Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Copyright: © 2025 Anito and Gaikwad. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original source is cited.
European Journal of Education and Pedagogy
Vol 6 |Issue 1 |February 2025
ISSN 2736-4534
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Students’ Perception of Ability Grouping in a
Private International School
Henok Daniel Anito 1,*and Prema Gaikwad 2
ABSTRACT
This study investigated the perceptions of middle and high school students
in a private international school in Indonesia toward ability grouping
practiced in the school. A total of 640 students from middle school (grades
7–9) and high school (grades 10–12) responded to the ability grouping
questionnaire constructed by the researchers. The findings indicated that
the respondents had a neutral perception of ability grouping. There was
no significant difference between male and female students’ perceptions.
Similarly, there was no significant difference between low, middle, and
high-ability students’ perceptions of ability grouping. However, there was
a statistically significant difference in students’ perceptions when grouped
according to grade levels. Responses to the open-ended items of the survey
revealed that the majority of the respondents perceived ability grouping as
more disadvantageous, especially for low-ability students. Implications of
the findings and recommendations for further research were stated.
Keywords: Ability grouping, Indonesia, student perceptions.
Submitted: November 15, 2024
Published: February 02, 2025
10.24018/ejedu.2025.6.1.900
1Department of Education, University of
the Philippines, Philippines.
2Department of Education, Adventist Inter-
national Instititue of Advanced Studies,
Philippines.
*Corresponding Author:
e-mail: hanito@up.edu.ph
1. Introduction
Ability grouping is the practice of arranging students for
learning into separate groups or classes based on academic
performance (Gamoran, 2009;Oakes, 2005;Papachristou
et al., 2021). Although educators have employed differ-
ent terminologies to describe the practice with varying
formats, ability grouping falls into two broad categories:
within-class and between-class ability grouping (Bolick &
Rogowsky, 2016). Within-class ability grouping happens as
teachers assign students of similar abilities to work in small
groups. Between-class ability grouping is the placement of
students into different ability classes in which students stay
in their assigned class for most of their subjects and as long
as a semester to several years of schooling (Oakes, 2005;
Webb-Williams, 2021).
Although the intended outcome of ability grouping is
an increase in achievement with instruction tailored to
students’ needs, the practice has proven controversial over
the years. Ability grouping remained a dominant practice
in the early years of the twentieth century in schools in
the UK and the United States. It declined and fell out of
favor during the latter part of the century as researchers
began to question its merits and point out negative effects
(Loveless, 2013). However, surveys show a resurgence of
ability grouping as it is widely practiced in school systems
in the UK, the United States, and other countries (Bolick &
Rogowsky, 2016;Chmielewski, 2014;Francis et al., 2017;
Gamoran, 2009;Loveless, 2013).
Studies on ability grouping focused mainly on its impact
and yielded mixed results. Generally, ability grouping
benefits the high-ability groups, negatively affects the
low-ability groups, and has no significant effect on the
middle-ability groups (Alam & Mohanty, 2023;Belfi et al.,
2012;Ellison & Hallinan, 2004;Higgins et al., 2015;Ireson
& Hallam, 2001). Studies that explore the perceptions
and attitudes of students toward ability grouping are lim-
ited (Hastie et al., 2023). As Tereshchenko et al. (2018)
observed, research on ability grouping is “abundant in
quantitative analyses of outcomes” but “sparse in student
voices” (p. 2). The purpose of the current study is to survey
the perceptions of middle school and high school students
in one private international school in Indonesia about the
practice of between-class ability grouping implemented in
the school. The study was guided by the following research
questions:
1. What is middle and high school students’ overall
perception of ability grouping?
2. Is there a significant difference in the respon-
dents’ perceptions of ability grouping when grouped
according to (a) gender, (b) ability, and (c) grade
level?
Vol 6 | Issue 1 | February 2025 52
Anito and Gaikwad Students’ Perception of Ability Grouping in a Private International School
3. What do middle and high school students perceive
to be the advantages and disadvantages of ability
grouping?
In relation to the second research question, the following
null hypothesis (HO) was formulated: There is no signif-
icant difference in the respondents’ perceptions of ability
grouping when grouped according to (a) gender, (b) ability,
and (c) grade level.
1.1. Mechanics of Ability Grouping
As stated earlier, the two most common variants of
ability grouping are between-class and within-class group-
ing. Between-class ability grouping is intended to create
homogenous classrooms to facilitate individualized learn-
ing as teachers adjust the pace and content of instruction
to individual learners (Gamoran, 2009;Hornby & Witte,
2014). It also eliminates boredom for high achievers
and encourages low achievers to participate (McCarter,
2014). The various types of between-class ability grouping
schemes include the XYZ grouping, regrouping (setting),
cross-grade grouping, and tracking (streaming).
The XYZ grouping is an arrangement in which same-
grade students are segregated into high, middle, and
low-ability classes. Students in all three groups receive
the same content and are taught with standard methods
(Bolick & Rogowsky, 2016). Regrouping (setting) happens
when same-grade students are grouped based on their
achievement in certain subjects (Ireson & Hallam, 2001).
In this scheme, students stay in heterogeneous classes for
most of the school day and are regrouped for some sub-
jects. Cross-grade grouping is an arrangement where a class
may consist of students from different grade levels. The
Joplin plan, the most well-known cross-grade grouping,
was first used in the 1950s, and it had a positive impact on
students’ reading achievement (Bolick & Rogowsky, 2016;
Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016). Tracking (streaming) is the
practice of grouping students into different classes based
on their general ability. Research findings consistently
showed significant differences in the quality of instruc-
tion, competency, and expectations of teachers among the
tracks, with lower tracks falling on the negative side of the
spectrum (Worthy, 2010).
Within-class ability grouping is a feature typical of ele-
mentary schools, especially for reading and mathematics.
It is noted that within-class grouping in elementary educa-
tion meets the requirements for effective ability grouping
plans as it leaves students “in heterogeneous classes most of
the school day,” regroups “only for reading and/or math-
ematics,” flexibly changes student placement, and adapts
the level and pace of instruction accordingly (Slavin, 1988,
p. 73). Studies concluded that, generally, within-class abil-
ity grouping helps students’ academic achievement (Castle
et al., 2005;Puzio & Colby, 2010).
1.2. Impact on Academic Achievement
The evidence on the impact of ability grouping on aca-
demic achievement remains contested (Wan g et al., 2021).
The classic Slavin-Kulik debate is notable (Kulik & Kulik,
1982,1984;Kulik, 1992;Slavin, 1987,1990). These two
prominent analysts of ability grouping conducted meta-
analyses of studies and arrived at different conclusions.
In his research review called “best-evidence synthesis,”
Slavin (1987,1990) asserted that ability grouping does
not have significant positive effects on the achievement of
elementary and secondary school students. Kulik (1992)
emphasized the positive outcomes on academic achieve-
ment with an effect size greater in gifted and talented
education. Both Slavin (1987,1990) and Kulik (1992)
agree that in elementary schools, while within-class abil-
ity grouping is positive and cross-grade ability grouping
increases achievement, XYZ grouping has zero effect on
achievement. While Slavin excluded data from gifted pro-
grams and special education, Kulik paid special attention
to this data and concluded that ability grouping has a
positive impact on achievement. While one believed that
ability grouping is inegalitarian and anti-democratic and,
therefore, schools should do away with it, the other argued
that ability grouping “benefits high achieving students and
harms no one” and so “its abolition would be a mistake”
(Loveless, 1998, p. 21).
Gamoran (1992,2009) noted two important considera-
tions in studying the achievement effect of ability grouping:
productivity and inequality. While productivity refers to
“the overall level of achievement in the school or class,”
inequality refers to “the distribution of achievement across
the different tracks, classes, or groups” (Gamoran, 2009,
p. 4). In their review of the literature, Ellison and Hallinan
(2004) observed two types of research assessing the effect
on achievement. The first group of research studies com-
pares student achievement across homogenous groups,
and the second group compares student achievement in
heterogeneous and homogenous groups. According to the
first group of studies, high-ability students register the
greatest gains in achievement, while low-ability students
register the least gains. According to the second group of
studies, the average achievement is similar in both grouped
and ungrouped classes. However, the achievement gap is
higher in grouped classes. Studies consistently confirmed
the achievement gap in ability grouping with more positive
learning outcomes for the high-ability groups (Hallinan,
2000;Loveless, 2016).
Studies on the impact of within-class ability group-
ing also showed mixed results. Puzio and Colby (2010)
reviewed studies in which within-class ability grouping was
shown to improve reading achievement. A longitudinal
study (Nomi, as cited in Bolick & Rogowsky, 2016) found
that in schools with lower performance, within-class ability
grouping did not influence achievement, while in private
schools, it promised improvement and reduced inequality.
Kaya (2015) examined students’ generation of questions in
science between homogenous and heterogeneous within-
class groups. The results revealed no significant difference
in the amount or type of questions generated by the
students in the two groups. Leonard (2001) conducted
a similar study comparing homogeneous and heteroge-
neous within-class groups in mathematics achievement,
and the conclusion was different from that of Kaya (2015).
Another study (Castle et al., 2005) focused on the reading
performance of students with low ability, low socioeco-
nomic status, and minority groups. The results showed
that the percentage of students reaching mastery level
increased because of within-class ability grouping. The
Vol 6 | Issue 1 | February 2025 53
Students’ Perception of Ability Grouping in a Private International School Anito and Gaikwad
above results contradicted the findings of researchers who
concluded that within-class ability grouping had a negative
effect on students with low ability. In a study of teachers’
use of within-class ability grouping in primary schools,
Webb-Williams (2021) found that children placed in the
low-ability group were vulnerable to the negative effects
of social comparison. They often compared themselves
with others, and this, in turn, had an impact on their self-
perception.
1.3. Impact on School-Related Attitudes
Some researchers concluded that ability grouping results
in negative self-esteem in lower ability groups and positive
self-esteem for students in higher groups. Gamoran (2009)
asserted that ability grouping harms the self-esteem and
motivation of students in the low-ability groups. Ireson
et al. (2001) studied pupils’ self-concept in secondary
schools in England that practiced setting and reported sev-
eral findings. They found that the general self-concept was
higher when the setting was implemented moderately. They
also noted that setting in math and science did not have
a significant effect on self-concept. In the English subject,
the setting reduced the self-concept in higher groups and
increased the self-concept in lower groups. Male students
had a higher self-concept than female students. Generally,
findings suggest that the effect of ability grouping on
school-related attitudes is predominantly negative. Several
studies reported negative outcomes such as anti-school
attitudes, feelings of alienation, polarizing effects, and
stereotyping (Ireson & Hallam, 1999;Shepherd, 2012,
February 9).
As stated earlier, the research on students’ perception of
ability grouping is insufficient. A few studies shed light on
how students viewed ability grouping and reported both
negative attitudes and approval of the practice. Boaler
et al. (2000) conducted a longitudinal study of middle
school students’ attitudes and achievement in math ability
grouped sets in England. Their findings indicated that
students preferred mixed-ability teaching. In a qualitative
study of streaming in Queensland, Australia, Zevenbergen
(2003) summarized the findings in four aspects, including
quality of teaching, opportunities for learning, pacing, and
self-concept. Students developed varied concepts about
themselves and the ability grouping scheme. Maresca
(2004) measured the attitudes of parents, students, and
teachers towards ability grouping at an elementary school
in New Jersey. The findings revealed that students in ele-
mentary grades 4 and 5 favored homogenous grouping
over heterogeneous grouping.
1.4. Local Studies on Ability Grouping
Although there is some indication that ability grouping
is practiced in Indonesian schools, it is difficult to deter-
mine how prevalent the practice is due to the scarcity of
data. A few studies indicate that there is a growing research
interest in the area (Jumanto, 2011;Noviana et al., 2016;
Rahmawati, 2017;Rahmawati & Latief, 2013;Sumadi &
Degeng, 2015;Sumadi et al., 2017;Wibowo, 2015). Most
of these studies focused on the effect of ability grouping on
achievement.
Studies conducted in secondary schools reported that
the quality of teaching and learning improved because of
ability grouping (Jumanto, 2011;Noviana et al., 2016).
Studies on the effect of ability grouping in primary school
teacher education found significant differences in achieve-
ments due to the intervention (Sumadi & Degeng, 2015;
Sumadi et al., 2017). Another study by Rahmawati (2017)
examined ability grouping for grade 12 students and
reported no significant difference in achievement scores.
Rahmawati and Latief (2013) described the implementa-
tion of ability grouping in a vocational high school and
reported that students had a positive attitude towards
homogenous grouping. Wibowo (2015) examined the
perceptions of students, teachers, and parents towards
ability grouping in elementary school. Although the study
reported an overall positive perception of students, it is
not clear if there was a significant difference in perception
among students of different ability levels.
2. Method
2.1. Research Design
The study followed a quantitative research perspec-
tive. Quantitative research employs statistical tools to
obtain results. The research design was a descriptive cross-
sectional survey method. The primary goal of this study
was to survey and describe students’ overall perception of
ability grouping in school. The study also showed whether
perceptions differ across genders, ability groups, and grade
levels. The survey design was appropriate to meet this goal
as it “provides a quantitative or numeric description of
trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population” (Creswell,
2014, p. 201). Moreover, the researchers chose the survey
design because it was more economical and allowed rapid
data collection.
2.2. Research Context
This study was conducted in a K-12 private international
school in Manado, Indonesia. As of the current study,
the school had a total student population of 1,330, with
560 students in elementary school, 336 students in middle
school, and 434 students in high school. Since its estab-
lishment, the school has been implementing between-class
ability grouping for all students from grades 1 to 12. The
administrators implemented this to make it convenient for
teachers to adapt their lessons to students who came from
public schools with lower English proficiencies. Gradually,
grade point average (GPA) was added as a determining
factor in classifying students into different ability groups.
The ability grouping practiced in this school follows the
XYZ grouping scheme discussed earlier, as students in
all three ability levels experience an identical curriculum.
At the beginning of each semester, same-grade students
are placed into different ability groups, such as A (low
ability), B (middle ability), and C (high ability), mainly
based on their academic achievement. Students within
the same ability group may be further subdivided into
separate classrooms based on a range of GPAs specified
by the administrators. English language proficiency is an
important factor in the placement of new students from the
Vol 6 | Issue 1 | February 2025 54
Anito and Gaikwad Students’ Perception of Ability Grouping in a Private International School
surrounding public schools coming to this international
school. Newcomers are required to take placement tests in
English, Mathematics, and general aptitude.
2.3. Participants
The participants of this study comprised middle school
(grades 7–9) and high school (grades 10–12) students. As of
this study, the total student population of middle and high
school was 770 students (679 in the natural science stream
and 91 in the social science stream). The social science
students were excluded from this study as they did not
experience ability grouping. The target participants of the
current study were the 679 middle and high school students
in the natural science stream. As the researchers intended
to survey the entire population, no sampling procedure
was followed. Out of the target population, 640 students
were granted parents’ permission, personally consented
to the study, and responded to the survey questionnaire.
The distribution of respondents in the three demographic
variables of gender, ability group, and grade level is shown
in Table I .
2.4. Research Instrument
The instrument for data collection was a questionnaire
developed by the researchers. The items draw upon the
literature on perceptions of students and teachers towards
ability grouping and its perceived advantages and dis-
advantages (Boaler et al., 2000;Hornby & Witte, 2014;
Kim, 2012;Zevenbergen, 2003). The instrument contained
three sections: (a) four questions regarding participants’
profiles, (b) 10 itemsto measure participants’ perception of
ability grouping to be answered through a 5-point Likert
scale, and (c) two open-ended questions for participants to
express their views on the perceived advantages and disad-
vantages of ability grouping. The 10 items were designed in
such a way that there was a good balance between positive
and negative indicators. Content validity of the instrument
was established through consultation with a panel of four
experts in the content area and construction of research
instruments. Internal validity was established by pilot test-
ing the instrument with a sample of 35 randomly selected
middle and high school students in the social science
stream. Reliability analysis yielded a Cronbach’s Alpha of
TABLE I: Distribution of Respondents in Demographic Variables
Demographic variables f%
Gender
Male 256 40
Female 384 60
Ability group
A 153 23.9
B 150 23.4
C 337 52.7
Grade level
7 113 17.7
8 101 15.8
9 121 18.9
10 100 15.6
11 122 19.1
12 83 13.0
0.81, further establishing the validity and reliability of the
instrument.
