Appraisal

published:June 2009

Dunne, M., Humphreys, S. & Sebba, J. (2007) Effective teaching and learning for pupils in low attaining groups. DCSF Research Report 011

DCSF website

Robustness
The researchers surveyed 404 schools in 12 local authorities and carried out in-depth case studies of 13 schools drawn from four LAs to find out:

• how schools identified and organised low attaining groups
• ways schools and teachers maximised the benefits and mitigated the disadvantages of attainment grouping, and
• effective teaching approaches with pupils regarded as low attaining, but not in sets.

The questionnaire asked about school setting and grouping procedures, requesting data on pupil set placement (low, middle, high) in Years 6,7,8 and 10 in English and mathematics. The researchers merged Unique Pupil Numbers with the National Pupil Database and Pupil Level Annual School Census data and analysed the predictors of set placement. Variables included: previous attainment, social class, ethnicity and gender. This approach enabled the researchers to find out the backgrounds of the pupils who had been put in low attaining sets and their levels of attainment.
The researchers selected the case study schools on the basis that they were making good progress with low attaining pupils and represented a wide range of pupils with respect to social class and minority ethnic intakes. However, they were more socio-economically disadvantaged than the national average and Bangladeshi pupils were over-represented. Data collection was focused on Years 5, 8 and 10 in English, mathematics and science and included: documentary evidence, individual and group interviews with staff, classroom observations of low attainment groups, shadowing of selected low attaining pupils and focus group interviews with the shadowed pupils. Some parents were also approached.

The study found schools varied in the extent to which grouping practices were a matter of whole school policy or decided by departments. Mathematics was the subject area most commonly taught in attainment sets; English set the least and science had most variation. Prior attainment and perceived ‘ability’ were the main criteria on which setting decisions were based. But setting decisions were clearly not made on this basis alone. Pupils from lower socio-economic status, special educational needs’ pupils, boys and pupils of Bangladeshi origin were more likely to be assigned to lower sets.

The advantages of attainment grouping for low attainers were maximised and the disadvantages minimised in three main ways:

• individualised teaching and learning
• customising curriculum materials, and
• creating a positive learning environment.

In general, schools working effectively with pupils in low attaining groups personalised the curriculum, teaching and learning, and assessment for all pupils. The researchers highlighted how even in those schools with the most widespread setting practices, pupils in low attainment groups also enjoyed opportunities to learn in other kinds of groups, for example mixed attainment groups or in-class grouping arrangements.

Relevance
The longstanding government commitment to raising standards of achievement for all pupils in schools was re-affirmed in the Every Child Matters: Change for Children in
Schools report which focussed on the need to raise the educational achievement of the lowest attaining pupils in particular. The report highlighted the need for greater differentiation in teaching and learning and precipitated government support for attainment grouping in schools. However, whilst research has indicated a range of advantages of setting for pupils and for teachers, it has also suggested some negative effects of attainment grouping especially for low attainment groups (see for example the Research of the Month summary grouping pupils and students. (Click to RoM 18)

Applicability
Teachers of low attaining pupil groups, both whole-class set groups and smaller groups within mixed-ability classes, will find it helpful to reflect on the teaching and learning ideas contained in this study, such as:

• providing more scaffolding for learning activities
• customising resources to meet the learning needs of low attaining students
• keeping the curriculum varied and challenging for all
• creating and sustaining positive teacher-pupil and pupil-pupil relationships
• ensuring TA support is well planned
• providing a relaxed disciplinary regime in class, with an emphasis on participation and teamwork, and
• creating high levels of pupil motivation, participation and engagement.

When deciding on how best to allocate pupils to groups or sets, or manage TAs and other resources, school leaders will find it helpful to reflect on aspects raised by the study, such as:

• having effective school monitoring systems in place for tracking pupil progress
• keeping group sizes small and/or allowing for more personal learning support and attention through the deployment of TAs and learning mentors
• finding out how particular grouping arrangements affect pupils, by measuring results and listening to pupils’ and teachers’ viewpoints, and
• retaining flexibility, eg. by putting pupils in low attainment groups for parts of the curriculum, but not for all lessons, reviewing groups regularly and transferring pupils when appropriate, and
• finding innovative ways for low attaining pupils to access the curriculum which do not necessarily sacrifice breadth and which have the potential to raise rather than lower expectations.

Writing
The report is well structured and sign posted. The findings are brought to life with a large number of illustrative quotes from teachers and pupils. The interview schedules used, details of the statistical analysis and school case study descriptions are provided as appendices.