1. University of Cambridge
MEd Researching Practice
A study of ability setting in UK Secondary Modern
Foreign Languages
Craig Tranter
Supervisor: Liz Duignan

2. P a g e | 2
ABSTRACT
This research paper draws on a mixed-methodology approach, combining both qualitative and
quantitative data collected from a post-positivist action research project in a secondary language
department. The study focuses on the way in which data informs ability setting for a Year 7 cohort
and the effects this can have on secondary school pupils’ behaviour, attitude and attainment in
language classes. In an effort to improve teaching and learning, through adapting the ability setting
policy within this secondary comprehensive school, the researcher conducts a pilot research
programme analysing the way in which new data is used to inform ability setting in languages and
observes the results through a series of observations, questionnaires, interviews, and statistical
analysis. These findings illustrate how baseline data can be used by teaching professionals to assist
ability setting and improve teaching and learning within languages in secondary schools.
UNIVERSITY STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
I hereby declare that the sources of which I have availed myself have been stated in the body of the
thesis and in the bibliography and that the rest of the work is my own. This thesis does not exceed
20,000 words in length.
Word Count: 19,966
Signed:
____________________
Craig Tranter

3. P a g e | 3
Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 7
HISTORY OF ABILITY SETTING .........................................................................................9
IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES IN RESEARCHING ABILITY SETTING .........................................12
THE RESEARCH.............................................................................................................15
THE RESEARCH - QUANTITATIVE ...................................................................................16
THE RESEARCH - QUALITATIVE......................................................................................19
RATIONALE FOR THE INVESTIGATION................................................................................................... 22
RESEARCH QUESTIONS.................................................................................................23
AIMS OF THE STUDY.....................................................................................................24
PURPOSE STATEMENT..................................................................................................26
METHODOLOGY & RESEARCH DESIGN.................................................................................................. 27
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT SETTING........................................................................27
METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................28
RQ1: What is the best way to set pupils by ability in MFL? ............................................30
RQ2: How does informed ability setting affect: behaviour, attitudes, and attainment? ..32
BEHAVIOUR ................................................................................................................................... 32
ATTITUDES..................................................................................................................................... 33
ATTAINMENT................................................................................................................................. 34
RQ3: How is ability setting perceived by staff and students? .........................................35
OVERVIEW OF THE TEACHING SEQUENCE .....................................................................36
FINDINGS & DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................... 38
LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH........................................................................................................... 46
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 50
APPENDICES........................................................................................................................................... 54

4. P a g e | 4
Appendix 1: Acronyms used throughout this study in alphabetical order.......................54
Appendix 2: What kinds of ability grouping are there and why do schools and teachers
choose them? ..............................................................................................................55
Appendix 3: Notes on staff opinions in various departments in three schools concerning
mixed-ability teaching and ability setting......................................................................57
Appendix 4: How fixed-ability thinking can limit learning ..............................................59
Appendix 5: Notes on some Language Aptitude Tests....................................................60
Appendix 6: The York Language Aptitude Test (YLAT)....................................................62
Appendix 7: Observation Sheet (before YLAT)...............................................................68
Appendix 8: Observation Sheet (after YLAT)..................................................................69
Appendix 9: Questionnaire before Set changes .............................................................70
Appendix 10: Questionnaire after Set changes..............................................................71
Appendix 11: Student semi-structured interview questions...........................................72
Appendix 12: Teacher semi-structured interview questions...........................................73
Appendix 13: Summary of National Curriculum Levels...................................................74
Appendix 14: Interview Transcripts - Pupils...................................................................75
Appendix 15: Interview Transcripts - Teachers ..............................................................82

5. P a g e | 5
INTRODUCTION
“I think we should set languages by how much people like them.
Why don’t we do that sir?”
I stood perplexed as one of my Year 7 pupils asked me this question. I told the pupil that I supposed it
had to do with practicalities, mumbled something about timetabling issues, and turned back to the
whiteboard. Until that point I had not even considered that setting subjects by degrees of pupil
interest would be a feasible prospect as I felt certain that there would be insurmountable, inherent
problems involved. Nevertheless, I found this quite an intriguing concept and this is what initially
encouraged me to investigate the notion of ability setting within my own department and what it
meant within my current school. I began to research the reasons behind ability setting but, not only
that, I was also intrigued by how we - that is to say, teaching professionals - come to decide on sets;
what data we use; and what possible effects there could be as a result of ability setting.
When you consider the wide and varied conundrum that is ability setting within the United Kingdom
(UK)1
, it is not surprising that I found this a difficult question to answer. In truth, it could be argued
that no one really knows the best way to group pupils2
, or indeed that there is no right or wrong way
to group pupils to gain optimum results, as there are many different methods that have been, and
still are, employed throughout the UK education system3
.
Certainly when I was a pupil I experienced a number of different ways in which classes were set. I
attended a secondary comprehensive school in the South East of London that was considered a
failing school by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). I was placed into top sets for
everything, except mathematics, for which I was set 2 of 3. In my final year of the General Certificate
of Secondary Education (GCSE) examinations, the system changed to having 5 sets. I remained in set
2 of 5 for maths. I honestly could not say whether being in these ‘top’ sets gave me an academic
advantage or not, but from a personal standpoint, being in a lower set for mathematics definitely
had an effect on how I perceived my ability in maths and my lack of confidence in the field of
mathematics remains with me to this day. However, in spite of my lack of confidence in this
particular subject I completed my GCSEs with good results, including a B in mathematics. Having
completed my GCSEs I remained at sixth form to study languages where I witnessed the school
change their setting policy again by introducing streaming and banding. There were to be 8 classes of
varying abilities, but these were also banded into colours. Which colour band you were in dictated
which set you could be in for different subjects.
1
For a full list of acronyms used throughout this study in alphabetical order see Appendix 1.
2
Throughout this study the term ‘pupil(s)’ will be used to describe secondary school children aged 11-16,
unless specifically stated otherwise.
3
There are a number of different educational systems within the UK which will be explored in greater detail
later in this paper. It should be noted that the education system in the UK may vary between counties or
indeed countries such as England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. This study will focus on the educational system
used in the majority of the South East of England.

6. P a g e | 6
All in all, I witnessed three different types of ability setting throughout my own school years. Imagine
the multitude of ways schools all over the UK could choose to group their pupils. Having been
completely baffled by this ludicrously complicated way of setting throughout my schooling and
during my training to become a teacher, I decided to look further into ability setting within secondary
education. In fact, even upon becoming a teacher the data used to inform ability setting and the
reasons behind the setting process were never fully explained. Initially I found myself filled with
questions about ability setting: Why do we set by ability? How do we decide on ability groupings?
What effect does ability setting have on attainment? How does behaviour vary in different ability
groups? Do pupils like the idea of setting by ability? Do teachers? One could go on and on, but of
course the scope of this study must remain direct and so I decided to focus my research on how we
set by ability within secondary education and the effects this can have on behaviour, attitude and
attainment within my particular school setting.
This study will endeavour to cover a variety of topics, including some of the questions mentioned
above, but will only be able to delve into certain aspects in depth. The report is divided into a
number of sections in order to guide you through ability setting within the UK, while at the same
time maintaining a sense of order amongst the potential chaos that is ability setting. We will explore
the history of ability setting within the UK; discuss the reasons for and against ability setting; look at
how we, as teaching professionals, decide upon ability groupings; look at the purpose of this study;
give a detailed description of the pilot research project in terms of methodology, research design and
data collection; explain and discuss the research findings; and give proposals for future development
within my school and the wider community.

7. P a g e | 7
LITERATURE REVIEW
Inevitably, with an issue as large and perplexing as ability setting, there are a vast number of research
papers in various forms (case-studies, action research, investigative studies from a qualitative and/or
a qualitative perspective etc.) Throughout this Literature Review we will explore only a handful of the
research that is available as there is so much information that it would be overwhelming if discussed
in its entirety. Firstly, in order to investigate ability setting fully, one must truly understand what we
mean by the term. I would define the notion of ability as pertaining to the proficiency, competency,
or natural capability in any task or subject area. However, amongst academics the definition or scope
of ability is still not fully understood nor agreed upon. This is because ability is a multifaceted
phenomenon, which has many elements and contributing factors. The one thing that most
researchers and academics do seem to agree on is the fact that ability and effort are inextricably
linked. For example, in his study Nicholls makes the argument that:
“… a definition of the concept of ability implies a definition of the concept of effort…
…as the concepts of effort and ability are logically interdependent” (1978).
His paper also goes on to state that there is a limit to one’s ability, but that this limit can be extended
beyond its usual limits with the necessary amount of motivation and effort. This idea of limited
ability has been debated for years by academics as we will see throughout this Literature Review.
Irrespective of how one chooses to define ability, the way in which we measure that perceived ability
may also vary from subject to subject. Certainly, the way in which ability in Modern Foreign
Languages (MFL) may be determined will be different in other subjects, such as music or art, where
assessment criteria may be more subjective. For example, the way in which we assess the final
outcome of a pupil’s work will be extremely different if that piece of work is a painting or a piece of
music, compared to a written essay in a foreign language. In addition, the idea of ability may be sub-
categorised into varying skill sets. For example, the assessment criteria which we use to judge ability
in MFL may be split into the following language skills: listening and responding, speaking, reading and
responding, and writing (Department for Education, 2011). Further skill sets may be present in other
subject areas, which makes a global comparison of ability across subjects difficult to say the least.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why so many research papers seem to produce confusing or
contradictory results when looking at ability setting within varying subject areas. Another problem
occurs when ability is often confused with the notion of achievement. For example, is a pupil’s
achievement in one piece of work a reflection of their natural ability or is it the result of increased
effort and extrinsic factors such as more specific teacher input? In England attempts have been made
to give teachers guidelines in order to assess achievement and attainment as a result of one’s effort
and ability. A useful way for teachers to establish adequate boundaries in each subject area has been
established within the restraints of the National Curriculum in the form of levels established for each
subject’s specific assessment criteria4
.
Although there are debates as to whether there is an upper limit to one’s ability, it is generally
agreed that a person’s ability may be subject to change. Lezak sums this up when discussing the
notion of premorbid ability. She states:
4
The National Curriculum Level Descriptors for each skill in Modern Foreign Languages are available at:
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/secondary/b00199616/mfl/attainment