2.5. Data Collection Procedure
Data was collected through a survey questionnaire
described above. Informed consent forms were sent out
to parents through students prior to the distribution of
the survey questionnaire. The survey questionnaire, along
with students’ consent form, was distributed to students
electronically through Google Forms. Out of the 679 pos-
sible respondents, 640 of them consented, filled out the
questionnaire, and at the same time returned the signed
parents’ consent. The researchers sought assistance from
three subject teachers (1 for middle school and 2 for
high school). Each teacher was delegated to distribute
and supervise the survey link in their respective class. The
teachers also emphasized to the students the independent
nature of the study. They explained to them that their par-
ticipation in the study was voluntary and not part of their
school requirements. The data collection lasted for a week
to increase the possibility of more students participating in
the study.
2.6. Data Analysis
Data analysis was performed using the Statistical Pack-
age for Social Sciences (SPSS) application. The analysis
involved descriptive statistics, independent samples t-
test, and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The descriptive
statistics resulted in the frequency distribution of the
respondents in terms of gender, ability group, and grade
level. It also showed the characteristics of data in terms
of the assumptions of normality. Descriptive statistics also
answered the first research question regarding the over-
all perception of students. The t-test was performed to
show whether there was a difference in perceptions across
genders, and the ANOVA determined whether there were
differences in perceptions across three ability groups and
six grade levels. The third research question was answered
through responses to the two open-ended questions. How-
ever, the responses produced large amounts of qualitative
data, and the analysis involved mainly a quantitative
approach. Similar perceived advantages and disadvantages
were grouped into summary statements by using keywords
in the students’ responses.
2.7. Ethical Considerations
In this study, important ethical issues were considered.
First, the researchers requested the principals of middle
and high schools, through a printed letter, grant permis-
sion to use the facilities of the school to distribute the
survey forms and collect data from students. Second, the
researchers obtained verbal consent for their support and
assistance in administering the survey in their respective
homeroom classes. Finally, since data collection involved
students below 18 years old, an informed consent form
was provided to them and their parents. Both consent
forms included the assurance of voluntary participation,
confidentiality, and avoidance of harm. The study was also
granted institutional Ethical Review Board approval.
Vol 6 | Issue 1 | February 2025 55
Students’ Perception of Ability Grouping in a Private International School Anito and Gaikwad
TABLE II: Mean Perception Score Per Item
Survey items MSD
1. I prefer to be in a class with students who are similar to me in academic ability. 3.20 1.163
2. Sectioning students by academic ability or GPA is helpful for their learning. 3.10 1.149
3. It is important for me to be in the highest section. 2.96 1.199
4. Sectioning students by GPA helps them improve their academic performance. 3.13 1.150
5. I prefer to be in a class with students who are different from me in academic ability. 2.92 1.136
6. It is better to mix students who have high and low GPAs. 2.73 1.078
7. Sectioning students by GPA makes some students feel superior to others. 2.49 1.254
8. Sectioning students by GPA is unfair to some students. 2.80 1.224
9. Students should not be placed into different sections based on GPA. 2.82 1.196
10. I like the sectioning system in my school. 3.09 1.168
3. Results and Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate students’
perception of ability grouping. Although ample research
has been conducted on the impact of ability grouping on
achievement and welfare, limited studies deal with percep-
tion towards the practice. The following section presents
the findings of the study on the overall perception, statis-
tical significance of differences, perceived advantages, and
disadvantages of ability grouping.
3.1. Overall Perception of Ability Grouping
Participants responded to a 10-item survey designed to
measure their perception of ability grouping through a 5-
point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree)to5(strongly
agree). The scale is interpreted with scores of 1 and 2
representing negative perception, a score of 3 representing
neutral perception, and scores of 4 and 5 representing
positive perception. Descriptive statistics revealed that the
overall perception is neutral M=2.93 (SD =0.698). The
mean perception score per item is shown in Table II.Item
No. 7, “Sectioning students by GPA makes some students
feel superior to others,” generated the lowest perception
score. As the item was reverse coded, the lower the per-
ception score, the higher the degree of agreement with the
statement. Thus, respondents were inclined to agree that
ability grouping negatively affects students’ self-concept.
This concurs with the finding that ability grouping creates
negative self-concepts in both high and low-ability students
(Hornby & Witte, 2014;Zevenbergen, 2003).
3.2. Perception Across Gender
As can be seen in Table III, male students (N=256)
were associated with a perception score of (M=2.97,
TABLE III: Perception Across Gender
Gender NM SD
Male 256 2.97 0.677
Female 384 2.89 0.710
Total 640 2.93 0.698
TABLE IV: Perception Across Ability Groups
Ability group NM SD
A 153 2.98 0.592
B 150 2.95 0.669
C 337 2.89 0.751
TABLE V: Perception Across Grade Levels
Grade level NM SD
Grade 7 113 3.15 0.616
Grade 8 101 2.89 0.644
Grade 9 121 2.99 0.745
Grade 10 100 2.91 0.740
Grade 11 122 2.71 0.682
Grade 12 83 2.90 0.679
SD =0.68). By comparison, female students (N=384)
were associated with a slightly smaller perception score
of (M=2.89, SD =0.71). To test the null hypothesis
that there is no significant difference in perception among
male and female students, an independent samples t-test
was performed. The results revealed that there was no
significant difference in perception t(638) =1.415, p=
0.158. Thus, we failed to reject the null hypothesis. Male
and female students have the same neutral perception of
ability grouping practiced in the school.
3.3. Perception Across Ability Groups
Table I V shows the descriptive statistics of perception
across ability groups. The C category (higher ability group)
was associated with a lower mean perception score (M=
2.89, SD =0.75). Numerically, respondents in the higher-
ability group have a more negative perception towards
ability grouping compared to the middle and low-ability
groups. A one-way ANOVA test was performed to test
the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference
in respondents’ perceptions when grouped by ability level.
The test revealed that there was no significant difference,
F(2, 637) =1.231, p=0.293. Thus, we failed to reject the
null hypothesis.
3.4. Perception Across Grade Levels
Table V shows the descriptive statistics of perception
across grade levels. The mean perception scores per grade
are close to each other with respondents from grade 7
(N=113) having the highest (M=3.15, SD =0.616)
and respondents from grade 11 (N=122) having the
lowest (M=2.71, SD =0.682). To test the hypothesis that
there is no significant difference in respondents’ perception
when grouped by grade level, a one-way ANOVA test
was performed. The test yielded a statistically significant
difference, F(5, 634) =5.101, p<0.001. We reject the
null hypothesis. There is a significant difference in the
Vol 6 | Issue 1 | February 2025 56
Anito and Gaikwad Students’ Perception of Ability Grouping in a Private International School
TABLE VI: Perceived Advantages of Ability Grouping
Perceived advantages Keywords f%
1. Teaching and learning will be more efficient and
effective as students learn based their ability level with
equal learning pace.
Pace, efficiency, ability level, easy, relevant, fair
balanced learning, better learning, teacher, individual
attention, extra help
194 30.3
2. It motivates students to study better to improve their
performance, get a higher GPA, and move to a higher
ability group.
Motivation, grades, GPA, achievement, improvement,
performance
103 16.1
3. Students within a class can make friends easily,
interact better, and build stronger social relationships.
Relationship, friendship, social bonding,
communication, interaction, cooperation, teamwork
81 12.7
4. It creates a comfortable and enjoyable learning
environment where students within a class feel safe,
equal, respected, and united.
Environment, comfort, unity, fun, equal, same, respect 58 9.1
5. Students especially in the higher section can focus and
concentrate more on their studies.
Focus, concentration, distraction, noise 35 5.5
6. It encourages positive academic competition especially
among high performing students.
Competition 32 5.0
7. It challenges the advanced and gifted learners
academically producing top-tier students.
Smart, gifted, advanced, top-tier, challenge 23 3.6
8. High achieving students will have a positive influence
and inspire others.
Influence, inspiration 17 2.7
9. It helps students develop better self-confidence. Self-confidence, confidence 15 2.3
10. Helps students identify their strengths and weaknesses. Level, limits, ability, strengths, and weaknesses 9 1.4
No responses 73 11.4
Total 640
perception of respondents when grouped by grade level.
To identify the significant difference between groups, post
hoc comparisons through the Tukey test was performed.
The test indicated that the mean score of grade 11 (M
=2.71, SD =0.682) was significantly different from the
mean score of grade 9 (M =2.99, SD =0.745) and the
mean score of grade 7 (M =3.15, SD =0.616). Although
the difference is statistically significant, the mean scores
of grades 7, 9, and 11 are not meaningfully different as
they are all below the neutral mark of 3. Moreover, the
mean score of grade 11 students did not have a statistically
significant difference from the mean scores of grades 8, 10,
and 12.
3.5. Perceived Advantages of Ability Grouping
In Table V I, we listed the perceived advantages into 10
summary statements. Most of the respondents (f=194,
30.31%) perceived the advantage of ability grouping in
terms of the pace of teaching and learning. They stated that
teaching and learning will be more efficient and effective
as students learn based on their ability level and learning
pace. Earlier research pointed out the adjustment of the
pace of learning as a significant element in homogenous
ability grouping (Gamoran, 2009;Hallinan, 2012;Hornby
& Witte, 2014). In one study, the reason that teachers
cited as to why they preferred homogenous grouping was
because they can adjust the pace of instruction (Petrello,
2000). Moreover, students also expressed that the adjust-
ment of pace in ability grouping helped them in their
learning (Zevenbergen, 2003).
The respondents in the second highest category (f=
103, 16.09%) perceived that ability grouping improves
achievement. They expressed that they are motivated to
study harder to earn a better GPA. This finding is in line
with studies that reported a positive effect of homoge-
nous ability grouping on achievement motivation (Kiss,
2017;Maurer, 2020). Responses 3 and 4 (combined f
=139, 21.72%) addressed social relationships and the
learning environment. Respondents perceived that abil-
ity grouping helps students within a class build better
social relationships, feel comfortable, and have a sense of
equality. Responses 5, 6, 7, and 8 (combined f=107,
16.72%) are perceived advantages especially attributed to
students that belong in the high-ability group. Respondents
perceived that ability grouping helps highly achieving stu-
dents to concentrate in class better because of the absence
of distractive students. This is consistent with the con-
clusion that ability grouping disproportionately benefits
high-ability students (Hallinan, 2012;Hornby & Witte,
2014;Loveless, 2016;Scherrer, 2019). Responses 9 and 10
(combined f=24, 3.75%) addressed student self-concept.
Respondents perceived that ability grouping develops bet-
ter self-confidence and helps them identify their strengths
and weaknesses. Siu and Wu (2012) found no harmful
effects of ability grouping in their comparative study of
Hong Kong and Australian samples. A longitudinal study
by Vogl and Preckel (2014) reported positive effects on
student self-concept.
3.6. Perceived Disadvantages of Ability Grouping
Table V II lists the perceived disadvantages into 10 sum-
marystatements.Mostofthestatements(Nos.1,2,3,5,7,
8, & 10; combined f=511, 79.84%) were related to disad-
vantages for low-ability groups. One summary statement
(No. 4; f=76, 11.88%) was related to disadvantages for
high-ability groups. Two summary statements (Nos. 6 & 9;
f=53, 8.28%) were related to disadvantages for all groups.
An overwhelming majority (f=511, 79.84%) perceived
that ability grouping is more disadvantageous for students
in the lower ability groups.
The majority (f=186, 29.06%) pointed out that ability
grouping makes high-ability students feel superior and
Vol 6 | Issue 1 | February 2025 57
Students’ Perception of Ability Grouping in a Private International School Anito and Gaikwad
TABLE VII: Perceived Disadvantages of Ability Grouping
Perceived disadvantages Keywords f%
1. High-ability students feel superior and look down on
others. This, in turn, leads to low self-esteem and a
feeling of inferiority in low-ability students.
Superiority, inferiority, insecurity, bragging,
arrogance, underestimation, intimidated, pride,
self-esteem, confidence
186 29.06
2. The lower section is characterized by classroom
disciplinary issues. Moreover, as there is a lack of role
models, students become a negative influence on each
other.
Disciplinary issues, noise, distractions, concentration,
focus, disturbances, talkativeness, role model
126 19.69
3. Low-ability students are discouraged and demotivated
to study. This impedes their growth and hence they get
stuck in one level of learning.
Demotivation, effort, improvement, discouragement,
desire, responsibility, growth, laziness
85 13.28
4. Too high expectations from teachers and parents make
high-ability students overly grade oriented,
competitive, and less sociable.
Pressure, high expectations, less socializing 76 11.88
5. Students experience favoritism, unfair treatments,
discrimination, and stereotyping from teachers and
students.
Favoritism, unfairness, bias, limited opportunities,
discrimination, stereotyping, labeling, comparing,
teasing, bullying, inequality
66 10.31
6. It separates friends, encourages cliques, or gangs, and
creates relationship and communication gaps among
students.
Gaps, separation, exclusion, isolation, divisions,
cliques, gangs, jealousy, communication, relationship,
lonely
43 6.72
7. When students get a lower GPA, they will get
depressed. Sometimes they compromise their integrity
just to get to a higher grade.
Negative feelings, depressed, broken-hearted,
uncomfortable feeling, compromise, cheating
29 4.53
8. It creates additional work for teachers leading to
wrong perceptions of students and inferior quality
instruction in the lower classes.
More work, difficult, wrong perception, inferior
instruction
11 1.72
9. It leads to homogeneity of thought processes, lack of
diversity, variety, uniqueness, and creativity.
Homogeneity, diversity, variety, uniqueness, creativity,
over-familiarity
10 1.56
10. The performance of high-ability students gets better
while the performance of low-ability students gets
worse.
The smart students get smarter, the weaker students
get weaker,
81.25
create feelings of inferiority and insecurity in low-ability
students. This observation is in line with the findings of
the study by McGillicuddy and Devine (2020) where ability
grouping is shown to evoke feelings of shame, upsent,
and inferiority among students in the low-ability groups.
Another group of respondents (f=126, 19.69%) pointed
out the prevalence of disciplinary issues in low-ability
classrooms. Low-ability students tend to lose focus and
concentration on the study, make noise and engage in
sideline talks with classmates. Similar observations were
made by Hornby and Witte (2014) in their study of ability
grouping in New Zealand high schools. Other respon-
dents perceived that ability grouping impedes the academic
growth of low-ability groups. Others pointed out that low-
ability students suffer from the stigma of being ranked low.
Some respondents also perceived that low-ability students
get depressed and are tempted to cheat just to obtain
a higher grade. Congruent with the findings of Chisaka
and Vakalisa (2003), respondents noted that the quality of
instruction in the lower ability groups is inferior. A few
respondents pointed out disadvantages mainly for high-
ability groups. They perceived high-ability students to be
under a lot of pressure due to high expectations.
4. Conclusion and Recommendations
The findings of this study showed that the students in the
target school had an overall neutral perception of ability
grouping. Their neutral perception toward the practice
was an indication of their compliance with the status quo.
On the other hand, although students identified several
advantages of ability grouping mainly for high-ability stu-
dents, an overwhelming majority of them perceived that
ability grouping has many disadvantages, especially for
low-ability students. Based on the findings, the researchers
proposed some recommendations. Since it was found that
ability grouping has more disadvantages to low-ability
students, it is recommended that administrators design
after-school enhancement programs and extracurricular
activities especially targeting students in the low-ability
groups. In the long run, this can improve their academic
performance and boost their self-confidence. Since it was
found that it is necessary to cater to the unique needs
of students, especially in the low-ability group, it is rec-
ommended that the teachers and administrators enhance
their practice through relevant training in differentiated
instruction and inclusive education. Since it was found that
the student population had a neutral perception of ability
grouping, it is recommended that more comprehensive
evaluation be conducted to establish a basis to continue,
modify, or discontinue the practice. One limitation of this
study was that the responses to the open-ended questions
produced large qualitative data. However, the data was
analyzed mainly in a quantitative approach. It will be ben-
eficial to carry out further qualitative studies that explore
the views of students, teachers, administrators, and parents
toward the practice of ability grouping.
Vol 6 | Issue 1 | February 2025 58
Anito and Gaikwad Students’ Perception of Ability Grouping in a Private International School
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have any conflict
of interest.
References
Alam, A., & Mohanty, A. (2023). Cultural beliefs and equity in educa-
tional institutions: Exploring the social and philosophical notions
of ability groupings in teaching and learning of mathematics. Inter-
national Journal of Adolescence & Youth,28(1), 1–24. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02673843.2023.2270662.
Belfi, B., Goos, M., Fraine, B. D., & Damme, J. V. (2012). The effect
of class composition by gender and ability on secondary school
students’ school well-being and academic self-concept: A litera-
ture review. Educational Research Review,7(1), 62–74. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.09.002.
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.
https://doi.org/10.1080/713651583.
Bolick, K. N., & Rogowsky, B. A. (2016). Ability grouping is on the rise,
but should it be? Journal of Education and Human Development,
5(2), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v5n2a6.
Castle, S., Deniz, C. B., & Tortora, M. (2005). Flexible grouping and stu-
dent learning in a high-needs school. Education and Urban Society,
37(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124504270787.
Chisaka, B. C., & Vakalisa, N. C. G. (2003). Some effects of ability
grouping in Harare secondary schools: A case study. South African
Journal of Education,23(3), 176– 180.
Chmielewski, A. K. (2014). An international comparison of achieve-
ment inequality in within and between-school tracking systems.
American Journal of Education,120(3), 293–324. https://doi.
org/10.1086/675529.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and
Mixed Methods Approaches.4thed.SAGE.
Ellison, B. J., & Hallinan, M. T. (2004). Ability grouping in catholic and
public schools. A Journal of Inquiry and Practice,8(1), 107–129.
https://doi.org/10.15365/joce.0801092013.
Francis, B., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Pepper, D., Taylor, B., & Travers, M.
C. (2017). Exploring the relative lack of impact of research on ability
grouping in England: A discourse analytic account. Cambridge
Journal of Education,47(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764
X.2015.1093095.
Gamoran, A. (1992). Is ability grouping equitable? Educational Leader-
ship,50(2), 11–17.
Gamoran, A. (2009). Tracking and inequality: New directions for
research and practice. In M. W. Apple, S. J. Ball, & L. A. Gandin
(Eds.), The routledge international handbook of the sociology of
education (pp. 213–228). Routledge.
Hallinan, M. T. (2000). Ability group effects in high school learning
outcomes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameri-
can Sociological Association, Washington, DC, August 15, 2000.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED467684.pdf.
Hallinan, MT. (2012). Effects of tracking and ability grouping on learn-
ing. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp.
1098–1100). Springer.
Hastie, P. A., Brock, S. J., Buchanan, A. B., & Moore, M. E. (2023). Stake-
holders’ perceptions of within-class ability grouping in a primary
school physical education unit. Physical Education & Sport Peda-
gogy,36(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2023.2219276.
Higgins, S., Katsipataki, M., Coleman, R., Henderson, P., Major, L.,
Coe, R., & Mason, D. (2015). The Sutton Trust-Education Endow-
ment Foundation Teaching and Learning Toolkit. London, England:
Education Endowment Foundation.
Hornby, G., & Witte, C. (2014). Ability grouping in New Zealand high
schools: Are practices evidence-based? Preventing School Failure,
58(2), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2013.782531.
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (1999). Raising the standards: Is ability grouping
the answer? Oxford Review of Education,25(3), 343–358. https://doi.
org/10.1080/030549899104026.
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (2001). Ability Grouping in Education.Paul
Chapman Publishing.
Ireson, J., Hallam, S., & Plewis, I. (2001). Ability grouping in
secondary schools: Effects on pupils’ self-concepts. British
Journal of Educational Psychology,71(2), 315–326. https://doi.
org/10.1348/000709901158541.
Jumanto. (2011). The implementation of ability grouping in attempt to
improve students’ learning results in grade 11 Wood Construction
Engineering subject in SMK Negeri 2, Surakata [Undergradu-
ate thesis]. https://digilib.uns.ac.id/dokumen/download/24607/NTI
zOTc=.
Kaya, S. (2015). The effect of the type of achievement grouping
on students’ question generation in science. Australian
Educational Researcher,42(4), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13384-014- 0164-x.
Kim, Y. (2012). Implementing ability grouping in EFL contexts: Percep-
tions of teachers and students. Language Teaching Research,16(3),
289–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812436894.
Kiss, D. (2017). A model about the impact of ability grouping on student
achievement. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De
Gruyter,17(3), 1–10.
Kulik, J. A. (1992). An Analysis of the Research on Ability Grouping:
Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Storrs: University of
Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and
Tal en ted . https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED350777.pdf.
Kulik, C. L., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on
secondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings.
American Educational Research Journal ,19(3), 415–428. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00028312019003415.
Kulik, C. L., & Kulik, J. A. (1984). Effects of Ability Grouping on
Elementary School Pupils: A Meta-Analysis. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Associa-
tion, Ontario, Canada. 1984 August 24–28. https://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED255329.pdf.
Leonard, J. (2001). How group composition influenced
the achievement of sixth-grade mathematics students.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning,3, 175–200. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10986065.2001.9679972.
Loveless, T. (1998). The Tracking and Ability Grouping Debate. Thomas
B. Fordham Foundation.
Loveless, T. (2013). The resurgence of ability grouping and
persistence of tracking.https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2016/06/2013-brown-center-report-web-3.pdf .
Loveless, T. (2016). Tracking and advanced placement.https://www.
brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Brown-Center-Report-
2016.pdf.
Maresca, J. (2004). Measuring parent, student, and teacher attitudes
towards ability grouping at the elementary school level [Doctoral
dissertation]. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3130230).
Maurer, K. (2020). The effects of homogeneous ability grouping on
low-level students’ self-esteem, confidence, and motivation in reading
[Master’s thesis]. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/
1793/80336/Maurer_Kristina%20%28Wortz%29_Thesis.pdf?seque
nce=1&isAllowed=y.
McCarter, A. K. (2014). Ability grouping in elementary education [Doc-
toral dissertation]. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/2459.
McGillicuddy, D., & Devine, D. (2020). You feel ashamed that you
are not in the higher group’—Children’s psychosocial response to
ability grouping in primary school. British Educational Research
Journal,46(3), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3595.
Noviana, A., Sumarni, S., & Waluyo, W. (2016). The implementation
of ability grouping to improve students’ achievement in Mechanical
Technical subject at the tenth grade Civil Engineering in SMK Negeri
5 Surakarta [Undergraduate thesis]. https://jurnal.uns.ac.id/ijcee/
article/view/14772.
Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality.2nd
ed. Yale University Press.
Papachristou, E., Floouri, E., Joshi, H., Midouhas, E., & Lewis,
G. (2021). Ability-grouping and problem behavior trajectories in
childhood and adolescence: Results from a UK population-based
sample. Child Development,93(2), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/
cdev.13674.
Petrello, N. (2000). Can ability grouping help educators meet higher edu-
cational standards? https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED442743.pdf.
Puzio, K., & Colby, G. (2010). The effects of within class grouping on
reading achievement: A meta-analytic synthesis.http://files.eric.ed.
Rahmawati, A. K. (2017). Implementation of the ability grouping and peer
tutoring method in trial of national examination towards achievement
of students at Unggulan Pondok Modern Selamat Kendal high school
[Undergraduate thesis]. https://lib.unnes.ac.id/29648/1/1102413111.
pdf.
Rahmawati, Z. N., & Latief, M. A. (2013). The implementation of ability
grouping in English classroom in SMK Negeri 1 Singosari [Under-
graduate thesis]. https://lib.unnes.ac.id/29648/.
Scherrer, V. (2019). Students’ achievement motivation during the school
career: Development, correlates, and effects of ability grouping
[Doctoral dissertation]. https://ubt.opus.hbz-nrw.de/opus45-ubtr/
frontdoor/deliver/.
Vol 6 | Issue 1 | February 2025 59
Students’ Perception of Ability Grouping in a Private International School Anito and Gaikwad
Shepherd, J. (2012, February 9). Dividing younger pupils by ability can
entrench disadvantaged, study finds. The Guardian.https://www.
theguardian.com/education/2012/feb/09/dividing-pupils-ability-ent
rench-disadvantage.
Siu, A. C. K., & Wu, J. (2012). Effect of ability grouping on self-esteem
and academic self-concept: A comparison between Hong Kong and
Australian adolescents. In Handbook on psychology of self-esteem
(pp. 393–402). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Slavin, R. B. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement
in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review
of Educational Research,57(3), 293–336. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543057003293.
Slavin, R. E. (1988). Synthesis of research on grouping in elementary and
secondary schools. Educational Leadership,46(1), 67–76.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary
schools. Review of Educational Research,57(3), 293–336. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543057003293.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What
one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability
grouping and acceleration on K-12 students’ academic achieve-
ment. Review of Educational Research,86(4), 849–899. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654316675417.
Sumadi, S., & Degeng, I. N. S. (2015). Effect of ability grouping in col-
laborative learning and locus of control on individual achievements.
International Journal of Science and Research,6(4), 593–596. https://
doi.org/10.21275/ART20172242.
Sumadi S., Degeng I. N. S., Sulthon S., & Waras W. (2017). Effect of
ability grouping in reciprocal teaching technique of collaborative
learning on individual achievements and social skills. International
Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education,6(3), 216–220.
https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v6i3.
Tereshchenko, A., Francis, B., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Mazenod, A.,
Taylor, B., Pepper, D., & Travers, M. C. (2018). Learners’ attitudes
to mixed attainment grouping: Examining the views of students of
high, middle, and low attainment. Research Papers in Education,
34(4), 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1452962.
Vogl, K., & Preckel, F. (2014). Full-time ability grouping of gifted
students: Impacts on social self-concept and school-related
attitudes. Gifted Child Quarterly,58(1), 51–68. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0016986213513795.
Wang, H., King, R. B., & McInerney, D. M. (2021). Ability grouping
and student performance: A longitudinal investigation of teacher
support as a mediator and moderator. Research Papers in Education,
38(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1961293.
Webb-Williams, J. L. (2021). Teachers’ use of within-class ability groups
in the primary classroom: A mixed methods study of social compar-
ison. Frontiers in Psychology,12, 728104. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2021.728104.
Wibowo, D. H. (2015). Implementation of ability grouping in elementary
school. Jurnal Psikologi Undip,14(2), 148–159. https://ejournal.
undip.ac.id/index.php/psikologi/article/view/10609/8443.
Worthy, J. (2010). Only the names have been changed: Ability grouping
revisited. Urban Review,42(4), 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11256-009- 0134-1.
Zevenbergen, R. (2003). Ability grouping: A self-fulfilling prophecy?
Australian Mathematics Teacher,59(4), 2–7.
Vol 6 | Issue 1 | February 2025 60
