Within-class grouping: evidence versus conjecture

Abstract

Lou, Abrami, Spence, Poulsen, Chambers, and d'Apollonia (1996) reported the findings from a quantitative review showing generally positive but variable effects of within-class grouping on pupil achievement and other outcomes. Replying in the National Institute Economic Review (July 1998), Prais argued for whole-class teaching claiming that we mis-summarised our findings. In this abbreviated rejoinder, we argue that our findings are: useful; not so variable as to be meaningless; provide evidence of beneficial effects for pupils of all relative abilities; are thorough and detailed; and provide a rather complete picture of the available evidence. In contrast, we believe that Prais (1998) has relied too heavily on conjecture and selective citation to offer a view of within-class grouping which is a serious mis-summarisation of the findings.