8. P a g e | 8
“No single variable in this complex stands alone; when considered conceptually; each is a
product of its interaction with all the many inherent characteristics and environmental
experiences and exposures that go into human development” (p315, 2002).
In other words, there are a variety of factors which contribute to an individual’s ability in a certain
subject, and although natural ability can be predicted, their ability is not a constant and can be
affected by numerous stimuli. However, schools in the UK have tended to use the idea of fixed-
natural ability in order to place pupils into groups with other similarly able individuals. This suggests
that the purpose of ability setting is a hierarchical structure, which involves a top-down approach to
teaching. In reality, the act of ability setting can come in a variety of ways, though most often some
kind of cognitive or knowledge-based ability test in a subject area is used which allows you to rank
and categorise individuals and therefore place them into groups of varying degrees of ability in any
given subject5
.
The main purpose of ability setting should, arguably, be in order to ascertain optimum attainment
and achievement from each individual. However, there are of course other motives behind setting.
Pupils may be set according to ability, behavioural needs, Special Educational Needs (SEN), pupils
with needs due to having English as an Additional Language (EAL), or any number of other factors. In
addition to the variety of reasons behind setting, as we have seen from the example of my school in
the introduction, even within the same educational setting there may be a number of different ways
that setting occurs. There could even be a number of setting policies in effect at the same time.
Therefore, before we continue it is important to identify the different types of grouping methods
used in UK schools. The two main methods employed in schools include mixed-ability grouping and
ability setting. Though methods of placing pupils into mixed-ability groups vary, generally, mixed-
ability grouping means that no effort is made to group pupils in terms of ability, or indeed, that effort
is made to ensure that a wide range of abilities is included. On the other hand, setting is the practice
in which pupils are set according to their perceived ability and potential to achieve in a given subject.
Setting in itself has various systems such as streaming or banding; within-class or between-class
setting; gender setting; or vertical (mixed-age) grouping. Ireson and Hallam provide a concise
summary of these differing systems in the study: “Ability Grouping in Education” (See Appendix 2).
Evidently, although the main aim for schools is likely to consist of achieving full inclusion whilst
obtaining optimum academic results, each of these structures mentioned above contain within
themselves organisational problems such as timetabling clashes and/ or inability to place pupils into
the most appropriate classes. There are a multitude of variables from grouping motives to
practicalities, as well as a number of other factors to consider, such as how varying systems will
affect pupils’ and teachers’ approaches to teaching and learning. In addition there are supplementary
issues that may arise such as the effect that grouping by ability has psychologically on pupils, as well
as academically. We will discuss these issues later, but first it is important that we understand the
development of ability setting within the educational system in England.
5
It should also be noted that although some studies (see Alton and Massey, 1998; Sharp, 1995) suggest that
pupils born later in the year tend to achieve less, schools in England tend to set pupils within year groups with
no regard to chronological age.

9. P a g e | 9
HISTORY OF ABILITY SETTING
The dilemma of how to place pupils of secondary school age into groups has undoubtedly plagued
Britain’s educational system throughout its development with the focus on ability setting shifting
dramatically. This may be because the educational system in England has evolved by such a great
extent within the last century.
The introduction of the tripartite system under the 1944 Education Act, also known as the ‘Butler
Act’, had a profound effect on secondary schooling in England. In effect, it meant that there were
three different types of secondary school: grammar schools, secondary technical schools, and
secondary modern schools. It also allowed for the creation of comprehensive schools which would
combine what each school system offered. Initially only a few comprehensive schools were created,
but over time the comprehensive school became the more popular option. The 1944 Education Act
also established a distinction between primary and secondary schooling age and opened up
education to women and the working class. In order to asses who should attend which type of school
children would take an exam known as the 11+6
. The 11+ was intended to measure pupils’ ability and
aptitude in their final year of primary education in England and therefore allocate a school which was
best suited to their needs. In reality, the number of pupils obtaining places in grammar schools
remained largely unchanged, meaning that the majority attended secondary modern schools.
During the 1960’s and 70’s grammar school pupils in England were traditionally taught using the
‘streaming’ method. In this way pupils were usually placed into streams at entrance level, often as a
result of aptitude tests or entrance exams, and taught in classes according to their ability across a
range of subjects. Other schools adopted this style of teaching from as early as the 40’s and 50’s, but
later evolved to use different methods, such as setting within faculties or specific subjects, after
streaming failed to account for varying abilities in different subject areas. By the early 90’s ability
setting had nearly vanished after a string of studies suggested that ability setting had no overall
effect on attainment (Shepherd, J. 2012). Mixed-ability teaching then became widely adopted in the
UK, but over time the focus returned to combating underachievement and ability setting took a more
prominent role. Pupils were then grouped according to their ability in different subjects, allowing the
possibility of being in ‘top’ set for science, but ‘bottom’ set for, say, mathematics.
Indeed, many systems of education remain in place in secondary comprehensives all over the UK.
Although the state comprehensive school has become the main form of secondary schooling in
England, many schools have become specialists in a particular subject in order to secure extra
funding and, of course, grammar schools still remain a part of the education system in England. There
has also been a major change in recent years with the introduction of Academies. Initially Academy
schools in England would receive additional financial support from personal or corporate sponsors
rather than being funded directly from the government. However there has been a major shift in the
last few years with more and more schools applying for Academy Status7
.
6
The 11+ examination was used throughout England for a number of years, but is now only used in a small
number of counties and boroughs.
7
An Academy school can be defined as a Non-Profit Organisation (NPO) which is directly funded by central
government, but which is independent of direct control from local government. They may or may not receive
additional funding from personal or corporate sponsors, but all Academies will have a curriculum specialism
within the English Specialist Schools Programme (SSP). They are expected to meet National Curriculum core
subject requirements and are subject to inspection by Ofsted.

10. P a g e | 10
In each of these school systems varying grouping procedures apply. In fact, even in schools that
promote mixed-ability teaching, there may still be examples of setting or banding in certain subject
areas. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for schools to employ different forms of grouping under the
same system simultaneously (Slavin, 1987). It may depend on catchment area, school policy or even
individual departments. However, from my observations the majority of primary schools seem to
employ ‘within-class’ ability grouping as a common practice, whereas secondary schools tend to opt
for ‘between-class’ ability grouping. In addition, it would appear that overall secondary
comprehensives seem to use a blend of both mixed-ability classes and setting (whether via means of
between-class setting, banding, or streaming) across all subject areas as appropriate to school policy.
Indeed, it is often the case that certain subject areas are considered more appropriate for setting
than others and this may have an effect on how schools choose to place pupils. It may even be the
case that policy differs between year groups as pupils’ progress through their schooling. For example,
pupils in Key Stage 3 (KS3) may remain in mixed-ability groups until they decide upon their option
choices (usually in Year 9) or at the end of the Autumn Term, after which they become setted for the
remainder of Key Stage 4 (KS4), either in specific subjects or all subjects. It is not uncommon for KS3
pupils to be set multiple times throughout the year after key milestone assessments each half term.
From this brief history we can conclude that there is a lack of cohesion between schools on a national
level, and even between departments within schools.
With so many different methods of grouping in place it is hard to say what exactly England’s current
stance is with regards to ability setting, as pressures from opposing groups (from the Government,
the Governing Body in schools, Senior Leadership within schools, outside sponsors, parental
influences etc.) seem to dictate the importance of ability setting in today’s society. Although setting
is a major focus in the UK, there seems to be a significant lack of a unifying system. The emphasis
from educational authorities seems to be returning towards that of mixed-ability teaching in order to
establish a more equal provision of education with the idea of social inclusion playing a major role.
The National Curriculum (NC) states that its purpose is to:
“…establish an entitlement… irrespective of social background, culture, race, gender,
differences in ability and disabilities…” (2009).
Despite this emphasis from educational institutions, the decision to include ability setting in schools
may be a political choice depending on the catchment area or the current government’s agenda.
Without doubt, ability setting is something that certain political parties seem to support whole
heartedly. For example, in an article published in the Guardian David Cameron states that he wants
to “…extend ability setting to every school” (2006). Social standpoints may also dictate setting policy
within schools. For example, it is often suggested that middle class families support the system of
ability setting as it, supposedly, promotes higher achievement in schools. Research conducted by
William and Bartholomew also suggests that in some schools there is a tendency for there to be a
higher frequency of working-class pupils placed in lower sets (William, D. and Bartholomew, H.
2004). Though whether this is because of social implications or pure academic ability remains
unseen.

