Table 4.

Study design, methodology and the impact of ability grouping on quality

Author publication yearData sourceType of dataData recencyTime horizonStudy designSample sizeFocus and force
Collins and Gan (2013) SecondaryQuantitative2003–2005LongitudinalQuasi-experimentaln = 9,325 students from 135 different schoolsQuality positive
Duflo et al. (2011) PrimaryQuantitative2005–2006LongitudinalRCTs121 schools. n = 10,000 studentsQuality positive
Pierce et al. (2011) PrimaryQuantitative2004–2006Longitudinalquasi-experimentalYear 1: n = 161 across 52 schools. Year 2: n = 127Quality positive
Sorensen et al. (2017) SecondaryQuantitative2005–2006 to 2011–2012LongitudinalNon-experimentaln = over 1.7 million 2,000 schoolsQuality positive
Boaler and Foster (2021) PrimaryQuantitative qualitative2005–2009 2013–2015Longitudinalquasi-experimentalStudy 1:8 intervention districts and 25 comparison districts; Study 2: n = over 11,000 students in 120 school districtsQuality negative
Burris et al. (2006) SecondaryQuantitative1995–2000LongitudinalQuasi-experimentaln = 477 students (pre-universal acceleration) and n = 508 post-universal accelerationQuality negative
Deunk et al. (2018) Secondary: meta-analysisQuantitativeLate 1990s and early 2000sNot specified for each studyMeta-analysisn = 5 studies for mathematicsQuality negative
Gupta et al. (2023) PrimaryQuantitative2015–2016LongitudinalQuasi-experimentaln = 9170 students across 19 schools from 23 countiesQuality negative
Source(s): Author’s own work

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal