Table 5.

Study design, methodology and the impact of ability grouping on equity and inclusion

Author publication yearData sourceType of dataData recencyTime horizonStudy designSample sizeFocus and force
Archer et al. (2018) SecondaryQuantitative, qualitative2015–2016Cross-sectionalNon-experimentalSurvey: n = 12,935 in 94 schools. Interviews n = 33 studentsEquity negative
Hartas (2018) SecondaryQuantitative2012–2013Cross-sectionalNon-experimentaln = 9,610 studentsEquity negative
Von Hippel and Cañedo (2022) PrimaryQuantitative2010–2011LongitudinalNon-experimentalfall: n = 2,607 students, and for spring n = 1,355 studentsEquity negative
Gupta et al. (2023) PrimaryQuantitative2015–2016LongitudinalQuasi-experimentaln = 9,170 students across 19 schools from 23 countiesInclusion positive
Boliver and Capsada-Munsech (2021) SecondaryQuantitative2008 and 2012LongitudinalNon-experimentaln = 8,876 studentsInclusion negative
Campbell (2021) SecondaryQuantitative2008 and 2012LongitudinalNon-experimentaln = 4,463 studentsInclusion negative
Francome and Hewitt (2018) PrimaryQuantitative, qualitative2014Cross-sectionalNon-experimentaln = 286 year seven students in School M (n = 129 students) and School S (n = 157 students)Inclusion negative
McDool (2019) SecondaryQuantitative2008 and 2012Longitudinalquasi-experimentalwaves 4 (age 7): n = 14,043 students wave 5 (age 11 years): n = 13,469 studentsInclusion negative
Legette and Kurtz-Costes (2020) PrimaryQuantitative2016–2017LongitudinalNon-experimentaln = 322 students from 4 schoolsInclusion mixed
Parker et al. (2021) SecondaryQuantitative2013–2015Cross-sectionalNon-experimentaln = 645,520 from 22,894 schoolsInclusion mixed
Source(s): Author’s own work

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal