Within-class grouping (also known as within-class achievement grouping) means organising students within their usual class for specific activities or topics, such as literacy or mathematics. Students with similar levels of current achievement are grouped together, for example, on at specific tables, but all students are taught by their usual teacher and support staff, and they usually all follow the same curriculum but at different levels of difficulty.
The aim of this type of grouping is to match tasks, activities and support to studentsâ current capabilities, so that all students have an appropriate level of challenge.
Within-class grouping can involve the use of other approaches such as collaborative learning or targeted strategies (see Reading comprehension strategies).
Although within-class grouping is sometimes described as âability groupingâ, we refer here to âachievementâ rather than âabilityâ, as schools generally use measures of current performance, rather than measures of ability, to group students.
1. Within class achievement grouping has a positive impact, on average, of 2 months additional progress. The evidence strength, however, is very limited and there is variation behind this average.
2. It is important to carefully consider which content is appropriate for within class achievement grouping. While the impact in maths was positive, studies that measured literacy outcomes found no difference, on average.
3. Consider the impact of within class achievement grouping on students with low prior achievement and carefully monitor engagement and attitudes to learning.
4. One advantage of within class grouping might be flexibility in grouping arrangements. Students progress at different rates so regular monitoring and assessment is important to minimise misallocation and ensure challenge for all students.
The average impact of the within-class grouping is about an additional two months progress over the course of a year.
Within-class achievement grouping may also have an impact on wider outcomes such as confidence. Some studies from the broader evidence base conclude that grouping students on the basis of achievement may have longer term negative effects on the attitudes and engagement of low achieving students, for example, by discouraging the belief that their achievement can be improved through effort.
Research evidence from Aotearoa New Zealand focuses primarily on exploring the extent to which fixed grouping occurs within our classrooms, with a view to moving towards to more flexible grouping practices. Local studies have found that within-class achievement grouping is most common in primary school classrooms, and in literacy and numeracy contexts.
The 2022 report KĹkirihia defines streaming (see setting and streaming) as all practices that sort students into ability-based groups for sustained periods of time based on teacher perceptions of ability and assessment data - including within-class ability grouping. The report outlines a plan to move schools away from these practices, with support from a range of education-sector peak bodies.
Â
The benefits of this approach are more apparent for primary age students (+3 months) than secondary (no overall impact), though the overall number of studies in secondary schools is small.
Impact appears greater in mathematics (+4 months) than for other subjects.
By adapting teaching to studentsâ needs and prior knowledge, teachers may be able to support, stretch, and challenge studentsâ learning more effectively.
Effective implementation of within class grouping approaches might include:
The evidence indicates higher impacts, on average, for mathematics. It is particularly important that teachers consider appropriate content for within class achievement grouping.
Within-class grouping interventions may be used as often as teachers require in their daily practice. Within-class groupings might be used as a temporary process for specific tasks, or a more regular routine in which seating plans are orientated around prior achievement outcomes. This latter approach should be implemented with caution, as without flexibility to move between groups some students may suffer from a lack of confidence leading to lower engagement, and subsequently achievement.
Overall, the median costs of implementing within-class grouping are estimated as very low. The costs associated with within-class grouping arise from the production of any additional resources (e.g., scaffolds or prompt sheets) that are provided to groups with differing levels of prior achievement.
This cost estimates assume that schools are already paying for teacher time, assessment methods, and potentially IT software to monitor student needs and achievement. These are all pre-requisite costs of implementing within-class grouping, without which the cost is likely to be higher.
The security of the evidence around within class achievement grouping is rated as very low. Only 23 studies were identified that meet the inclusion criteria of the Toolkit. The topic lost an additional padlock because a small percentage of studies have taken place recently. This might mean that the research is not representative of current practice.
As with any evidence review, the Toolkit summarises the average impact of approaches when researched in academic studies. It is important to consider your context and apply your professional judgement when implementing an approach in your setting.