Table 5: Rotated Component Matrix
Factors | |||
1 |
2 |
3 | |
Setting children stigmatises those perceived as less able |
.630 |
.285 | |
Setting benefits the more able pupils at the expense of the less |
.496 |
.414 | |
In general there are more discipline problems in mixed ability |
-.515 |
.346 | |
Setting leads to teachers ignoring the fact that a class always |
.338 |
.559 | |
Mixed ability grouping gives each child a fair chance |
.547 |
-.348 |
.205 |
Setting ensures that brighter children make maximum progress |
.496 |
-.283 | |
Overall motivation is higher when pupils are in mixed ability |
.676 |
-.300 | |
Where classes are set there are more discipline problems in the |
.265 |
.544 | |
Only very good teachers can teach mixed ability classes |
.469 |
243 | |
successfully Mixed ability grouping leads to better social adjustment for the Mixed ability classes provide the less able pupils with positive |
.644 .694 |
. 202 | |
models of achievement Where classes are set there is more truancy from pupils in the Teaching is easier for the teacher when classes are set |
.608 |
.Z,uZ, .787 | |
Less able children compare themselves unfavourably to more |
-.526 |
.370 | |
able children in mixed ability classes | |||
Bright children are neglected or held back in mixed ability |
-.507 |
.581 | |
classes Where classes are set there are more exclusions in the lower sets |
.740 | ||
In mixed ability classes teachers tend to teach to the average |
- 419 |
.446 | |
child Mixed ability grouping leads to better social adjustment for all |
.“ .742 | ||
Setting has a damaging effect on the self-esteem of those in |
.619 |
.351 | |
lower sets Setting makes classroom management easier Teaching the lower sets requires a different approach to teaching |
.697 .589 | ||
Setting prevents brighter children being inhibited by negative |
-.279 |
.591 | |
Setting enables pupils' curriculum needs to be better matched |
-.306 |
.656 |
-.217 |
Knowing they are in a low set leads to pupils giving up |
.497 |
.558 |
26