11. P a g e | 11
As we can see, there are a number of contributing factors involved with ability setting. There are also
a number of pressures behind the decisions to employ ability setting. All these factors seem to beg
more questions. For example, what is the purpose of setting? Are the underlying reasons based
solely on ability and if so what data is used to set by ability. What other aspects are affected by the
particular setting policy which is employed? There are certainly strong points for and against ability
setting on many levels. Perhaps this is why educational establishments continue to employ so many
different systems, as no one system has proven to be a recipe for success. Therefore, before we look
more closely at what the research tells us it is important to identify the issues inherent in researching
ability setting.

12. P a g e | 12
IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES IN RESEARCHING ABILITY SETTING
It would be prudent to identify the main issues with ability setting. Firstly, the focus of the research
comes into question. What exactly is it that the researcher is looking at? Is it ‘social impact’ or
‘academic impact’? It is important to state that when I use the term ‘academic’ I refer to the concept
of academic attainment as perceived by standardised examination results, whereas the social impact
could be any number of variables (eg behavioural variances, psychological status, and attitude to
learning). In reality, it is more than simply these two issues, as the situation incorporates many
aspects. For example, how do group dynamics, teachers’ and pupils’ attitudes and behaviours differ
in a mixed, compared to a setted learning environment? The problem invites a comparison between
mixed-ability grouping and setting; however the importance of each aspect (i.e. social and academic)
seems a good distinction to make. The academic aspect is more focussed on progress and
attainment, as judged against NC Levels and standardised examination results, whereas the various
social aspects may be categorised as pertaining to gender, ethnic background, social status, attitudes
towards education (self-esteem), and behaviour. After all, it is not simply about results, and as we
know results can often be misleading or misrepresentative.
Consider the following example:
A young native Spanish speaker was entered for his GCSE Spanish examination three years in
advance than is usually expected. As a fluent, native Spanish speaker one would anticipate an
A* grade at GCSE. The pupil received a B grade overall as he had failed to show the ‘adequate
flair’ in the writing and speaking elements of his exam in order to access the examination
board’s highest grade boundaries.
The above example shows that, although this pupil was clearly proficient in the language, he failed to
achieve the highest marks solely due to a lack of proper exam technique. This would suggest that
ability setting is, in one sense, a way of teaching to the exam rather than teaching to a perceived
level of ability. Could exam technique contribute to a lack of perceived ability in more subjects than
just MFL? Does this also mean that the way in which we set by ability is fundamentally flawed as a
lack of exam technique or indeed a lack of effort under examination conditions produces poor
results, which are then misinterpreted as a lack of ability?
A point to mention before we consider the academic and social impacts in schools is the idea of
ability itself. There are conflicts between educational professionals as to whether the notion of ability
is a fixed constant or whether it is malleable and indeed changeable over time. Within the Learning
Without Limits8
(LWL) agenda there is strong opposition to the idea that ability is a fixed entity. There
is a useful summary of a number of research articles published supporting this viewpoint available on
the LWL webpage. Irrespective of each side of this argument, what most educational experts seem to
agree on is that ability setting at an early age can have extremely detrimental psychological effects
(See Millennium Cohort Study 2012).
8
The Learning Without Limits project is based on decades of research with mixed-ability grouping and is
dedicated to developing approaches to teaching and learning that do not rely on determinist beliefs about ability.

13. P a g e | 13
Yet recent findings produced in the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS)9
found that 1/6 pupils are being
placed into ability streams by age 7. The study, which looked at over 4,000 UK primary schools, also
found that a further 1/10 of those were sub-divided into ability groupings for specific subjects10. This
is quite shocking considering that Professor Susan Hallam, the research project's leader, affirms that:
"Given the current emphasis on social mobility it is surprising that so many children are
streamed at such a young age." (2011).
In addition to this, another recent project, conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD), argues that setting by ability is a destructive path. Pont, an educational
analyst and one of the authors of the OECD's study, states that streaming by ability at such an early
age "…fuelled a vicious cycle…" in which teachers had low expectations of students in lower sets and
pupils in turn had a lower opinion of themselves (2012). She argued that this was as a result of being
"…locked into a lower educational environment before they had a chance to develop ".
Although ability setting at such an early age is generally considered damaging from a social
standpoint, one has to wonder how it affects the attainment, as the study goes on to mention that
the pupils in the UK generally pick more academic subjects and that UK schools are actually a great
deal better than many of their international rivals at ‘narrowing the gap’. Though there is a huge
divide in opinions as to the efficacy of setting by ability for all learners (that is to say pupils of all
perceived ability levels) within educational establishments (see William & Bartholomew, 2004;
Linchevski & Kutscher, 1998; Hoffer, 1992; Sorenson & Hanllinan, 1986; Kerchkoff, 1986.)
Nevertheless ability setting remains a fairly common practice in secondary schools throughout the
UK.
It is essential to bear all these concepts in mind when considering the research data. Naturally the
concept of varying social factors poses a problem when conducting research into the field of ability
grouping because, unlike academic achievement which lends itself to statistics, facts and figures, it
becomes more difficult to analyse social aspects. For example, figures can be collected for the
percentage of pupils from various backgrounds (whether social or ethnic) that are placed in each set,
but other social implications of such a system can only be conducted in a narrative way, making it
difficult to compile empirical data to support personal observations or opinions. Whatever empirical
data is collected is always subject to a speculative approach as to why the results occur and is
therefore always reported with a certain amount of bias from the researcher. For instance, if
achievement is low, a natural assumption is that this is due to either a lack of ability, or due to a lack
of effort. One researcher may lean more towards a particular aspect, whereas another researcher
may see the results in a different light according to their world views.
This also begs the question of what exactly contributes to academic success. Is it ability, engagement,
or both?
9
The Millennium Cohort Study (MCS), funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and
conducted by the Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS) as part of the Institute of Education (IOE) at the
University of London, is a multi-disciplinary research project following the lives of around 19,000 children born
in the UK in 2000-2001 and aims to follow their development throughout their early childhood into adulthood.
10
Data from the fieldwork for the age 7 survey of the Millennium Cohort are available from the UK Data
Archive at www.esds.ac.uk.

14. P a g e | 14
It is difficult to say whether these factors have a significant effect on the success of ability setting,
and the range of factors which may affect academic achievement in ability groups means that
empirical data concerning academic results may be biased. Furthermore, any influence that may be
perceived on academic achievement as a result of social circumstance may be simply conjecture
rather than fact. In addition, as there are varying issues that require different means of data analysis,
it is difficult to compare results concerning social standpoints and academic achievement as the
implications of each system are multi-layered. Instead one might ask what the primary motive is
behind grouping pupils. Is it one of academic attainment, social inclusion, or both? Try to bear this
vast array of factors in mind as we examine some of the research that is available on the subject of
ability setting.

15. P a g e | 15
THE RESEARCH
In recent years the debate has escalated over whether to follow a system of mixed-ability teaching or
setting within schools, and yet, partly due to a lack of conclusive research, it remains unclear which
method of teaching is most effective. Furthermore, the effect of ability grouping in different subject
areas is not as clear cut as one might think, with research into ability setting seeming to focus on
certain subjects more than others. For example, there is an abundance of research on ability setting
within Maths, English and Science, as we will see in this review, but very little research that focuses
on ability setting within languages. Perhaps this has something to do with the way in which varying
subjects are assessed, in terms of the academic criteria and the method of assessment (e.g. modular,
linear, multiple-choice, oral, aural, written, etc.).
In America a great deal of research has been carried out concerning the effectiveness of both
systems of teaching, that of ability sets or mixed-ability setting. Indeed, I will be focussing a great
deal on work conducted in the United States (US) by Boaler et al. Although the research is often
conducted within American schools under a very different educational system, it may be that the
research can have some impact on our system in England. In the US particular debate surrounds the
notion of tracking11 and, as such, various literature reviews have been conducted (eg Kulik & Kulik,
1982, 1987, 1992; Slavin, 1987, 1990).
Considering the amount of research conducted in the US, there has not been a great deal of research
carried out in the UK. As Ireson and Hallam (1999) report, there have not been enough British studies
which have examined the effect of streaming or setting on academic performance, and any studies
that have been carried out have provided conflicting results, therefore making it: “impossible to draw
firm conclusions” (1999, p345). Although this statement is from 1999 there is still a significant lack of
accredited academic research on the topic of ability setting within England and the UK educational
system, particularly with reference to MFL. In addition, although research from the US has provided
a wealth of empirical evidence concerning setting by ability, they have ultimately failed to prove
significant changes for all learners.
In the UK research has tended to be more qualitative and tends to focus on the social impact of
ability setting, rather than the academic. Boaler et al. confirm this when they state “…previous
research in the UK has concentrated, almost exclusively, upon the inequities of the setting or
streaming system” (cited in Murphy, P. and McCormick, M. (2008) Knowledge and Practice:
Representation and Identities, p105). It should be noted that again many of the studies that they are
referring to relate to either streamed groupings or ability sets within mathematics, rather than
having a specific focus towards MFL. Add this to the fact that education in Britain has changed
dramatically during the last century and it becomes nearly impossible to draw any accurate
conclusions with regards to ability setting within languages.
In order to analyse the available research in a structured way the following sections of this review
have been divided into different types of research which were conducted according to differing
viewpoints. That is to say that the research had an emphasis towards either qualitative or
quantitative research methods.
11
Term used to describe a similar system to streaming in the American educational system.

