Scholarlink

<p>Many schools choose to use ability grouping, despite longstanding evidence that it is inequitable and does not improve overall academic outcomes. One reason that the practice of grouping students by ‘ability’ continues is because of pressure to perform on standardised tests. Educators hold beliefs that grouping students for English classes, for example, will improve their literacy scores. This paper presents findings from a study about class ability grouping for English in Australia and how different class grouping practices relate with students’ achievement on Australia’s standardised literacy test. The findings draw on data from our Class Ability Grouping Survey, where participant principals or their delegates characterised the different English class grouping practices being used in their schools from flexible to rigid. Multivariate linear regression modelling was used to explore if any of the types of grouping for English for Year 7–9 were predictive of student scores on standardised literacy tests. The results demonstrate an absence of consistent evidence that class ability grouping in English, regardless of form, reliably predicts student performance on test scores. These findings are significant for challenging mistaken beliefs that class ability grouping improves student literacy scores in Australia, providing new knowledge about varying class grouping practices through the example of Australia.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Does Class Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools Improve Students’ Literacy Scores on Australia’s NAPLAN Tests?

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月4日

查看全文
  • Olivia Johnston,
  • Christa Norris,
  • Peter Palamara

摘要

Many schools choose to use ability grouping, despite longstanding evidence that it is inequitable and does not improve overall academic outcomes. One reason that the practice of grouping students by ‘ability’ continues is because of pressure to perform on standardised tests. Educators hold beliefs that grouping students for English classes, for example, will improve their literacy scores. This paper presents findings from a study about class ability grouping for English in Australia and how different class grouping practices relate with students’ achievement on Australia’s standardised literacy test. The findings draw on data from our Class Ability Grouping Survey, where participant principals or their delegates characterised the different English class grouping practices being used in their schools from flexible to rigid. Multivariate linear regression modelling was used to explore if any of the types of grouping for English for Year 7–9 were predictive of student scores on standardised literacy tests. The results demonstrate an absence of consistent evidence that class ability grouping in English, regardless of form, reliably predicts student performance on test scores. These findings are significant for challenging mistaken beliefs that class ability grouping improves student literacy scores in Australia, providing new knowledge about varying class grouping practices through the example of Australia.