A factor analysis was undertaken using principal components analysis and varimax
rotation. The scree plot revealed that a three factor solution was the most
parsimonious. This solution accounted for 47% of the variance. The eigenvalues of
the three factors were 6.86, 2.86 and 1.49 respectively.
Table 5 sets out the weightings for each statement for each factor. Factor 1 has high
weightings for statements supporting mixed ability teaching including those relating
to equity issues, and the motivation, and personal and social adjustment of all pupils.
The key focus is the benefit of mixed ability teaching to all pupils and the negative
aspects of structured ability grouping for some. Factor 2 has high weightings on
responses to statements supporting structured ability grouping including those relating
to the ease of teaching, classroom management, matching the curriculum to student
needs and the benefits to able children. Factor 3 has high loadings on issues relating to
truancy, exclusion, discipline and the lack of motivation of pupils in lower ability
groups (see Table 5).
Table 5 about here
Comparison of the scores of the teachers of each subject on each factor indicated no
significant differences in responses to the second factor. However, there were
statistically significant differences between the PE and drama teachers in relation to
Factor 1, the means being PE .21, drama -.37, music - .17, and art -.06 (F = 3.33, df =
3,194. p = .021) and for PE and all of the other teachers on Factor 3, the means being
PE .29, drama -.34, music - .19, and art -.2 (F = 5.19, df = 3,194. p = .002). The PE
teachers scores loaded positively on this factor in contrast to the other teachers where
the loadings were negative. This suggests that the PE teachers in the sample were
more sensitive than the art, music and drama teachers to issues relating to the lower
ability pupils’ behaviour, motivation and attendance.
12