16. P a g e | 16
THE RESEARCH - QUANTITATIVE
In certain studies data would suggest that ability setting has an impact on achievement with pupils in
higher sets achieving moderately higher grades, whereas in other studies the statistics did not show
any significant difference. According to literature reviews by Kulik and Kulik (1982, 1987, 1992) and
Slavin’s research (1987, 1990) which combined the use of meta-analysis with traditional narrative
reviews (i.e. observations) (cited in Raising Standards: Is grouping the answer? Ireson, J. and Hallam,
S. 2001, in the Oxford Educational Review, 2004) the findings showed no discernible improvement in
terms of academic success overall and those that did showed more positive improvement in
heterogeneous groups. It is important to note that these studies were only included if they met
specific criteria and all achievement data was presented as standardised figures, not grades. The
study groups involved were required to have been in those set classes for a period of two years, thus
giving a suitable amount of time to allow for adjustment. It should also be noted that the criteria
included in Kulik and Kulik’s earlier research has been criticised. The major concern was that studies
of relatively short duration were included, whereas only 9 studies were 37 weeks or longer (Ireson, J.
and Hallam, S. 1999).
Although the above studies did not show any ‘significant’ differences, a study by William and
Bartholomew (2004), which built on earlier studies (eg Hoffer, 1992; Kerchkoff, 1986; Linchevski &
Kutscher, 1998), seemed to suggest that higher-ability pupils achieve better in set classes, but only
at the expense of lower-ability pupils. It should be noted that this was a study of mathematics in
English schools. The results published in “It's not which school but which set you're in that matters:
the influence of ability grouping practices on student progress in mathematics” (William, D. &
Bartholomew, H.; cited in the British Educational Research Journal, 2006) showed that the variation
in results of different mixed-ability groups seemed to be less than that of sets. In other words, high-
ability pupils did not achieve as well as expected and low-ability pupils achieved better than expected
in mixed-ability groups. This means that the difference between the highest grade and the lowest
was relatively smaller in mixed-ability groups. Although aiming for this middle ground provides
equality, it also distorts the true aspirations of some pupils. Some may argue that perhaps the higher-
ability pupils would have done better had they been placed into sets.
Though the study identifies the grade difference between mixed-ability and set groups, the main
focus was on the grades achieved in sets across schools. The study looks into various sets in schools
of different backgrounds. It should be noted that each school employed different means of setting.
Below are the GCSE value-added results of each set as detailed in the study carried out by William
and Bartholomew (2006):

17. P a g e | 17
Table 1 William and Bartholomew’s Relative value-added results(2006, p288)
The table shows that low-ability pupils did worse than expected and those of high-ability did better,
when considering KS3 data. William and Bartholomew explain:
“Overall, students in top sets achieve over half a grade (i.e. 0.58 grades) higher at GCSE than
would be expected from their Key Stage 3 scores, while those in the bottom sets score just
over half a grade (0.51 grades) lower than would be expected…”12
They also go on to detail that although the trend for higher sets to do better is consistent across five
of the six schools, the scale of the effect varies greatly.
In general, the data provides very mixed information. In terms of achievement, some data would
suggest that there is no significant preference, whereas other data shows higher achievement
amongst setted classes or, indeed, amongst mixed-ability classes. Furthermore, it is not necessarily
clear from statistical analysis why there is such variation in achievement in different types of setting
arrangements. They may be the result of a number of reasons such as, teachers’ approaches to
classes, pupils’ low self-esteem, behavioural issues or simply disinterest.
In terms of equality, social-inclusion and pupil interest/ interaction, mixed-ability classes would seem
to proffer the most rewarding results. In support of this theory Boaler vehemently argues that ability
setting does not work. She criticises Britain’s prevalent use of ability setting and begs the question:
Why is mixed-ability teaching so unpopular in England? (2005). In the research carried out by Boaler
et al. (2006) it became apparent that the mixed-ability school in her American case-study achieved
better results than the schools which employed a set curriculum. However, she did note that this
may have been the result of teachers changing their teaching styles when teaching different ability
groups rather than simply because of the grouping system.
12
It should be noted that the sets shown in Table 1 as simply “Top, Upper, Lower and Bottom” have been
generalised from varying grouping systems across different schools that incorporate varying schools systems
including three or more sets. Therefore the figures may not be completely representative of each individual
group.

18. P a g e | 18
Although these observations provide a solid starting point, perhaps we need to consider the extent
to which we can take the findings from a US study and apply them to the education system in
England. It is also important to note that, yet again, these studies do not have a focus on MFL classes.
A new problem also arises as it remains unclear whether or not the grouping was the true cause of
an increase/ decrease in achievement in higher/ lower ability sets as teachers’ practices varied in
each system depending on various factors such as classroom dynamics and teaching methods. This is
demonstrated particularly well in Boaler’s work (2008) in which she details how an inner city school
promoted a multi-layered, mixed-ability teaching style in order to promote achievement in all areas
of mathematics. In this way all pupils were allowed to achieve in some way and overall progress was
made. This begs the question, what sort of achievement are we looking for in schools? Is it simply
attainment of the highest grades, or the amount of progress that is made by individual pupils?
When looking at any data concerning achievement it is important to bear in mind that data from
studies is inconclusive as there are a multitude of factors to take into account which contribute to
success rates in classes, including though not limited to, classroom dynamics, teachers’ approaches
to teaching, pupils’ attitudes to learning, pupil engagement, social structures within the class,
behavioural issues, and underlying motives for groupings. Some of these variables can be empirically
proven, whilst others can be influenced by factors which cannot be accurately accounted for in a
statistical analysis. Furthermore, the results of grouping by ability are unpredictable and likely to vary
dramatically between department and, indeed, between schools.

19. P a g e | 19
THE RESEARCH - QUALITATIVE
In place of (or more appropriately in addition to) statistics, it seems that opinion and conjecture
based on observations and interviews/ questionnaires is perhaps the most appropriate way of
conducting any research in this field. One such case study, mentioned above, was carried out by
Boaler. She describes her work in an article entitled “Mixed-ability teaching: a case study” (2008). In
the article she describes how her team carried out extensive research into ability setting based
around classes in mathematics, and talks about her studies in both the UK and the US. She details
how, over the course of her four year study, her team collected data including over: “… 600 hours of
classroom observations, assessments given to the students each year, questionnaires and
interviews” (2008). The study was carried out in three US high-schools. She describes how the mixed-
ability class in one school achieved better results than the setted classes in the other schools.
Though, she does emphasise that this school employed specific strategies to ensure the progress of
the mixed-ability class. Yet again we must also consider that this is data from the US and has a
number of contributing factors to the perceived success of certain groups.
In an earlier article she also explains the importance of different methods within the classroom:
“Put simply, there are many more ways to be successful, so that many more students are
successful. This mixed-ability, multi-dimensional approach means that success was an option
for all students. It gives them access to university and to higher-level jobs, and it allows many
to plan mathematical careers.” (Boaler, 2005).
Although the numerous studies seem to suggest varying results between setted and mixed-ability
classes, one thing that the data does show is that there are trends as to which subjects use ability
setting. An excellent example of this is shown in an Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) survey
conducted in 1996 when it reported that: “96% of schools taught mathematics to ‘setted’ groups in
the upper secondary years” (Ofsted, 1996). Furthermore, from my experiences and having spoken
with teachers from each department in various placement schools (See Appendix 3) it would appear
that certain subjects are often considered to be more suited to mixed-ability grouping.
Overall, teachers considered humanities more appropriate for mixed-ability grouping, whereas
mathematics, science and MFL were considered better suited to ability setting. It was often the case
that teachers with experience in mixed-ability grouping felt more confident using this strategy and
explained the benefits of differentiation. And yet, not surprisingly, many teachers expressed the view
that the practice of ability setting was easier from a teaching perspective as it narrows the range of
ability levels which helped them to direct their teaching more effectively. Coupled with these views
on teacher practice, it is clear why many consider ability setting to enable pupils to achieve to the
best of their ability as the work is more suited to their needs and learning styles. It is often thought
that in mixed-ability classes, higher-ability pupils may lose interest if they are not pushed and,
conversely, lower-ability pupils may become disheartened. In spite of these views, it was found that
teachers of setted classes tended to have low expectations of the lower-ability groups and
exceedingly high expectations of higher-ability groups. This meant that teaching methods were often
stale and uninteresting in lower-ability groups and thus promoted pupil disinterest (Boaler, J. et al.
2006). This is supported by Ireson and Hallam’s research (1999) when they state:

