Journal of Educational Psychology

© 2021 American Psychological Association 2022, Vol. 114, No. 3, 498–512

ISSN: 0022-0663 https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000709

Class Composition, Student Achievement, and the Role of the Learning

Environment

Jeroen Lavrijsen1, Jonas Dockx1, Elke Struyf2, and Karine Verschueren1

1
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven
2
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp

This study considers how class composition, in terms of between-student variability and the average level of
achievement, is related to the academic development of students, and how these relationships can be
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

explained by features of the class learning environment. At the start of secondary education, Flemish schools
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

can decide autonomously how to group their students, leading to variation in class mean and class heteroge-
neity between classes. In a sample of 2,895 Flemish students from 158 classes, math achievement at the end
of grade 8 was found to be unrelated to class heterogeneity, after accounting for previous achievement, intel-
ligence, gender, and social background. Path analyses showed that class heterogeneity was positively associ-
ated with teachers’ use of differentiated instruction to accommodate for differences between students, and
that differentiated instruction was related to higher student achievement. Second, students were found to
achieve better in classes with high average achievement. While this held true for all students, high achieving
students seemed to benefit the most from being in a class with a high average level. Although class-average
achievement was positively related to the academic orientation of the class, this did not explain the associa-
tion between class mean level and achievement. These results suggest that, although it might be beneficial
for the students in the high ability groups, grouping students in distinct classes according to ability might
have little overall benefit, and emphasize that teachers’ responses to student diversity might be more deci-
sive for improving student achievement than homogenizing classes in terms of ability.

Educational Impact and Implications Statement

In a sample of 2,895 Grade 8 students from 158 classes, students were found to achieve better when
they were in a class with a high mean achievement level, after accounting for previous achievement,
intelligence, gender, and social background. By contrast, class heterogeneity (i.e., the extent of between-
student differences) was largely unrelated to subsequent student achievement. Hence, while sorting stu-
dents according to ability could benefit those sorted into high ability classes (given the benefits associ-
ated with being in a class with a high mean level), this would come at the expense of those sorted into
low ability classes. Moreover, teachers in heterogeneous classes appeared to differentiate their instruc-
tion more to student capacities, which was subsequently related to higher student achievement.

Keywords: ability grouping, heterogeneity, class mean, differentiated instruction, academic orientation

Previous research has suggested that grouping students according to
ability can benefit their academic development. However, overall,
observed effects have been modest at best, in particular for arrangements
This article was published Online First December 30, 2021.
Jeroen Lavrijsen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9005-8350
The authors have no declarations of interest. This work was funded by
Research Foundation–Flanders (FWO), Project S002917N. The work
described has not been published previously and is not under consideration
for publication elsewhere. Its publication is approved by all authors and
tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was
carried out. If accepted, it will not be published elsewhere in the same
form, in English or in any other language, including electronically without
the written consent of the copyright holder.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeroen
Lavrijsen, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven,
Tiensestraat 102 bus 3717, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Email: Jeroen
.Lavrijsen@kuleuven.be
that group students in distinct classes depending on ability. Moreover,
the mechanisms through which ability grouping would affect achieve-
ment remain unclear. This study considered how class composition, in
terms of average achievement and between-student variability, was asso-
ciated with individual math achievement in a large sample of eighth-
graders. In addition, differential effects for low and high achievers were
considered: Do class average level and class heterogeneity affect stu-
dents with different levels of achievement differently? Finally, the study
examined how these relationships could be explained through the
impact of class composition on two features of the class learning envi-
ronment, that is, the instructional behavior of the teacher, and the aca-
demic orientation of the class. Accordingly, this study aimed to better
understand the processes through which class composition relates to the
academic development of students.
Ability Grouping and Achievement
Over the past decades, numerous studies have investigated
the effects of ability grouping on academic achievement. This

498
 CLASS COMPOSITION AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
literature has been summarized in multiple meta-analyses: A
second order meta-analysis recently integrated findings from no
less than 13 earlier meta-analyses (Steenbergen-Hu et al.,
2016). This synthesis demonstrated that students can benefit
from certain types of grouping arrangements, in particular
within-class grouping (i.e., assigning students to small homoge-
neous groups within their class) and cross-grade subject group-
ing (i.e., grouping students of different grade levels together for
a particular subject), although aggregated effect sizes for both
types were modest (g = .25 and g = .26, respectively).
However, no benefits were observed for between-class group-
ing, which involves placing students into distinct classrooms
according to ability (g = –.03). Individual studies on between-class
grouping have been largely inconsistent: Even meta-analytical
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
effect sizes have been either negative (e.g., Henderson, 1989),
zero (e.g., Slavin, 1990), or positive (e.g., Kulik & Kulik, 1982).
In addition, although ability grouping has often been assumed to
be beneficial to high achievers, but harmful to low achievers
(Schofield, 2010), the second order meta-analysis found little evi-
dence for differential effects for low and high achievers (Steenber-
gen-Hu et al., 2016).
What might explain these inconsistencies? A first explanation
might be methodological. Effects of ability grouping have often
been established by comparing student achievement in classes
with and without formal ability grouping arrangements. How-
ever, such arrangements might be, in reality, largely unrelated to
actual class composition. For example, even schools that do not
formally adopt ability grouping might sort students in different
classes depending on proxies of ability, such as students’ pro-
gram choices (Betts & Shkolnik, 2000). If this would be the
case, comparing student development in grouped and ungrouped
classes without information on actual class composition would
be like “comparing apples to apples and finding little difference”
(Rees et al., 2000, p. 18).
Second, it has been argued that “grouping does not produce
achievement: instruction does” (Gamoran, 1987, p. 341). This
argument, developed at length by Hattie (2002), proposes that
grouping only affects the circumstances in which instruction
takes place—but whether such arrangements promote learning
depends more on how teachers adapt to and capitalize on these
circumstances than on the grouping in itself. For example, ability
grouping has been promoted under the assumption that more ho-
mogeneous classes would lead teachers to better match instruc-
tion to student capacities. However, whether teachers actually
take advantage of this opportunity depends on teacher behavior
and views. In the end, the physical placement of students in abil-
ity groups might be less decisive than how teachers respond to
student needs (Lou et al., 1996).
This study aimed to advance the scientific understanding of the
relationship between class composition and student achievement in
three ways. First, instead of comparing the effects of formal group-
ing arrangements, this study directly considered two aspects of class
composition related to it, that is, class heterogeneity and class mean
ability. Second, differential effects of compositional characteristics
on high and low achievers were investigated. Third, the study
examined how characteristics of the learning environment would
mediate the relationship between class composition and individual
achievement.
499
Class Composition
In general, students have been found to flourish when the diffi-
culty of their schoolwork is in line with their capacities (Shernoff
et al., 2014), in particular when they face challenges that are just
beyond their current level of mastery (“zone of proximal develop-
ment,” Vygotsky, 1980). However, when differences between
classmates become too large, it could become difficult to tailor
schoolwork to divergent student capacities (Hallinan & Kubit-
schek, 1999). Hence, it has been argued that in heterogeneous
classes, schoolwork might be too easy for high achieving students
and too difficult for low achievers, leaving the former bored and
the latter frustrated and anxious (Acee et al., 2010), while in ho-
mogeneous classes, students would become more motivated and
efficient learners (Duflo et al., 2011).
Despite these theoretical expectations, studies relating class
heterogeneity to individual achievement have been inconclusive.
While some of these studies found that students in heterogeneous
classes achieved worse than their peers in homogeneous classes
(Cheung & Rudowicz, 2003; Fertig, 2003; Luyten & der
Hoeven-van Doornum, 1995), other studies did not find any sys-
tematic association (Hanushek et al., 2003; Leiter, 1983; Sanders
et al., 1997), and some even reported small positive effects of
class heterogeneity (Chiu et al., 2017; Duru-Bellat & Mingat,
1998; Raitano & Vona, 2013; Vigdor & Nechyba, 2007). A num-
ber of explanations have been put forward to understand why
class heterogeneity does not have to be detrimental to student
achievement. For example, it has been suggested that heteroge-
neous classes create more help opportunities between high and
low achieving students (Chiu et al., 2017); this could be benefi-
cial not only to the recipient but also to the provider, as having to
restructure and reconsider knowledge in order to explain it to
others might deepen the latter’s own understanding of the mate-
rial. It has also been suggested that students would benefit from
having a few high ability classmates, as these might already
improve the quality of class interactions (e.g., class discussions).
If adding a few high ability students to a low ability class would
outweigh the corresponding loss in “peer quality” in high ability
classes (Raitano & Vona, 2013), the more equal distribution of
high ability students between classes associated with increased
class heterogeneity might be another asset of heterogeneous
classes (Duru-Bellat & Mingat, 1998).
A second aspect of class composition associated with ability
grouping is class mean level. In particular, ability grouping is
expected to polarize classes in high and low ability classes (com-
pared to ungrouped classes of medium ability). Class mean ability
has been consistently found to positively predict individual
achievement (Cheung & Rudowicz, 2003; Duru-Bellat & Mingat,
1998; Fruehwirth, 2013; Opdenakker et al., 2002; Reynolds et al.,
2014; Stäbler et al., 2017): Students in classes with high average
ability usually perform better than similar students in classes with
low average ability. Several explanations have been put forward to
understand this relationship; for example, it has been suggested
that teachers in high ability classes would hold higher expectations
for their students, positively affecting individual achievement (Jus-
sim & Harber, 2005; Kelly & Carbonaro, 2012; McGillicuddy &
Devine, 2018).
 500 LAVRIJSEN, DOCKX, STRUYF, AND VERSCHUEREN
Differential Effects
In addition, class composition might have differential effects on
low and high achieving students. In general, ability grouping has
been argued to enlarge the gaps between low and high achieving
students (Duru-Bellat & Mingat, 1998; Hallinan & Kubitschek,
1999; Hoffer, 1992; Schofield, 2010). For example, stratified edu-
cational systems (which track their students into different streams
according to ability) have been found to have larger score disper-
sion in international student tests than comprehensive school sys-
tems (Hanushek & Wößmann, 2006; Lavrijsen & Nicaise, 2016;
Van de Werfhorst & Mijs, 2010). Of note, however, this disper-
sion might be a mere consequence of the effect of class mean level
on achievement: In a tracked system, high achievers are grouped
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
in classes with high average ability, which would subsequently
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
predict better individual performance; for low achievers, the
reverse would hold true. By contrast, this study addressed whether
class mean level or class heterogeneity themselves would have dif-
ferential effects on high and low achievers. First, it has been
argued that in particular high ability students might benefit from
being in a class with a high mean level (Opdenakker et al., 2002).
In such classes, instruction is usually provided at a high level and
pace. As such, a cognitively demanding instruction would better
suit the needs of high ability students (Preckel et al., 2010); such
students would maximally benefit from being in a high level class.
Second, it has been suggested that in particular, low ability stu-
dents would benefit from being in a heterogeneous class (Deunk et
al., 2018; Lou et al., 1996), as this implies the presence of high
achieving peers upholding teacher standards and instructional
level (Raitano & Vona, 2013). By contrast, being grouped in a
homogeneously low achieving class would deprive students from
the example and stimulation provided by high achieving peers
(“behavioral contagion”; Slavin, 1987, p. 297).
The Mediating Role of The Learning Environment
Beyond establishing relationships between class composition
and individual achievement, this study focused on the learning
environment as a possible mediator of these relationships.
First, to accommodate for differences between students, teach-
ers may differentiate their instruction, that is, identify learners’
needs and provide instruction in accordance with these needs.
Overall, differentiated instruction has been proposed as a powerful
instructional strategy to address diverse student needs (Tomlinson,
2014). However, because differentiated instruction has been con-
ceptualized in diverging ways (Graham et al., 2021), estimates of
its association with student achievement have been inconsistent,
ranging from very weak (Seidel & Shavelson, 2007) to moderate
(Smale-Jacobse et al., 2019). In this study, we defined differenti-
ated instruction as instructing students with different capacities
differently, for example by providing students with different tasks
according to their ability.
Arguably, class composition is related to teachers’ use of differen-
tiated instruction in two ways. First, the opportunities to capitalize on
student variability might be more salient for teachers in classes with
large between-student differences. Accordingly, teachers in heteroge-
neous classes might be more eager to implement differentiated
instruction than teachers in homogeneous classes. For example, a
German study found teachers in comprehensive schools to employ
differentiated instruction more often than teachers in highly selective
(and thus more homogeneous) schools (Pozas et al., 2020). In addi-
tion, differentiated instruction could also moderate the effects of class
composition on achievement. In particular, differentiated instruction
might matter most in heterogeneous classes, as in such classes
adequately accommodating for the large differences between students
would be most crucial.
As the second characteristics of the learning environment, we
considered the academic orientation of the class, that is, the impor-
tance classmates attach to studying. In general, differentiation-
polarization theory postulates that grouping creates a polarization
between an academically oriented class culture in high ability
groups and a less academically oriented class culture in low ability
groups (Hargreaves, 1967). On average, students referred to lower
ability classes evaluate schoolwork as less relevant and are more
fatalistic about their educational prospects (Malmberg & Trempała,
1997; Van Houtte & Stevens, 2008). The concentration of such atti-
tudes may fuel the development of an “antischool” culture in low
ability classes (Abraham, 1989; Berends, 1995), which in turn
might deteriorate the academic development of students in these
classes (Agirdag et al., 2012; Kindermann, 2007; Van Houtte,
2016; Van Houtte & Stevens, 2010). By contrast, high ability
classes often have a more orderly and quiet classroom atmosphere,
which would create a fertile environment for student development
(Opdenakker & Van Damme, 2001, 2006). Hence, we investigated
whether class composition was associated with individual achieve-
ment through the academic orientation of the class.
Present Study
The present study investigated the association between class
composition and individual student achievement and considered
how these associations might be mediated through the class learn-
ing environment. To accommodate for potential selection biases
(Dicke et al., 2018), we controlled for predictors both at the indi-
vidual level and the class level, such as previous achievement
(Hailikari et al., 2008), general intelligence (Kriegbaum et al.,
2018), gender (Voyer & Voyer, 2014), social background (Sirin,
2005), and class size (Nye et al., 2000). Moreover, we adopted a
multilevel structural “doubly latent” model to simultaneously cor-
rect for measurement error and sampling error (see Statistical
Strategy section).
We formulated the following three research objectives.
Research Objective 1—Investigating the Associations
Between Class Heterogeneity and Class Mean Level and
Individual Achievement
First, instead of comparing formal grouping arrangements, we
used student scores on a standardized math test to directly measure
two aspects of class composition that are most relevant for student
learning, in particular, class mean level and class heterogeneity. As
students have consistently been found to benefit from having high-
ability peers, we expected class mean level to be positively associ-
ated with individual academic development (H1). By contrast, as
previous studies in this regard have been inconsistent, we investi-
gated the association between class heterogeneity and achievement
in an exploratory way (RQ1).
 CLASS COMPOSITION AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Research Objective 2—Examining Differential Effects of
Class Composition on Low and High Achievers
In addition, we explored possible differential effects of class
composition between low and high achievers. First, as high
achieving students would benefit the most from the high standards
and demanding instruction in high ability classes, we expected a
positive interaction between individual achievement and class
mean level (H2). Second, we expected class heterogeneity to have
a more positive association with achievement for low achievers
than for high achievers, as for low achievers the presence of a few
high achieving peers could uphold teacher standards, instructional
level, and peer stimulation (H3).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Research Objective 3—Examining the Role of the Class
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Learning Environment in the Association Between Class
Composition and Achievement
Finally, beyond establishing associations between class compo-
sition and achievement, we considered two features of the class
learning environment which may explain these associations (Hat-
tie, 2002), in particular, teacher’s use of differentiated instruction
and the academic orientation of the class. First, we expected class
mean to positively predict class academic orientation (H4), with
class academic orientation subsequently predicting higher individ-
ual achievement (H5). Second, we expected class heterogeneity to
relate positively to teachers’ use of differentiated instruction (H6),
with differentiated instruction positively predicting subsequent
achievement (H7). In addition, we hypothesized that class hetero-
geneity and differentiated instruction would interact, with differen-
tiated instruction being more strongly associated with achievement
in classes with large differences between students (H8).
Study Context
The study was carried out among Grade 8 students in Flanders
(age at the first measurement occasion: 13.4 years). At this stage
of secondary education, Flemish classes can still be fairly hetero-
geneous, although the level of heterogeneity varies between
classes and schools (Lavrijsen et al., 2014). In principle, all stu-
dents who successfully completed primary education transfer to a
program with a largely shared curriculum and a strong emphasis
on basic education (A-stream).1 For example, Grade 8 students
spend 24 weekly periods out of 32 on a common core (which also
includes mathematics). Schools can, however, decide autono-
mously how to group their students. In practice, this is often done
according to students’ choices for the remaining eight weekly peri-
ods (option choice), in which students can choose to take classical
languages, supplementary basic education, technology, and so on.
As these choices are not independent from student ability (e.g., av-
erage ability levels are the highest among students opting for clas-
sical languages (Magez & Bos, 2015), grouping students
according to option choice implies a certain homogenization of
classes, which might however be less thorough compared to edu-
cational systems with a more explicit reliance on ability grouping
(e.g., systems in which students are assigned to tracks based on
their performance on standardized tests). This variation in class
composition offers an interesting opportunity to investigate the
association between class heterogeneity and class mean level and
student achievement.
501
Method
Participants and Procedure
This study used data from a large longitudinal study following
3,409 Flemish secondary students in 27 schools through Grades 7
and 8. In this article, we considered student academic development
throughout Grade 8. The study was approved by the Ethical Com-
mittee of KU Leuven. Prior to conducting the study, we obtained
informed consent from students, their parents, and their teachers.
Out of the original sample, 469 students left the school before the
end of Grade 8. An additional 45 students switched between
classes throughout Grade 8 and were discarded from the analysis.
This left us with an analytic sample consisting of 2,895 students
from 158 classes (48.9% boys, mean age at the end of the study:
14.0 years).
Within each Grade 8 class, the standard deviation and the mean
achievement of all class members was determined. This was done
by using students’ average standardized score on two standardized
mathematics tests administered in fall (November) and spring
(May) of Grade 7. By combining scores on two previous measure-
ment waves, we aimed at minimalizing measurement error (Dicke
et al., 2018). Subsequent individual achievement was measured
using a standardized math test at the end of Grade 8 (May 2019).
In the Fall of Grade 8 (November 2018), students completed a sur-
vey to assess the perceived fit between capacities and schoolwork
difficulty and to measure the degree of differentiation imple-
mented by the math teacher; mentor teachers were surveyed on the
academic orientation of their class.
All data and analysis scripts have been made publicly available
at Open Science Framework and can be accessed at https://osf.io/
wchqm/.
Instruments
Standardized Mathematics Test
Items were adopted from the LiSO-test, a standardized mathe-
matics test lasting two hours that has demonstrated good reliability
and validity (Dockx et al., 2017). IRT-analyses confirmed that the
test measured one underlying math competency and that the test
had good reliability (a = .89). On the basis of these IRT-analyses,
raw test scores were converted into math achievement scores using
weighted likelihood estimation (Warm, 1989). Scores were stand-
ardized for each test.
Intelligence
General intelligence was measured at the beginning of the study
(October 2017). Each student completed a cognitive test (CoVaT-
CHC) measuring both fluid and crystallized intelligence (Magez et
al., 2015). The test, which builds on other validated cognitive tests
(Magez, 2015) within a CHC model of intelligence (Horn & Cattell,
1966), has demonstrated both content validity (Tierens, 2015) and
criterion validity (Magez & Bos, 2015). An IQ score for each stu-
dent was calculated based on a comparison of test results with a
1
Students who did not successfully complete primary education and
students with severe learning disabilities are usually referred to distinct
programs (vocational preparatory or special education programs).
 502 LAVRIJSEN, DOCKX, STRUYF, AND VERSCHUEREN
representative norming sample, resulting in a score with population
mean 100 and standard deviation 15 (Tierens & Magez, 2016).
Gender
This was coded with males as the reference category (= 0).
Social Background
Social background was measured with three dichotomous meas-
ures delivered by a government database. Each of these measures
indicated an aspect of coming from a disadvantaged background, in
particular (1) whether the student was entitled to a school allow-
ance, (2) whether the mother of the student did not complete sec-
ondary school, and (3) whether the student lived in a neighborhood
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
with strong educational disadvantage. On each of the measures, val-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ues equal to 1 indicated social disadvantage (reference: 0).
Differentiated Instruction
Students completed a 5-item scale measuring the degree of dif-
ferentiated instruction implemented by their math teachers. Three
items were derived from a scale documented by Bos et al. (2005),
which assesses the degree to which teachers tune tasks to student
capacities (e.g., “My math teacher gives students with different
capacities different tasks”). To increase the reliability of the scale,
two items were added (“My math teacher succeeds in instructing
students with different capacities differently”; “My math teacher
succeeds in letting students with different capacities help each
other”). All items were scored by students on a 5-point Likert
scale. The reliability of the 5-item scale was acceptable (a = .76).
ICC(2) at the item-level ranged between .586 and .828, which is
considered to be good to excellent and allows for aggregation at
the class level. Similarly, a multilevel CFA demonstrated that
30.11% of the variance of the latent construct was at the class level
(the ICC of the manifest scale average was 23.3%). For each class,
an average value was calculated representing the use of differenti-
ated instruction by the class math teacher.
Academic Orientation of the Class
Mentors of each class evaluated the academic orientation of
their class with 4 items from a scale developed in earlier research
(Dockx et al., 2015) (e.g., “For students in this class, learning
something is very important”). All items were scored by the men-
tor on a 5-point Likert scale. Internal reliability was high (a = .88).
Missing Data
Of the 2,895 students from 158 classes in the sample, one class
with 20 students did not participate in the final mathematics test
due to time shortage. In addition, 112 students (3.9% of the sam-
ple) were absent at the time of the test administration, mostly due
to illness. This left a final analytic sample of 2,763 students from
157 classes. A share of the students did not complete the items on
perceived educational fit (7.3%) and differentiated instruction
(8.9%); values on these items were, however, averaged within
classes. The mentor teachers of 43 classes with, in total, 745 stu-
dents did not complete the teacher survey measuring class aca-
demic orientation. To ensure maximal use of the sample, full
information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation was used.
This means that parameters were estimated by maximizing a
likelihood function that indicates the probability to observe the
available data. Hence, with this method, observations with missing
values do not have to be discarded, and all available information is
used to estimate the model.
Statistical Strategy
Within each class, the standard deviation and the mean of the
previous math achievement of all class members were calculated
to represent class composition characteristics (excluding the stu-
dents’ own contribution to assess class mean level).
Measurement Error, Sampling Error, and Phantom Effects
Considering that our research questions focus on student-level
latent variables that are aggregated to the class level, we need to
simultaneously correct for measurement error and sampling error.
The measurement error is caused by the indicators of a latent vari-
able being unreliable measures of that latent variable. The sam-
pling error of each class’s aggregate is caused by the limited
number of students per class (16.3 on average in our study). If the
measurement error of a latent variable is unaccounted for in a
regression model, the regression coefficient estimates will be bi-
ased toward zero (attenuation bias; Charles, 2005). If the sampling
error of the finite number of students per class is unaccounted for,
the between-class variance estimate will be positively biased.
Structural equation modeling makes it possible to model and
account for the measurement error by specifying how well the
indicators measure a latent variable. In a similar way, multilevel
modeling makes it possible to model and account for the sampling
error of student-level variables that are aggregated to the class
level, based on the number of students and the variance partition-
ing coefficient by using a shrinkage estimator (Greenland, 2000).
Harker and Tymms (2004) have shown that when both measure-
ment error and sampling error of classes are present when estimat-
ing composition effects, phantom effects can occur. These are
positive composition effects that result from the measurement
error and sampling error (Dicke et al., 2018). Accordingly, to
simultaneously correct for measurement error and sampling error,
multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) should be used.
In research on the big-fish-little-pond effect, such a model has
been referred to as a doubly latent model (e.g., Lüdtke et al., 2011;
Marsh et al., 2009).
Using Measurement Models to Account for Measurement
Error
In MSEM, measurement error of latent variables is accounted
for by specifying measurement models of latent variables that
have a good fit to the data (Baumgartner & Steenkamp, 2006;
Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Which measurement models fit best
must be determined before specifying the structural equation
model. Hence, we needed to assess how well a multilevel factor
model for each latent variable reproduces the observed covariance
matrix of a latent variable’s indicators. Three fit indices were used
to examine the fit: the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tuck-
er–Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approxi-
mation (RMSEA). We followed Hu and Bentler (1999) cutoff
criteria. This was tested for differentiated instruction and class
academic orientation. For differentiated instruction, the indicators
 CLASS COMPOSITION AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
were allowed to vary at the student and class level; for academic
orientation of the class, the indicators were only allowed to vary at
the class level. The latent variables’ means and variances were
respectively constrained to zero and one at the class level. Differ-
entiated instruction’s variances was unconstrained at the student
level, whereas class academic orientation’s variance at the student
level was constrained to zero. The factor loadings of the indicators
were freely estimated, but constrained to equality across the stu-
dent and class level.
Satisfactory model fit was achieved for differentiated instruction
(RMSEA = .05, CFI = .96, TLI = .97). To achieve this model fit, it
was necessary to let the residuals of item 3 and item 4 covary
freely, both at the student level and class level. Satisfactory model
fit was achieved for academic orientation of the class (RMSEA =
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
.00, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00). To achieve this model fit, it was nec-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
essary to let the residuals of item 1 and item 4 covary freely. These
measurement models were incorporated into the structural equa-
tion models.
However, for the standardized mathematics tests of our baseline
and final measurements, we were unable to incorporate their mea-
surement models into the analyses, because they have too many pa-
rameters. This was also the case for the cognitive ability test.
Instead, we used these variables’ estimated reliabilities from their
measurements, to include a single-indicator reliability correction
(Hayduk & Littvay, 2012) when specifying the multilevel structural
equation model. Assuming that measurement error was situated
mostly at the individual level, we incorporated these reliability esti-
mates from these measurement models into the structural equation
models (Geldhof et al., 2014).
Multilevel Structural Equation Models
We specified three multilevel structural equation models. The
first model estimated math achievement at the end of Grade 8 as a
function of prior student-level achievement, gender, cognitive abil-
ity and social background at the individual level and class mean
level and class’s variability in achievement at the class level. In
the second model, interaction terms between individual achieve-
ment and class composition characteristics were added. Third, a
multilevel path model was specified. In this model, indirect paths
from class compositional characteristics to achievement were also
included, that is, accommodating for the possible mediation of the
association between class composition and achievement through
both features of the learning environment. To accommodate for
the potentially complex relationships between different features of
class composition, we estimated a saturated model, that is, a model
including all hypothesized paths between class-level predictors,
class-level mediators, and achievement.
Estimation
These models were specified in Mplus 8, and full information maxi-
mum likelihood was used for parameter estimation (Muthén &
Muthén, 2015). Variables were standardized (mean: 0, standard devia-
tion: 1) according to the guidelines put forward by Enders and Tofighi
(2007, p. 136), who suggested grand mean centering of Level 1 predic-
tors when one is primarily interested in effects of Level 2 predictors,
and centering within cluster when cross-level interactions are to be
examined. Hence, in this study, grand mean centering was used in all
analyses except for the analysis addressing RQ2; for the latter analysis,
503
achievement was standardized within each class in order to investigate
its interaction with class composition characteristics. All latent varia-
bles’ means and variances were respectively constrained to zero and
one at the class level. For Level 1 predictors, standardized coefficients
were calculated using the STDYX option in Mplus. For Level 2 pre-
dictors in a multilevel doubly latent model, however, this option
appears to produce potentially unreliable standardized coefficients (see
Marsh et al., 2009; Parker et al., 2013; Pinxten et al., 2015). To accom-
modate for this, and following recommendations by Marsh et al.
(2009, pp. 791–792), we standardized the estimates of class-level pre-
dictors with respect to the between variance of the predictor and the
total (within þ between) variance of the criterion (see also Pinxten et
al., 2015). In addition, following Lorah (2018), for the class-level pre-
dictors of interest (i.e., those with a significant association with
achievement), we additionally reported Cohen’s f2, which reflects the
proportion of variance explained by the given effect relative to the pro-
portion of outcome variance unexplained. Cohen’s f2 was considered
small at a value of .02, medium at a value of .15, and large at a value
of .35 (Lorah, 2018). To assess the magnitude of indirect effects, the
completely standardized indirect effect (CSIE) was calculated
(Preacher & Kelley, 2011), in combination with a Sobel test to test sta-
tistical significance of the indirect effect.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations
between the study variables. Math achievement at the end of
Grade 8 was strongly related to previous achievement (r = .77)
and intelligence (r = .59), for which we control when assessing
relationships between class level variables and individual achieve-
ment. Class mean achievement and class heterogeneity proved to
be moderately negatively related to each other (r = –.32), showing
that classes with higher average math achievement tend to be more
homogeneous as well. Differentiated instruction was moderately
positively related (r = .41) to class heterogeneity: In classes with a
larger variance in student capacities, teachers make more use of
differentiated instruction according to their students. Finally, class
academic orientation was moderately to strongly positively related
to class mean achievement (r = .49), suggesting that the climate in
classes with high initial achievement was more oriented toward
learning.
Research Objective 1
Table 2 presents the results from a multilevel structural model
predicting individual math achievement at the end of Grade 8 as a
function of class heterogeneity and class mean, controlling for
individual previous achievement, intelligence, gender, and social
background at the individual level, and gender and social composi-
tion at the class level. Compared to an empty multilevel model,
the model explained large parts of the variance in achievement
scores, with 61.2% of the variance at the individual level and
75.0% of the variance at the class level attributed to the predictors
included in the model. At the individual level, previous achieve-
ment in Grade 7 was most strongly associated math achievement
in Grade 8, with intelligence additionally predicting achievement.
Gender (ref.: male) was positively associated with achievement,
 504 LAVRIJSEN, DOCKX, STRUYF, AND VERSCHUEREN

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between Study Variables
Correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Individual level variables
1 Math achievement (G8) 0 1 —
2 Math achievement (G7) 0.01 0.95 .77* —
3 Intelligence 104.43 14.03 .59* .71* —
4 Female 0.51 0.5 .03 .11 .18* —
5 Disadvantaged neighbourhood 0.15 0.36 .01 .04 .10* .01* —
6 Low educated mother 0.11 0.31 .16* .18* .20* .06* .17* —
7 School allowance 0.18 0.39 .17* .19* .19* .03* .14 .32* —
Class level variables
8 Class mean 0.01 0.64 .59* .63* .49* .06* .04* .20 .17* —
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

9 Class heterogeneity 0.70 0.15 .17* .21* .13* .02* .08 .08* .05* .32* —
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

10 Female proportion
11 Class size
12 Use of differentiated instruction
13 Academic orientation
* p , .05.
0.51 0.2 .06* .11* .15* .39* .06* .05* .05* .16* .05* —
19.34 3.75 .31* .33* .25* .04* .08 .14* .11* .48* .08* .10* —
2.51 0.49 .18* .26* .17* .03* .02 .14 .14* .38* .41* .06* .23* —
3.76 0.65 .37* .34* .28* .05* .02* .11 .09* .49* .03* .13 .32* .16*

meaning that at the end of Grade 8, girls outperformed boys who
were at a similar level of achievement in Grade 7. Having a lower
educated mother and receiving a school allowance negatively pre-
dicted individual achievement. At the class level, the mean level
of the class was significantly positively associated2 with subse-
quent individual achievement at the end of the school year, sup-
porting H1. When standardized according to guidelines by Marsh
et al. (2009), the effect size equaled .335, while Cohen’s f2 (Lorah,
2018) equaled .417, which is to be interpreted as a large effect. By
contrast, class heterogeneity was not significantly associated with
achievement at the end of Grade 8 (RQ1).
Research Objective 2
Next, two interaction effects between individual achievement
and class composition characteristics were added. This addition
showed that class mean level both had a positive mean effect (b =
.839, SE = .348, b/SE = 2.409, p = .016) and a significantly posi-
tive interaction effect with individual level (b = .074, SE = .019, b/
SE = 3.896, p , .001), indicating that high achievers benefited the
most from being in a class with a high mean level, supporting H2.
To illustrate this interaction effect, Figure 1 plots the effect of
being in a high mean level class for three hypothetical students
with different levels of individual ability (i.e., one student achiev-
ing two standard deviations below the grand mean, one student
achieving at the grand mean, and one student achieving two stand-
ard deviations above the grand mean). Hence, Figure 1 shows how
being in a class with a high mean level is beneficial to all students,
but somewhat more for high achieving students.
Class heterogeneity did not have a main effect on individual
achievement (b = .025, SE = .030, b/SE= .831, p = .406). However,
a positive interaction between class heterogeneity and individual
achievement just reached significance (b = .114, SE = .057, b/SE =
2.010, p = .044), suggesting that for high but not for low achievers
being in a heterogeneous class could be slightly beneficial. Hence,
H3, which hypothesized a negative interaction effect, could not be
supported.
Research Objective 3
Finally, Table 3 presents the results of a multilevel structural
and saturated model with paths between class composition and
achievement through use of differentiated instruction and the aca-
demic orientation of the class (information on the measurement
part of this model can be found in the Appendix). Direct effects of
individual and class-level predictors were in line with previous
results. Regarding the paths through the learning environment
mediators, class mean level was positively associated with the aca-
demic orientation of the class, supporting H4. However, the rela-
tionship between academic orientation of the class and individual
achievement did not reach significance, failing to provide statisti-
cal support for H5. The completely standardized indirect effect of
the path from class mean to achievement through academic orien-
tation equaled .049, with a Sobel test indicating nonsignificance
(z = 1.383, p = .167). Class heterogeneity was positively related
to the use of differentiated instruction, supporting H6. In turn,
differentiated instruction led to higher achievement at the end of
the year, net of preexisting differences, supporting H7. Cohen’s
f2 for the association between differentiated instruction and
achievement equaled .037, which is to be interpreted as a small
to medium effect (Lorah, 2018). The completely standardized
indirect effect of the path from class heterogeneity to achieve-
ment through differentiated instruction was .054, which was sig-
nificant at the 5% level (z = 2.222, p = .027). Beyond these two
expected paths, the saturated model also yielded smaller but sig-
nificant associations between class heterogeneity and academic
2
We also added a quadratic effect for class mean; however, this
quadratic term was non-significant (b = –0.166, SE = 0.088, b/SE = –1.887,
p = .059).
 CLASS COMPOSITION AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 505

Table 2
Structural Multilevel Model Predicting Individual Math Achievement in Terms of Individual and Class Composition Characteristics
Predictor b SE b/SE p
Individual level
Previous achievement 0.730*** 0.027 27.039 .000
Intelligence 0.061* 0.029 2.069 .019
Female 0.077*** 0.016 4.755 .000
Disadvantaged neighborhood 0.014 0.017 0.800 .212
Low educated mother 0.034* 0.017 2.004 .023
School allowance 0.034* 0.015 2.214 .012
Class level
Class mean 0.335*** 0.075 4.456 .000
Class heterogeneity 0.072 0.043 1.687 .092
Female proportion 0.008 0.049 0.168 .866
Class size 0.035 0.059 0.589 .556
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Model fit
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

v2 2,997.069
df 24
CFI 0.923
RMSEA 0.077
SRMR
Within 0.090
Between 0.172
Variance components
Individual level 0.388
Class level 0.250
Variance explained
Individual level 0.612
Class level 0.750
Sample size
Number of students 2,736
Number of classes 156
Note. Standardized estimates. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean
squared residual.
* p , .05. *** p , .001.

orientation (positively) and between class mean level and differ-
entiated instruction (negatively).
Finally, an interaction term between class heterogeneity and differ-
entiated instruction was added. While the interaction analysis model
confirmed the positive main effect of differentiated instruction on
individual achievement, the interaction term with class heterogeneity
did not reach significance (b = –.010, SE = .032, b/SE = –.297, p =
.380). Hence, differentiated instruction seemed to benefit students in
all classes, irrespective of the extent of between-student differences.
Discussion
Although heterogeneous classes have been argued to depress
student achievement because in such classes schoolwork difficulty
would be less aligned with student capacities (Kulik & Kulik,
1982), research on between-class grouping, that is, the sorting of
students in distinct classes according to ability, has yielded incon-
clusive results (Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2016). In this study, we
tested whether the class mean achievement level and class hetero-
geneity, operationalized as the between-student variability in pre-
vious math achievement, were associated with subsequent math
achievement at the end of Grade 8, using data on 2,895 students
from 158 classes. In addition, we examined whether these associa-
tions were different between low and high achieving students.
Finally, we investigated whether such associations could be
explained through two features of the class learning environment,
in particular, through the use of differentiated instruction and the
academic orientation of the class.
The first class composition characteristic that depends on
grouping arrangements is the class mean level. In line with ear-
lier research (Reynolds et al., 2014), this study found students to
greatly benefit from having high-achievement peers, after
accounting for various predictors at the individual (previous
achievement, intelligence, gender, social background) and class
level (gender and social composition). While this appeared to be
an asset for all students, in particular high achieving students
benefited from being in a high achieving class. This might be
due to the fact that in classes with a high mean level, instruction
can be cognitively demanding, which would primarily suit the
needs of high ability students (Preckel et al., 2010). Our finding
is also in line with earlier indications on the potential of gifted
classes and gifted programs to cater for the needs of high ability
students (Bailey et al., 2012; Rogers, 2007). In particular,
research on gifted education has emphasized that high ability
students risk to be underchallenged at school (Acee et al., 2010),
due to limited fit between the needs of these students and the
learning environment in regular classes (Gallagher et al., 1997;
Kanevsky & Keighley, 2003). This may lead to disengagement
and underachievement among gifted students (Obergriesser &
Stoeger, 2015; Reis & McCoach, 2000; Snyder & Linnenbrink-
 506 LAVRIJSEN, DOCKX, STRUYF, AND VERSCHUEREN

Figure 1
Graphic Representation of Interaction Effect Between Individual Achievement and Class Mean
Level
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. Predicted achievement as a function of class mean level for three students’ profiles with different levels
of initial achievement (2 standard deviations below group mean, at the group mean, and 2 standard deviations
above group mean). See the online article for the color version of this figure.

Garcia, 2013). Hence, implementing gifted classes has been sug-
gested as a solution to provide high ability students with
adequately challenging material (Preckel et al., 2010). Gifted
classes have indeed been shown to promote interest in school
among gifted students (Vogl & Preckel, 2014; Zeidner &
Schleyer, 1999), leading students in such classes to perform bet-
ter than their counterparts in regular classes (Preckel et al.,
2019).
This study then considered whether the positive association
between class-average achievement and individual achievement
could be explained through the academic orientation of the
class, that is, the importance students attach to studying. Differ-
entiation-polarization theory suggests that classes with a high
concentration of high achievers might have a stronger emphasis
on academic effort and performance, while the reverse would
be true in classes with low mean achievement (Hargreaves,
1967). Indeed, we observed that the academic orientation of a
class was related to its mean achievement level. However, the
academic orientation of the class was not significantly associ-
ated with individual achievement. It should be noted that while
class compositional characteristics and achievement were oper-
ationalized as subject-specific (i.e., measured with a math test),
academic orientation was measured with reference to school-
work in general. In general, motivational characteristics are
known to have smaller effects on subject-specific outcomes
when they are measured in a general instead of a subject-spe-
cific way (e.g., Steinmayr et al., 2019). More substantively, the
fact that academic orientation did not significantly mediate the
relationship between class-average achievement and subse-
quent individual achievement could also suggest that other fea-
tures of the learning environment would be more powerful
explanations of this relationship. For example, it has been
argued that teachers in high achieving classes hold higher
expectations about their students and that this could promote
learning in such classes (and decrease learning in low achieving
classes; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Kelly & Carbonaro, 2012;
McGillicuddy & Devine, 2018).
The second class compositional characteristic that is affected by
grouping is class heterogeneity. However, we did not find a main
effect of class heterogeneity on subsequent math achievement.
This finding corroborates and extends earlier research that did not
find such an association neither (Hanushek et al., 2003; Leiter,
1983; Sanders et al., 1997), although other studies have yielded di-
vergent results (either positive or negative; Cheung & Rudowicz,
2003; Chiu et al., 2017; Duru-Bellat & Mingat, 1998; Fertig,
2003; Luyten & der Hoeven-van Doornum, 1995; Raitano &
Vona, 2013; Vigdor & Nechyba, 2007). In addition, we found that
the more students within a class differed in terms of previous
achievement, the more their teachers were found to adapt their
instruction to student needs. In particular, math teachers in hetero-
geneous classrooms were reported by their students to make more
use of differentiated instruction, that is, identifying the needs of
students and modifying instructional strategies and methods in ac-
cordance with these needs (Tomlinson, 2014). This more intensive
use of differentiated instruction was found to positively relate to
subsequent student performance.
These findings might corroborate earlier arguments that rather
than reducing class heterogeneity through ability grouping, it
might be how teachers respond to differences between students
that is decisive for student achievement—in this sense, indeed,
“grouping does not produce achievement: instruction does” (Gam-
oran, 1987, p. 341). Students are known to learn most when they
 CLASS COMPOSITION AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 507

Table 3
Model Predicting Individual Math Achievement in Terms of Individual Characteristics and Class Composition, Through Features of the
Class Learning Environment
Predictor b SE b/SE p
Individual level
Previous achievement 0.602*** 0.019 31.109 .000
Intelligence 0.140*** 0.021 6.558 .000
Female 0.078*** 0.015 5.161 .000
Disadvantaged neighborhood 0.015 0.016 0.917 .180
Low educated mother 0.033* 0.016 1.993 .023
School allowance 0.032* 0.015 2.166 .015
Class level
Class mean 0.350*** 0.089 3.921 .000
Class heterogeneity 0.032 0.067 0.486 .627
Female proportion 0.015 0.050 0.302 .763
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Class size 0.041 0.056 0.735 .462

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Paths to learning environment

Class mean . Academic orientation 0.561*** 0.091 6.140 .000
Class heterogeneity . Academic orientation 0.239** 0.082 2.930 .003
Class mean . Differentiated instruction 0.253** 0.088 2.883 .004
Class heterogeneity . Differentiated instruction 0.347*** 0.093 3.744 .000
Paths from learning environment to achievement
Academic orientation 0.088 0.062 1.404 .160
Differentiated instruction 0.149** 0.054 2.749 .006
Model fit
v2 5,003.010
df 136
CFI 0.979
RMSEA 0.019
SRMR
Within 0.033
Between 0.086
Variance components
Individual level 0.498
Class level 0.205
Variance explained
Individual level 0.502
Class level 0.795
Sample size
Number of students 2,736
Number of classes 156
Note. Standardized estimates. CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean
squared residual.
* p , .05. ** p , .01. *** p , .001.

are provided with learning material that suits the level of their
capacities, for example, challenges that they can meet with their
teachers’ support, but not without (Lavrijsen et al., 2021). How-
ever, to provide appropriately challenging schoolwork, teachers’
instructional behavior seems to matter more than class heterogene-
ity (Fraser et al., 1987; Scheerens, 2000). The finding that, con-
trary to expectations, class heterogeneity was slightly more
beneficial for high than for low achieving students, could also be
interpreted in this regard: Possibly, in heterogeneous classes,
teachers’ preparedness to use differentiated instruction could bene-
fit high achieving students who are often reported to experience
limited fit between capacities and schoolwork demands (e.g.,
Snyder & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013). Of note, however, any asso-
ciations of achievement with class heterogeneity were markedly
smaller than the associations with class mean level. In particular,
while class heterogeneity was positively associated with differenti-
ated instruction, which in turn was positively associated with indi-
vidual achievement, the total effect of class heterogeneity on
individual achievement did not reach significance (i.e., because of
a nonsignificant but negative direct effect; see Table 2). Hence,
the association between class heterogeneity and the use of differ-
entiated instruction did not, overall, produce a distinguishable pos-
itive effect on individual achievement.
Still, overall, such findings may also help to understand why
earlier research on ability grouping found that the effects of abil-
ity grouping were highly dependent on the particular form of
ability grouping: For example, the second order meta-analysis by
Steenbergen-Hu et al. (2016) did not find any clear advantage of
between-class grouping (that is, placing student in different
classes according to ability), while within-class grouping (that is,
creating small, temporary, and flexible ability groups within a
single class) did have a significant positive effect on student
achievement. Indeed, within-class grouping is usually employed
as an organizational format to support differentiated instruction
(Prast et al., 2018); in such a case, forming more homogeneous
student groups may increase, not reduce, teachers’ sensitivity to
 508 LAVRIJSEN, DOCKX, STRUYF, AND VERSCHUEREN
between-student variability (Deunk et al., 2018). Given this em-
phasis on the learning environment, the present study may also
help to understand the inconsistency in earlier studies on
between-class grouping (e.g., Kulik & Kulik, 1982; Slavin,
1990). Indeed, studies comparing achievement in grouped and
ungrouped classes, without taking into account how teachers
responded to between-student differences (e.g., Duflo et al.,
2011), may be difficult to generalize.
Finally, it should be noted that class mean and class heteroge-
neity were inversely correlated (r = –.32). This could be
explained as follows: High average achievement classes are of-
ten only accessible to high achievers, and thus are fairly homo-
geneous, while there might be a diversity of reasons why
students end up in low ability classes. For example, disengaged
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
students have been found to sometimes opt for classes below
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
their actual level of achievement (Van Praag et al., 2013); in
addition, students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds
have been found to be channeled toward low ability classes
(Boone et al., 2018; Dustmann, 2004). In addition to this corre-
lation between class mean and class heterogeneity, our saturated
models showed that both characteristics were significantly asso-
ciated with both features of the learning environment (i.e., class
mean level predicting the use of differentiated instruction, and
class heterogeneity predicting the academic orientation of the
class). This entanglement of class mean level and class hetero-
geneity emphasizes the importance of taking both characteristics
into account when considering the effects of grouping on stu-
dent achievement.
Strengths, Limits, and Directions for Future Research
The present study added to the literature on class composi-
tion in two ways. First, instead of comparing associations
between achievement and formal grouping arrangements, it
directly measured the relevant classroom characteristics, that
is, class heterogeneity and class mean achievement. Second, it
considered differential effects of class composition on low and
high achievers. Third, beyond merely establishing associations
between compositional characteristics and achievement, it
attempted to explain these associations by considering changes
in the learning environment associated with class composition.
In this way, this study complements the broader move in edu-
cational effectiveness research from “input-output” to “input-
process-output” models (Reynolds et al., 2014). This study
stood out by making use of a large-scale, longitudinal database
consisting of 2,895 students from 158 classes, allowing us to
reliably estimate the associations between a number of individ-
ual-level and class-level variables and individual achievement.
Moreover, the study carefully took into account other individ-
ual and class-level characteristics related to achievement, such
as previous achievement, gender, intelligence, and social back-
ground. Despite this effort, of course, we cannot exclude the
possibility that other important covariates were not yet con-
trolled for; as with any observational study on school or class
composition effects, the results of the present study should
thus be interpreted with caution.
Moreover, results from the present study have to be interpreted
in the specific educational context in which students were fol-
lowed. In Flemish Grade 8 classes, the degree of heterogeneity
might have already been somewhat constrained (e.g., in compari-
son with fully comprehensive educational systems; Dupriez et
al., 2008), as Flemish schools often group students according to
student choices not independent of ability (Lavrijsen et al.,
2014). It might be that with higher levels of heterogeneity, dif-
ferentiated instruction ceases to be a feasible solution to manage
differences between students (Chiu et al., 2017). More impor-
tantly, through their study choices, students may have had some
influence over their sorting into classes. This may have invoked
a selection bias in the analysis, as study choices might not only
covary with achievement but also with other student factors not
included in this study (e.g., engagement, interest, parental
involvement, and so on). Hence, even when we carefully con-
trolled for other important covariates (previous achievement,
cognitive ability, gender, and SES), the specific context of Flem-
ish secondary education may have affected our results (in partic-
ular, the strong association between class mean level and
individual achievement).
In addition, this study considered only achievement in mathe-
matics as the marker of student academic development. Future
research could investigate how class composition affects other
cognitive (e.g., achievement in language domains) and noncogni-
tive (e.g., motivation) outcomes of education.
Finally, the present study focused only on a limited number
of classroom processes associated with class composition. There
might be additional mechanisms associated with class composi-
tion, such as teacher expectations (Kelly & Carbonaro, 2012),
that were not considered in this study. In addition, to further
enlighten the different mechanisms connecting class composi-
tion to individual achievement, it would also be worthwhile to
directly assess the level of educational fit between student
capacities and schoolwork requirements.3 A more detailed
account of the classroom environment could help to understand
how this environment affects achievement. In particular, more
“rich and thick” descriptions (Reynolds et al., 2014) of the
classroom environment could be derived from more qualitative
approaches, beyond student reports, for example by assessing
the diverse and subtle ways in which teachers respond to differ-
ences between students (Coubergs et al., 2017; Pablico et al.,
2017).
Conclusion
In a sample of 2,895 Grade 8 students from 158 classes, math
