The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Students' Experiences of Ability Grouping—disaffection, polarisation and the construction of failure1
Open accessAbstract
This paper reports findings from the first two years of a four‐year longitudinal study into the ways that students' attitudes towards, and achievement in, mathematics are influenced by ability‐grouping practices in six schools. Through the use of questionnaires administered to the whole cohort of 943 students, interviews with 72 students and approximately 120 hours of classroom observation, the relative achievement in, and the changes in attitudes towards, mathematics are traced as the students move from year 8 to year 9, with students in four of the six schools moving from mixed‐ability grouping to homogenous ability groups or ‘sets’. Ability‐grouping was associated with curriculum polarisation. This was enacted through restriction of opportunity to learn for students in lower sets, and students in top sets being required to learn at a pace which was, for many students, incompatible with understanding. The same teachers employed a more restricted range of teaching approaches with ‘homogeneous’ groups than with mixed‐ability groups which impacted upon the students' experiences in profound and largely negative ways. Almost all of the students interviewed from ‘setted groups’ were unhappy with their placement.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Assessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152 · cited 1×
“The best teachers are allocated to the ablest students, despite the evidence that high-quality teaching is more beneficial for lower-attaining students ( Black & Wiliam, 1998, p42 ).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Cited by
Spratt, J., & Florian, L. (2015) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.006 · Cited by 199
Students’ growth mindset: Relation to teacher beliefs, teaching practices, and school climate
Yu, J., Kreijkes, P., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2022) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101616 · Cited by 144
Francis, B., Connolly, P., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Mazenod, A., Pepper, D., Sloan, S., Taylor, B., Tereshchenko, A., & Travers, M.-C. (2017) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2017.09.001 · Cited by 87
Van Houtte, M., & Van Maele, D. (2012) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1177/016146811211400706 · Cited by 75
Francis, B., Craig, N., Hodgen, J., Taylor, B., Tereshchenko, A., Connolly, P., & Archer, L. (2020) · British Journal of Sociology of Education · doi:10.1080/01425692.2020.1763162 · Cited by 56
Metadata
- Authors
- Boaler, J., Wiliam, D., & Brown, M.
- Venue
- British Educational Research Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 631-648
- ISSN
- 0141-1926 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-3518
- OpenAlex
- W2118732887
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 39.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.