20. P a g e | 20
“…the tendency [is] for instruction in lower ability groups to be of different quality to that
provided for high ability groups.”
A substantial amount of literature further supports these claims (eg Evertson, 1982; Oakes, 1985;
Gamoran, 1986). Iresom and Hallam continue to describe in detail the problems which can occur as a
result. For example, lack of engagement in a subject could lead to off-task behavioural issues, which
if not kept in check could escalate to have an overall effect on the academic success of all pupils in
the group.
In Boaler’s work pupils voiced the opinion that the pace of lower-ability classes was often too slow
and higher-ability pupils complained of extremely high expectations.
In order to lay bare the above attitudes, here is a sample of pupils’ comments from the research
conducted by Boaler et al. in their study: “Students' Experiences of Ability Grouping - disaffection,
polarisation and the construction of failure” (cited in The British Educational Research Journal 2006
p636-642).
An example of high-ability pupils’ opinions:
“You don’t even get time to think in the maths lessons… The teacher says ‘You’d better do
this, by like 5 minutes time’ then you start to rush and just write anything.”
(Girls in school F, set 1)
The study goes on to detail questionnaires in which top-set pupils often held the most negative views
towards maths lessons. It also showed that many preferred maths when in lower sets or mixed-
ability classes.
“I want to go down because they can do the same work but just at a slower pace, so they
understand it better, but we just have to get it into our head the first time and that’s it.”
(Girl in school F, set 1)
In contrast, here is some extracts from the remarks of lower-ability pupils who state that they found
the curriculum was slow and tedious:
“Sir treats us like we’re babies, puts us down, makes us copy stuff off the board, puts up all
the answers like we don’t know anything… And we’re not going to learn from that, ’cause
we’ve got to think for ourselves.”
(Girls in school A, set 6)
In total, 27% of lower-set pupils reported that the work was too easy and boring (Boaler, J. et al.
2006).

21. P a g e | 21
It is important to note that teachers have a huge effect on the success of a class. If the teaching is not
pitched correctly, the result will be a drop in interest (amongst other things) as well as a decline in
achievement. Pachler and Field (2001) stress the importance for language teachers to recognise that
“pupils are individuals with different needs” and state that “no group of pupils is ever homogenous”
(2001, p175). They go on to describe the different factors which can determine pupils’ progress,
achievement and participation within the MFL classroom. These include: gender, interest, self-
concept, self-esteem, social class, ethnic background, and creativity. Although they base their
statements on the MFL classroom, these opinions are appropriate for any classroom environment
and suggest that differentiation should always be employed, whether that classroom be of mixed-
ability or setted.
In summary, it would appear that although some studies show a significant increase in attainment in
higher ability sets, it is often at the expense of lower ability sets. There are numerous possible
reasons for this, which have not yet been definitively proven. It may be that each school, and indeed
each class, is different and that it is impossible to quantify the causes for a change in attainment.
However, it would be fair to say that the majority of research conducted suggests that there is no
significant improvement overall in setted classes. If this is the case, then why do so many schools
seem to continue setting by ability?
One could argue that it is simply a case of practicality. With such large classroom sizes, is ability
setting simply a coping mechanism for teachers? From Special Educational Needs (SEN) to Gifted and
Talented (GT), there is a wide spectrum of pupils that must be accommodated. The question seems
to come down to organisation and whether or not this wide spread of abilities is easier to deal with
in a mixed-ability group, or in set groups where the difference in ability levels is not so great. But I
digress. Whatever the reasons behind it, many schools still opt for ability setting and as we can see
the debates for and against ability setting are an on-going, multi-layered and an extremely complex
conundrum for educational professionals. Indeed it may be a problem that is never solved.
From examples, such as Pachler and Field (2001) and the implications of Boaler’s study (2006), it
would appear that class-based factors such as teaching practices and pupil self-esteem play a greater
role in terms of achievement and suggests that the general ethos of the school may also contribute.
How the groups were setted may also affect the academic results as schools tend to group pupils as a
result of academic ability; however it should be noted that it is possible that some groups are formed
with specific motives in mind such as behaviour, SEN, or EAL pupils. The latter motives for grouping
pupils is not supported by the hierarchical model of ability setting and could therefore have a
number of problems (eg timetabling issues, in-class issues such as, lack of understanding due to
language barriers, behavioural or SEN needs etc.) associated with each type of grouping policy. It is
therefore important to look into how setting is put into practice in schools. What are the reasons for
grouping and what data is used to inform setting practices?
Therefore, having discussed the reasons for and against ability setting, and having considered the
difficulties associated with researching ability setting in as much depth as is appropriate to this study,
we will now move on to discuss the ways in which we, as teaching professionals, choose to set by
ability and discuss the rationale for my research.

22. P a g e | 22
RATIONALE FOR THE INVESTIGATION
In effect, it may not be possible to decisively answer the question of whether mixed-ability grouping
or setting by ability is the only sensible strategy. The data is inconclusive and suggests that the results
of grouping are unpredictable and likely to vary greatly between classes, departments and indeed
between schools depending on many variables. One of the main problems that I found when
exploring the wealth of literature on the subject of mixed-ability vs. setting was that there was a lack
of research specific to MFL. There is definitely a significant gap in the literature, so we must bear in
mind the extent to which my research into setting in MFL can be compared to the existing theories
concerning ability setting in other subjects. In any case it is vital that more research is carried out in
this field in a more controlled manner.
In reality, it is not simply a question of academic achievement, as social factors always intervene to
sway opinions. It could be argued that those who favour a predominantly mixed-ability method
demonstrate a more egalitarian view of education as all pupils have the same access to learning,
whereas those who favour a setting system lean towards academic achievement more than
inclusion. Although it is important to provide education for all, I would argue that there is no single
remedy for underachievement within schools and I therefore remain largely undecided about which
is the best method to employ. In an ideal world I would prefer to follow the LWL philosophy of
mixed-ability teaching. However, I do consider certain subjects, such as MFL, to be better suited to
setting as there is arguably too great a range of abilities for teachers to be able to accommodate all
pupils effectively. In my opinion it comes down to practicality within secondary educational
establishments. How can we, as teaching professionals, best provide for all pupils?
For me the answer is simple: narrow the ability range in order to allow teachers to provide more
direct support to each pupil. Admittedly, there are inherent problems with this method of fixed
ability thinking (see Appendix 4), but I see this as a best-practice scenario. Teachers would need to
ensure that they maintain high expectations for all pupils irrelevant of perceived abilities and that
lesson content and pace is pitched appropriately for all learners. For me the problem is not whether
or not to set by ability, rather it is how to set by ability.
There are a number of ways schools choose to set pupils by ability and there have been a number of
case studies conducted that have aimed to show the range of setting policies employed in UK schools
(eg Smith & Sutherland,2003), but few which adequately demonstrate the huge range of data used in
these varying systems. Secondary schools in the UK tend to rely on a number of baseline data,
including KS2 attainment data across a range of subjects, professional recommendations from
primary teachers (depending on the relationship between secondary schools and feeder schools),
and the use of various Cognitive Ability Tests (CATS). To my knowledge the most popular CAT test
used in UK secondary schools, and the main source of baseline data used in my current school, is the
Middle Years Information System (MidYIS) developed and operated by the Centre for Evaluation and
Monitoring (CEM) at The University of Durham. Currently, CEM have 1,268 secondary schools in the
UK subscribed to the MidYIS13
.
The test was designed for pupils entering secondary education. It lasts approximately one hour and
aims to test, as far as possible “…the ability and aptitude for learning rather than achievement”
(CEM, 2013). The test includes sections based on Vocabulary, Mathematics, Non-verbal reasoning,
13
Information provided by CEM support team and was correct at the time of publication.

23. P a g e | 23
and other Skills. It is important to note that the MidYIS test is not an IQ test, as it aims to provide
teachers with a standardised set of data which analyses pupils’ ability and predicts future attainment.
The data from these tests offers a national average and is often used by schools, in conjunction with
other baseline data, to aid in setting pupils by ability.
For example in my current school, Year 7 language pupils are set according to a number of factors
including the use of the MidYIS test, Key Stage 2 English results, and recommendations from other
subjects. Pupils are then set again after having completed a modular knowledge-based test in French
at the end of the first half term. This process is repeated each half term as required, though
admittedly the set changes usually affect fewer pupils each time. In addition, half of the year group is
currently set in conjunction with Humanities, whilst the other half is set independently.
Although during the first half of the academic year all classes in Year 7 are taught the same syllabus,
as the year progresses an increased level of differentiation is adopted when pupils complete the first
text book and begin to use a ‘higher’ book (for Sets 1&2) or a ‘foundation’ book (for Set 3). In total
there are 7 sets in the mainstream of the Year 7 cohort, 3 sets from each side of the year group, plus
an additional ‘S Set’, consisting of roughly 15 SEN pupils, who the SLT have deemed unable to cope in
mainstream language lessons14
.
I find this to be an incredibly complicated and baffling experience and an organisational nightmare
which is what led me to begin my research study. I began my research by looking at all the relevant
studies conducted on ability setting. What I found was a plethora of arguments for and against ability
setting, some of which we have seen above in more detail during the literature review. The fact that
there were opposing arguments was not in itself surprising, but what did stand out to me was that
the majority of the research conducted was carried out in the US and that there was a significant lack
of research into ability setting within a language learning environment in England.
As a secondary language teacher I have always wondered why teaching professionals so often use
data procured from other subjects to ascertain ability groupings for languages. Surely we should have
our own set of data which is derived from some sort of test designed specifically to interpret
language ability. This is what led me to pursue my research project in my school setting in order to
answer the following Research Questions (RQs):
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1) What is the best way to set pupils by ability in MFL?
2) How does informed ability setting affect: behaviour, attitudes, and attainment?
3) How is ability setting perceived by staff and students?
14
This SEN group is taught a completely different syllabus to the rest of the Year 7 cohort and will not form part
of this research study as the SLT imposed extremely strict restrictions on the inclusion of SEN pupils in
educational research. Unless specifically stated any reference to ‘pupils’ henceforth will refer solely to Year 7
pupils in the main ability grouping that form part of this research project.

