maintain their position within the set. This was supported further when year 11 pupils suggested that working within a mixed ability lesson allowed them to drift, compared to being in an ability grouped lesson where pupils wanted to maintain a certain level. Research carried out by Muijs and Dunne (2010) was similar to this as it was shown that a positive effect of ability grouping was allowing pupils to work in classes at a pace that was suited to them with other pupils of a similar ability, and this was relevant to all abilities and sets. It was clear from the findings that the suitable pace of lessons that was provided in ability grouped lessons was the main benefit and positive element that was identified in this research.
However, when ability grouping was discussed, regardless of what set pupils were in, concerns were raised in year 10 in relation to being able to keep up with others, which made them doubt their suitability for their set. This was similar to previous research with
168 regard to the negative effects of ability grouping, where negative effects or anxieties were not solely restricted to the lower sets, as research identified that pupils in top sets have indicated the pressure, the high expectations, and the fast pace that they have experienced in top sets (Boaler, 1997a, b, c; Boaler, Wiliam, & Brown, 2000; Smith & Sutherland, 2006).
There were contrasting findings in the results, where pupils in years 10 and 11 identified anxieties about completing work to a good standard in both mixed ability and ability
grouped lessons. This links back to a previous point where issues that were raised by pupils could simply be due to the curriculum subject, as opposed to how the curriculum subject was organised. This could also be attributed to the different teachers for the individual curriculum subjects, as pupils may have had their own preferences for teachers, and this could link to how they felt about a curriculum subject.
As discussed in 1.2, this Case Study school was a high achieving selective school, meaning that pupils would be surrounded by talented and high achieving peers, so there were potentially pressures that these pupils would face and experience with regard to their desires to complete work to a high standard and achieve high examination results. Therefore, if this Case Study school were to be compared to a comprehensive school, the competition and pressure that pupils might face regarding examination results would potentially be different, and this could possibly lead to different levels of anxieties being reported. This once again could link back to the BFLPE, where pupils in the Case Study school may have been comparing themselves to pupils of similar or higher ability, compared to a comprehensive school where the range of abilities would have been much greater.
This research, similar to the findings by Hallam and Deathe (2002) identified that when pupils gained more experience of ability grouping they preferred this method over time
169 compared to mixed ability teaching. Although this finding did vary with different curriculum subjects, the analysis suggested that the individual teacher was able to influence the
attitude that pupils had towards the particular subject, and consequently their feelings towards how the groups have been organised for that curriculum subject. Also, this research identified that pupils in years 10 and 11 felt more confident with Mathematics compared to Science as they had been in these sets for longer periods of time, which had allowed them to get used to the sets and this system.
This confidence could be attributed to the fact that pupils had become used to the system of ability grouping in Mathematics, and this familiarity could have caused pupils to prefer ability grouping in Mathematics as opposed to Science. It could be suggested that if pupils had setting in Science for the same period of time as Mathematics they would have felt the same, as the familiarity mentioned above would have allowed them to get used to this situation. This is something that the school could consider to allow pupils to become more used to the system in preparation for their GCSEs, as opposed to introducing ability
grouping at the start of GCSE course. The pupils felt that if the ability setting started earlier in Science, prior to the start of the GCSE syllabus, then it would allow time for the groups to settle, and for any changes to be made in case pupils have been misplaced in the wrong set.
Despite the familiarity that was found, this research also identified anxieties with ability grouping which were linked to pressures that were felt by pupils in year 10 to keep up with others in the top set, and maintain a high standard. This was similar to previous research by Smith and Sutherland (2006) with regard to pressures that pupils experience in the top set, regardless of the curriculum subject.
170 The conflicting results discussed here in response to the fourth research question suggest that the learning environments can be interpreted differently by different individuals, some would have liked the challenge of being placed in a set and having to work at a fast pace, whilst others would have found this daunting. Conversely, some individuals would have liked a mixed ability lesson where they felt more relaxed with a mix of abilities surrounding them, whilst others would find this frustrating as the lesson and tasks would move on at differing paces.