24. P a g e | 24
AIMS OF THE STUDY
The initial setting policy for Year 7 pupils in MFL in the project school has been described during the
rationale, but in order to make this process as clear as possible a summary is provided below (See
Table 2):
Table 2: Summary of the current setting process used for Year 7 French pupils in the project school
I found this system to be quite perplexing and time consuming. In addition, many language teachers
in the project school often found that Year 7 pupils who have studied more French in primary school
tend to do quite well in early stages of Year 7, but can often plateau or even show a decline in
attainment over the course of the year. It has been argued in the project school that the reason for
this is that pupils were simply relying on previous subject knowledge, rather than having a true
understanding of the language.
Therefore, I proposed that if we were to set by ability, we should use more appropriate baseline data
to aid our professional judgement in placing language pupils into the correct ability groups as judged
by the results of a Language Aptitude Test (LAT) rather than relying on the results from other
subjects and the use of a knowledge-based exam15
. If successful, this method would also, hopefully,
have the added benefit that we would not need to alter the groupings as often or by as great a
number.
15
I also proposed that we should set language pupils completely independently from any other faculty. It was
unclear at the start whether this would be possible in the project school, due to timetabling restrictions
imposed by the SLT, and as such this factor has not formed part of the research project.
This process is repeated (though usually fewer changes are required) each half term according to modular
assessments
(always after discussions with the humanities faculty for half of the year group)
Sets are altered as a result of modular assessment results
(again set changes for half of the year group only occur after discussions and agreement with the humanities
faculty)
Pupils complete the first module of the course and complete knowledge-based assessments of that module
Pupils sets are altered according to Midyis results
(set changes for half of the year group only occur after discussions and agreement with the humanities
faculty)
Pupils complete Midyis tests and data is usually analysed within first 2-3 weeks of term
Year 7 pupils begin secondary school in temporary sets according to KS2 English results provided (in most
cases) by the primary school

25. P a g e | 25
The new system ideal would work in a similar fashion to the current system, but hopefully with fewer
changes required. The ideal system is summarised below (See Table 3):
Table 3: Summary of the ideal setting process used for Year 7 pupils in the project school
In summary, the aims of the project where to: establish the best-practice method for ability setting
within this educational establishment; understand staff and student perspectives towards ability
setting within languages; and to study the effects of the proposed setting method on behaviour,
attitudes and attainment.
Sets are altered as a result of modular assessments as required throughout the year
Pupils sets are altered for whole year group according to YLAT results
Pupils complete YLAT test and data analysed within first week of term
Year 7 pupils begin secondary school in temporary sets according to KS2 English results provided (in most
cases) by the primary school

26. P a g e | 26
PURPOSE STATEMENT
The intent of this concurrent mixed-methods study is to better understand the setting process
employed by teaching professionals in a secondary comprehensive school in England, in order to
group Year 7 French pupils by ability. In the study data collected from a LAT will be used to place
pupils into arguably more appropriate ability groups. After this initial use of quantitative data a stage
of qualitative data collection will begin, including questionnaires, observations and interviews of the
Year 7 cohort and the staff. Concurrent to this data collection period attainment data will also be
analysed. Both forms of data will be used to measure the relationship between behaviour, attitude,
attainment and ability setting within this educational setting. The reason for combining both
quantitative and qualitative data is to gain a broader understanding of both numeric trends in terms
of attainment data, but also to better understand the link between behaviour, attitudes towards
learning, and ability. This research problem was proposed in order to advocate for those who may be
misrepresented by the current ability setting procedure employed in this English secondary
comprehensive school. The study will focus on the pilot project conducted in one secondary
comprehensive school during the academic year 2012-2013, but the research project will form part
of a cyclical trial period over a number of years with a new cohort of Year 7 pupils beginning
secondary school the following academic year.

27. P a g e | 27
METHODOLOGY & RESEARCH DESIGN
Having discussed the reasons for this research project above, it is now important to clearly identify
the choices in research design and the methods that were employed throughout the project. In order
to maintain a clear structure the following sections will explore the setting in which the research
project takes place and give a detailed and reasoned description of the research design by looking at
each research question in turn.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT SETTING
The school in the project is a relatively large secondary comprehensive school and sixth form college
which has recently been awarded academy status. It is based in a large industrial town located in the
outskirts of London. The school has recently been deemed an outstanding school by Ofsted
standards and now forms part of an alliance of primary and secondary schools within the local multi-
cultural community. Various ethnic and social backgrounds make up the pupil body on-roll at the
school. Although gender and ethnicity will not play a major role in this study it may be important to
specify the mix of social and economic backgrounds in the school, as the research carried out in
England to date tends to have quite strong social undertones. Therefore it may be important when
looking at any data produced by this study to bear in mind that 38.2% of pupils are white British, with
a further 5% from European parentage. The remaining 56.8% of pupils are either Black or of Asian
descent. It is estimated that 37.7% of pupils in the project school are EAL pupils. Though there are a
number of grammar schools in the catchment, the Project School is situated in an impoverished area
with 31.4% of pupils entitled to free school meals. In addition, there is a relatively high proportion of
SEN pupils at the school with 35% of pupils supported by School Action (or School Action Plus) or
with an SEN statement, compared to 20.2% as the national average.
Although the school was deemed as outstanding in its latest inspection, staff-turnover in the school is
high and there are a number of Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs). Furthermore, although there is
great pressure placed on the teachers within this performance-driven environment the grades have
declined in recent years across a number of faculties and as a result the school is currently
undergoing changes to the academic and pastoral management system. This has meant that certain
members of staff will soon lose their positions and it has been noted that teachers’ confidence in the
management system has diminished and staff-morale is at an all-time low. Members of the Senior
Leadership Team (SLT) are keen to explore new methods and teaching practices in order to improve,
however they are very clear on setting boundaries as to what they would like to see changed and
what should remain the same.
In this highly pressured environment, where many changes are taking place, it was sometimes
difficult to identify what should change in order to strive for best practice. Therefore, although the
rationale for the project has been discussed above, we will now see a brief overview of the current
system and the proposals for change in order to improve teaching and learning within MFL.

28. P a g e | 28
METHODOLOGY
In order to explore the methods used throughout this research project we will first discuss the overall
approach that was adopted and discuss the reasons for this choice. We will then explore each RQ
sequentially, followed by an overview of the entire teaching sequence where we will discuss in depth
the reasons behind the research design.
As the notion of teachers as researchers has developed over the years so too have the basic
philosophies of research methods. Although various names have been used throughout its
emergence, the development of mixed methods research can be chronicled fairly accurately over the
period of a few decades from as early as the 1950’s (eg Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Creswell et al. give a
particularly useful summary of each stage in the development of mixed methods research (See
Creswell et al., 2010 p23). Although there are various subsets of mixed methodology (eg sequential;
concurrent; transformative; triangulation; embedded) the driving principal of a mixed method
approach is that more than one type of data is used to answer a particular research question. As
Burke Johnson et al. state mixed-methodology research is:
“…research that involves the mixing of quantitative and qualitative methods or other
paradigm characteristics.” (2011, p429)
Burke Jonson et al. also go on to give advantages and disadvantages of both types of research, both
qualitative and quantitative, as well as a mixed method approach (2011, p429-430).
In order to carry out my research project I elected to run an adapted version of the Sequential/
Concurrent Transformative Mixed Method Strategy as described by Creswell (2008). He states that
the concurrent transformative approach:
‘…is guided by the researcher’s use of specific theory perspective as well as concurrent
collection of both qualitative and qualitative data.’ Creswell (2008, p218)
According to Creswell the perspective is reflected in the purpose of the research study and is the
driving force behind every decision in methodological choices. He also goes on to affirm that the
choice of a concurrent model, whether embedded or triangulation, may be designed to reflect and
facilitate this perspective.
There are a number of perspectives to consider when conducting educational research and, as is
often the case within the complexity of social sciences, the various research paradigms have been
described in a number of ways and have also been labelled differently. However, it is generally
agreed that educational research falls into two main approaches: positivist and interpretivist. Taber
(2007, p34) summarises these paradigms in the table below:
Table 4: Taber’s design to distinguish two approaches to educational research

29. P a g e | 29
This is a rather simplistic view of educational research, which by no means encompasses the
complexities inherent in educational research which is conducted in an environment created by
people. As Bassey explains:
Researchers working within the positivist paradigm see reality as separate from themselves
and expect investigators to have the same perceptions of shared phenomena and thus
common understandings. Researchers working within the interpretive paradigm see reality as
a social construct and so do not necessarily expect other investigators to have the same
perceptions or understandings of shared phenomena.
(Bassey, 1992: 6–7)
As educational researchers we aim to investigate the effects within school based settings, either for
our own teaching practice or with the hope that there may be universal truths that can be applied to
a wider setting. However, as I am conducting my research within the confines of one school I
understand that what may be proved to work in a localised environment may have very different
effects in another setting. All I can hope is that my findings may be beneficial in other schools in the
local area, and ideally farther afield. In any case, within these paradigms certain approaches to
research methodology are usually adopted.
Having completed the literature review as part of my research project I had already begun to
theorise and develop my research questions in this manner. Thus, I began to structure my data
collection methods around those research questions. One could therefore argue that I had adopted a
positivist approach as I set out to confirm my hypothesis through analysing the changes imposed on
a fixed environment. However, as the project was considered a pilot project, it should also be
considered a process of discovery and is, in that sense, a more interpretivist approach.
The very nature of my research questions combined with the fact that this research project is seen
very much as a pilot project, to be continued in the following academic year, meant that although at
times the data collection process would be sequential, it was at other times concurrent , as the
research project forms part of an on-going cyclical process. It was also the case that certain research
questions, that typically leant themselves towards qualitative research methods, may in fact require
additional data collection methods to be embedded into the data collection process. Therefore, I
chose to analyse not only quantitative data; which often lends itself to a positivistic approach (Cohen
et al., 2000:7); but also qualitative data, which is often characterised as an interpretivist approach.
In reality I have adopted a slightly different approach to my research. Overall I have chosen a post-
positivist approach as post-positivists would argue that ‘scientific research’ can only provide
provisional, tentative ‘truths’ (Phillips and Burbules, 2000). In general, pure positivism espouses the
importance of rigour and the use of evidence which is based in clear factual and statistical analysis
within educational research design. As Ryan states “…positivist researchers believe that they can
reach a full understanding based on experiment and observation” (2006). This may be unattainable
in the realm of social sciences where human interaction may have many unforeseen and
unpredictable effects that may be interpreted in a number of ways by the researcher. Post-positivists
would accept that the researcher may have an effect on what he/she is observing and that his or her
own world view will inevitably be represented in any findings. It is always vital to remember that the
“…researcher’s motivations for and commitment to research are central and crucial to the
enterprise” (Schratz and Walker, 1995: 1, 2). Therefore, rather than producing unquestionable
results, it is more important to examine the data and present them as objectively as I can, whilst
accepting that there may be various other viewpoints which then opens discourse on the topic.

30. P a g e | 30
As there are a number of techniques which contribute to the data collection process in this particular
project it would be prudent to analyse the methods used by discussing each RQ individually.
RQ1: What is the best way to set pupils by ability in MFL?
After various discussions with the Head of Department (HoD) and the SLT at the project school it was
decided that the best way to set by ability in MFL that they wanted to explore was to use a test which
reflected language ability rather than using tests that relied on previous subject knowledge or relying
on other baseline data. Therefore, in order to answer RQ1, before my research project could truly
begin it was of paramount importance to investigate the various aptitude tests that were currently
available. The choice of aptitude test used when conducting the research will not necessarily be
considered part of the data collection process and therefore does not technically form part of the
methodology. Nevertheless it is still important to discuss this process at this stage as it forms the
basis of my theories and overall research design and of course the data provided by the chosen LAT
test would provide the quantitative data used to inform ability sets.
There are a number of aptitude tests which look at language ability and a number that also look at
SEN. I investigated a number of different tests, such as the Modern Languages Aptitude Test (MLAT)
and the Oxford Language Aptitude Test (OLAT). Having assessed some of the tests available (See
Appendix 5 for a brief overview of some of the systems trialled) I decided to fully trial the York
Language Aptitude Test (YLAT) as this seemed, to me at least, the most promising example for my
purposes (See Appendix 6 for the YLAT). There were a number of reasons for this including: the test
was conducted in a real language which could aid motivation; it had already been trialled by other
teachers; target levels had been proposed as a result; a support community existed online if any help
was required; and it was free and readily available.
I trialled the YLAT with one class from each year group in order to gain a snapshot of whether or not
the results would yield the desired outcome. The test is conducted in Swedish and relies on pupils’
ability to spot patterns in the Target Language (TL). Pupils are given a series of examples and then
asked to fill in the gaps according to the pattern that has been shown. It was explained to pupils that
the test was meant to measure their language aptitude and their natural propensity towards
language learning, rather than their knowledge of a specific language. This is a particularly important
definition to make, as aptitude pertains to the natural competency in any given subject. Therefore,
this test would not, and indeed could not, take into account a pupil’s potential ability if they
exhibited increased motivation throughout the continuation of the academic year. The test would be
used solely as an indicator of predicted ability and predisposed aptitude towards studying MFL.
Although a handful of pupils questioned the point of a test in Swedish when they were not learning
Swedish in school, the majority found this test very interesting and were keen to find out their score.
Previously I had concerns that motivation to complete the test would have been a problem however
one student, who is usually quite troublesome in language lessons, relieved my fears when she said:
“I thought this test was really interesting and I tried really hard. I normally hate Spanish, but
the thing is that if I did badly it didn’t really matter ‘cos I don’t know any Swedish, so it wasn’t
really embarrassing if I failed.”
(Year 11 Spanish Student)

31. P a g e | 31
It is interesting to note that this particular student is constantly being encouraged to achieve more in
her Spanish lessons, but is of the firm opinion that she cannot achieve in Spanish. Incidentally, she
scored quite highly in the aptitude test which suggests that her underachievement is in no way
caused by a lack of ability; rather it is due to poor attitude and a lack of effort.
After discussions with the HoD I proposed a pilot programme which involved the use of the YLAT for
all Year 7 pupils and a subsequent change of ability set according to this new data. Therefore, the
current Year 7 cohort would form the sample population for my research. It should be noted at this
point that ideally this test would be administered at the beginning of the academic year when Year 7
pupils first enter into secondary education. As this was not possible within this research study, the
project is seen very much as a pilot project which will act as part of an on-going cyclical research
study. Although any data from the current pilot will be useful, it is intended to conduct a full-scale
research project by carrying out the test for the new Year 7 cohort in September 2013, after which
point we can observe the results from a full term study.
After the test was conducted and the results collated the new sets were decided upon after careful
consideration of the YLAT scores, combined with other attainment data collected earlier in the year.
We decided to look predominantly at the YLAT results and split pupils into three approximately
equally sized groups. This meant that we encountered some practical difficulties when deciding
exactly where to set the ‘cut-off’ point for each group. For example, after looking at the results it was
decided that anyone who scored 38 or above (out of a possible 52 marks) would be placed into the
‘top’ set, between 26 and 37 would be the ‘middle’ set, and anyone with 25 or less would be placed
into the ‘bottom’ set. Therefore, it was indisputable that a pupil who scored over 50 out of 52 would
clearly be placed into the ‘top’ set. The problem occurred when a group had already reached
saturation point in terms of capacity, but where there was a number of pupils who achieved the
same score. For example, there were a number of pupils who achieved 38, but there were already
too many pupils in the ‘top’ set to be realistically manageable for a classroom teacher. This made it
difficult to set a definitive ‘cut-off’ point. In order to combat this we decided to look towards MidYIS
scores for further clarification. Thus, although the YLAT results were our first port of call, it was
decided that those results would need to be used, and indeed perhaps should be used, in
conjunction with other data. It should also be noted that the ‘cut-off’ points decided upon for this
particular cohort may need to change the following year depending on the range of results achieved
by the new cohort.
My theory was that if we set pupils using quantitative data that solely reflected their language
aptitude then we could more accurately predict in which group pupils would achieve their optimum
potential. In addition I consider this, not only a more accurate, but a fairer way to judge pupils’ ability
as everyone is on even footing in terms of prior knowledge (assuming that they do not speak Swedish
of course). I also theorised that if pupils were placed into the correct set, as judged by their language
aptitude rather than knowledge-based assessments, then behaviour, attitude, and attainment should
improve within my school setting. Therefore, in order to fully answer RQ1 and assess the efficacy of
this new method of ability setting, we would need to analyse the data obtained in pursuit of
answering RQ2. Thus, a cyclical process of observation and analysis would take place which looked at
how the new system affected: behaviour, attitude, and attainment.

32. P a g e | 32
RQ2: How does informed ability setting affect: behaviour, attitudes, and
attainment?
In order to answer RQ2 it was necessary to collect data using different methods, both qualitative and
quantitative. An embedded approach was adopted as within typically qualitative data collection
methods, such as questionnaires and observations employed in order to gauge the behaviour and
attitudes, there were also quantitative elements embedded to support the findings. Furthermore, as
there were three distinct portions to this RQ, some which drew upon traditionally qualitative data
(behaviour and attitudes) and some which relied on quantitative data (attainment), it was decided
that in order to answer the question fully a process of triangulation would need to be pursued
throughout the research project. As Wilson et al state:
“Triangulation is drawing conclusions on the basis of different sources of information or of
different methods of data collection, or from different investigators in the same study.”
(2009, p.280)
As there are three distinct parts to this question we will explore the methods used to collect each set
of data separately.
BEHAVIOUR
In order to establish whether behaviour had improved after the proposed set changes it was first
important to establish an idea of the current behaviour status of each class. Therefore, observations
of each class were conducted before the YLAT was carried out. Ideally I, the researcher, would
conduct all the observations in order to reduce inconsistencies in the data collection process. In this
way the number of perspectives is limited. Although I conducted observations whenever possible,
due to timetabling restrictions, classroom teachers were also asked to conduct observations of their
own classes. Traditionally observations are solely qualitative by nature, but in an attempt to obtain
coherent data from each observer and as a way of supporting the qualitative data collected, part of
each observation sheet included a simple tally chart which was meant to guide the observer and help
them to gain some empirical data from their observations (See Appendix 7 for an example of the
observation sheet from before set changes). The tally charts consisted of 2 foci: the number of times
pupils were deemed to be off-task; and the number of times pupils exceeded expectations. In order
to limit the number of variances between each teacher’s perspectives there were discussions
between all staff concerned as to what could be considered off-task behaviour and what could be
examples of pupils exceeding expectations. It should be noted that, although these discussions
occurred, each teacher’s interpretation of their observations would naturally be different.
After the YLAT was conducted new sets where put in place according to the results. A cooling-off
period of one week was allowed for pupils to settle into the new sets before more observations
where conducted in order to establish whether behaviour had improved or not. The latest
observation sheets were similar to the previous sheet, but this time included a section which asked
the observer to reflect to what extent they believed behaviour, attitudes and attainment had
improved since the set changes (See Appendix 8 for an example of the observation sheet after set
changes). This was solely based on the observers’ perception and professional judgement.

33. P a g e | 33
Both observation sheets contained a data collection element which asked for certain variables (such
as class, date and time of lesson, number of pupils, name of teacher and observer) that might have
an effect on what was being observed. This did not form the basis of the research, but was
nevertheless vital information which should be considered when analysing the data in terms of
validity.
In addition to these observations questionnaires were conducted to ascertain the pupils’ perspective.
At this stage in the research I wanted to know what pupils perceived the behaviour (either their own
behaviour or other pupils’ behaviour) to be like in their language classes and how they envisioned
that it would change after new ability sets were put in place (See Appendix 9 for an example of the
questionnaire conducted before set changes). A further questionnaire was carried out after the new
sets were put in place to determine how opinions and perceptions had changed (See Appendix 10 for
an example of the questionnaire conducted after set changes).
ATTITUDES
This question lends itself to qualitative data collection methods. However, we were also able to
collect certain statistical data in the form of questionnaire responses. In order to understand pupils’
attitudes towards languages we primarily used the data collected from the questionnaires. In the
questionnaire conducted before set changes pupils were asked a series of questions such as: what
their personal opinion towards languages was; and which set did they would prefer to be in. Pupils
were provided with a statement such as “I enjoy French” followed by a Likert scale16
with responses
ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. The option of ‘neither agree nor disagree’ was
purposefully omitted in order to encourage pupils to make a decisive choice either for or against.
There were also certain questions that were repeated in a different way in order to allow the
researcher to analyse whether a pupil’s responses rang true. For example, a pupil may have been
asked to indicate their response to purposefully opposing statements such as: I enjoy French; I dislike
French. If a pupil responded ‘strongly agree’ to both statements it demonstrated a discrepancy in
their answers as they cannot possibly enjoy and dislike French at the same time. This data was
analysed before being included or disregarded from the final data analysis. It should be noted that
pupils were given the opportunity to clarify their answers or add any additional comments. Pupils
were also asked what they thought other pupils’ attitudes were using a similar scale. Moreover,
pupils were asked how they predicted these attitudes would change after set changes occurred. In
the follow-up questionnaire they were asked to state how they thought these attitudes had changed
using similar scales. Finally, interviews were carried out with specific pupils as we will see in more
detail when we discuss RQ3.
16
A psychometric scale commonly involved in research questionnaires which provides a range of responses to a
certain stimulus, usually in the form of a statement, to which the respondent will either agree or disagree to
some extent.

34. P a g e | 34
ATTAINMENT
Analysing the attainment data relied solely on quantitative data analysis and was conducted by
examining the NC levels awarded during assessments before and after set changes. After each
modular assessment is carried out the results are inputted onto the School Information Management
System (SIMS)17
, which allows teachers to track pupils’ progress throughout the academic year. The
problem with this data is that languages are, by nature, a linear subject. This means that, no matter
what set a pupil is placed in, we would expect to see some form of progress as the pupil builds upon
their prior knowledge. Therefore in order to assess whether or not attainment had improved
significantly it was necessary to analyse the data in terms of ‘expected’ progress. After consultations
with the HoD and SLT members it was decided what would be constitute ‘expected’ progress based
on results from previous cohorts. This was measured by the number of NC sublevels that a pupil had
improved by over the research period. In addition, only half of the year group is set independently
for languages, which meant that only that half experienced any change in ability groups as a result of
the YLAT. This meant that the side of the year group which was not reset would act as the control
group during this research project and a comparison of results from each side of the year group could
be conducted. A data analyst compared the results and provided a detailed description of each data
set as we will see in the findings section later in this thesis.
17
SIMS is a management information system provided by Capita, which is used by over 22,000 schools in
England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is most often used as a registering system with the added benefit of
incorporating various functions such as: timetabling; recording pupils’ personal information; contact details;
attendance summaries; issuing rewards/ sanctions; progress tracking and performance statistics…etc. (Capita,
2013)

35. P a g e | 35
RQ3: How is ability setting perceived by staff and students?
In order to explore how ability setting is perceived by staff and students we were initially able to use
the data provided by the questionnaires as detailed above. For that reasons we will not discuss the
questionnaires any further at this point.
However, in addition to the questionnaires I wanted to see what other, more tacit, understandings
and opinions I could elicit more directly from pupils and staff at this stage. Therefore, pupils and staff
were asked to complete an interview. All the interviews were conducted after the set changes had
been made and participants were asked a series of questions to help them reflect on the period
before and after the set changes. Participants were also asked if they thought their perceptions had
changed over the course of the study and how they thought that language classes should be
grouped. The data provided from the questionnaires was used as a prompt in many cases to help
remind pupils what they had previously said. They then had the opportunity to explain their choices
or adapt their answers as a result.
After discussions with the class teachers certain pupils were asked if they would volunteer to be part
of the interview process. These participants were selected because of a number of factors. Firstly, in
order to maintain a balance of views from all demographics within the ability sets, one boy and one
girl who had not changed sets throughout the process were selected from each group. One boy and
one girl who had changed sets were also chosen from each group. In addition, we looked for anyone
who seemed to have any particularly interesting comments in their questionnaire in order to gain a
more detailed account of their views and more in depth data. Ideally we would have interviewed all
the pupils in order to have a wealth of complete data to analyse. This was understandably beyond
the scope of the research and would have been impractical and detrimental to overall learning in the
school. It should be noted that the parents or guardians of each pupil selected for interview were
asked to complete a consent form and were free to withdraw from the research project at any point.
The staff were chosen by the simple fact that they were the classroom teachers of these Year 7 pupils
and were, therefore, best qualified to give their opinions on these grouping changes as they
observed the effects over the course of the project. The HoD was also interviewed as ultimately it
would be her decision whether or not any proposed changes as a result of the project would
eventually become part of the setting policy within the project school.
The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured way. There were certain questions that I wanted
to ask such as: Do you think that behaviour, attitudes and attainment have improved since the new
set changes have been put in place; how do you think languages should be set. However, it wasn’t
necessarily clear what route the interviews may take and we wanted to allow pupils and staff the
freedom to form their answers how they saw fit. In addition, as certain pupils were selected as a
result of their responses to the questionnaire, the questions could not remain the same for each
interviewee. (See appendix 11&12 for the semi-structured interview guidance notes used to conduct
the interviews)
Initially the RQ was aimed solely towards language teachers in the project school. However I was
fortunate enough to have the opportunity to ask other members of staff from various faculties in
three schools with different setting policies for their opinions towards ability setting (See Appendix
3). This allowed me to gain a broader understanding of staff attitudes towards ability setting in
secondary schools in various subject areas.

36. P a g e | 36
OVERVIEW OF THE TEACHING SEQUENCE
As we can see above the nature of the RQs begs the use of various different types of data collection
methods which incorporate both qualitative and quantitative means. For this reason a mixed
methodology approach was adopted. However, the research design was not necessarily completely
sequential or concurrent, though some aspects of the research overlapped. Ultimately, the whole
research project was a sequential process in the sense that it will form part of a cycle. However,
within that sequence certain sections of data collection could be considered embedded or
triangulation and some occurred concurrently. In order to summarise the overall teaching sequence
it may be prudent to take a look at some diagrams to help visualise the process. See Table 5 below
for an overview of the teaching sequence.
Table 5: Overview of the teaching sequence
Conduct pupil
questionnaire to ascertain
current opinions towards
ability setting within
languages
Conduct observations of
language classes
Conduct YLAT and analyse
results
Apply set changes
according to YLAT results
(Half of the year group will
remain unchanged)
Conduct observations of
language classes
Conduct pupil
questionnaire to ascertain
how opinions may have
changed towards ability
setting within languages
Conduct pupil/ staff
interviews
Analyse data from modular
assessments to measure
pupils' progress
Repeat this process for
new Year 7 cohort in next
academic Year