achievement was found to be positively associated with class
mean level, after accounting for previous achievement, intelli-
gence, gender, and social background. While this was the case
for all students, in particular high achieving students benefited
from being in a class with high average achievement. Class het-
erogeneity turned out to be unrelated to individual achievement.
Path analyses showed that teachers in classes with large
between-student variability appeared to be more sensitive to dif-
ferences between students, and more differentiated instruction
was positively associated with subsequent achievement. Hence,
3
While the present study included a researcher-developed measure of
perceived educational fit, this measure was not included as a learning
environment feature in the current analysis due to concerns over its
multilevel and factorial structure.
 CLASS COMPOSITION AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
teachers’ responses to student diversity seemed to matter more
for student achievement than whether students are physically
sorted in distinct classes according to ability.
References
Abraham, J. (1989). Testing Hargreaves’ and Lacey’s differentiation-
polarisation theory in a setted comprehensive. The British Journal of
Sociology, 40(1), 46–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/590290
Acee, T. W., Kim, H., Kim, H. J., Kim, J.-I., Chu, H.-N. R., Kim, M., &
Wicker, F. W. (2010). Academic boredom in under- and over-challeng-
ing situations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 17–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.08.002
Agirdag, O., Van Houtte, M., & Van Avermaet, P. (2012). Why does the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ethnic and socio-economic composition of schools influence math
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
achievement? The role of sense of futility and futility culture. European
Sociological Review, 28(3), 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcq070
Bailey, R., Pearce, G., Smith, C., Sutherland, M., Stack, N., Winstanley,
C., & Dickenson, M. (2012). Improving the educational achievement of
gifted and talented students: A systematic review. Talent Development
& Excellence, 4(1), 33–48.
Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2006). An extended paradigm
for measurement analysis of marketing constructs applicable to panel
data. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 431–442. https://doi.org/10
.1509/jmkr.43.3.431
Berends, M. (1995). Educational stratification and students’ social bonding
to school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 16(3), 327–351.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569950160304
Betts, J. R., & Shkolnik, J. L. (2000). The effects of ability grouping on
student achievement and resource allocation in secondary schools. Eco-
nomics of Education Review, 19(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272
-7757(98)00044-2
Boone, S., Seghers, M., & Van Houtte, M. (2018). Transition from primary
to secondary education in a rigidly tracked system: The case of Flanders.
In A. Tarabini & N. Ingram (Eds.), Educational choices, transitions and
aspirations in Europe: Systemic, institutional and subjective challenges
(pp. 53–70). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315102368-4
Bos, W., Lankes, E.-M., Prenzel, M., Schwippert, K., Valtin, R., Voss, A.,
& Walther, G. (2005). IGLU - Skalenhandbuch zur Dokumentation der
Erhebungsinstrumente [Scale manual for the documentation of the sur-
vey instruments]. Waxmann.
Charles, E. P. (2005). The correction for attenuation due to measurement
error: Clarifying concepts and creating confidence sets. Psychological
Methods, 10(2), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.2.206
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit
indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Model-
ing, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Cheung, C.-K., & Rudowicz, E. (2003). Academic outcomes of ability
grouping among junior high school students in Hong Kong. The Journal
of Educational Research, 96(4), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220670309598813
Chiu, M. M., Chow, B. W.-Y., & Joh, S. W. (2017). Streaming, tracking
and reading achievement: A multilevel analysis of students in 40 coun-
tries. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 915–934. https://doi
.org/10.1037/edu0000188
Coubergs, C., Struyven, K., Vanthournout, G., & Engels, N. (2017). Meas-
uring teachers’ perceptions about differentiated instruction: The DI-
Quest instrument and model. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53,
41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.02.004
Deunk, M. I., Smale-Jacobse, A. E., de Boer, H., Doolaard, S., & Bosker,
R. J. (2018). Effective differentiation practices: A systematic review and
meta-analysis of studies on the cognitive effects of differentiation prac-
tices in primary education. Educational Research Review, 24, 31–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.02.002
509
Dicke, T., Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., Pekrun, R., Guo, J., & Televantou,
I. (2018). Effects of school-average achievement on individual self-con-
cept and achievement: Unmasking phantom effects masquerading as
true compositional effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(8),
1112–1126. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000259
Dockx, J., Stevens, E., Custers, C., Fidlers, I., & De Fraine, B. (2015).
LiSO-project - Vragenlijst voor vakleerkrachten februari 2014 - Techni-
sche rapportering [LiSO project: Questionnaire for subject teachers
February 2014 - Technical reporting]. KU Leuven.
Dockx, J., Van den Branden, N., Stevens, E., Denies, K., & De Fraine, B.
(2017). LiSO-project: Toetsen wiskunde 2013–2016. IRT-analyses [LiSO-
project: Mathematics tests 2013–2016. IRT-analyses]. KU Leuven.
Duflo, E., Dupas, P., & Kremer, M. (2011). Peer effects, teacher incen-
tives, and the impact of tracking: Evidence from a randomized evalua-
tion in Kenya. The American Economic Review, 101(5), 1739–1774.
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.5.1739
Dupriez, V., Dumay, X., & Vause, A. (2008). How do school systems
manage pupils’ heterogeneity? Comparative Education Review, 52(2),
245–273. https://doi.org/10.1086/528764
Duru-Bellat, M., & Mingat, A. (1998). Importance of ability grouping in
French “colleges” and its impact upon pupils’ academic achievement.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 4(4), 348–368. https://doi.org/10
.1076/edre.4.4.348.6951
Dustmann, C. (2004). Parental background, secondary school track choice,
and wages. Oxford Economic Papers, 56(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/10
.1093/oep/gpf048
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in
cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psycho-
logical Methods, 12(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12
.2.121
Fertig, M. (2003). Educational production, endogenous peer group forma-
tion and class composition—Evidence from the PISA 2000 Study (IZA
Discussion Paper No. 714). Institute for the Study of Labor.
Fraser, B. J., Walberg, H. J., Welch, W. W., & Hattie, J. A. (1987). Syntheses
of educational productivity research. International Journal of Educational
Research, 11(2), 147–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(87)90035-8
Fruehwirth, J. C. (2013). Identifying peer achievement spillovers: Implica-
tions for desegregation and the achievement gap. Quantitative Econom-
ics, 4(1), 85–124. https://doi.org/10.3982/QE93
Gallagher, J., Harradine, C. C., & Coleman, M. R. (1997). Challenge or
boredom? Gifted students’ views on their schooling. Roeper Review,
19(3), 132–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199709553808
Gamoran, A. (1987). Organization, instruction, and the effects of ability group-
ing: Comment on Slavin’s “Best-evidence synthesis.” Review of Educational
Research, 57(3), 341–345. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057003341
Geldhof, G. J., Preacher, K. J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability estima-
tion in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychologi-
cal Methods, 19(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032138
Graham, L. J., De Bruin, K., Lassig, C., & Spandagou, I. (2021). A scoping
review of 20 years of research on differentiation: Investigating concep-
tualisation, characteristics, and methods used. Review of Education,
9(1), 161–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3238
Greenland, S. (2000). Principles of multilevel modelling. International
Journal of Epidemiology, 29(1), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/29
.1.158
Hailikari, T., Nevgi, A., & Komulainen, E. (2008). Academic self-beliefs
and prior knowledge as predictors of student achievement in mathemat-
ics: A structural model. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 59–71. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01443410701413753
Hallinan, M. T., & Kubitschek, W. N. (1999). Curriculum differentiation
and high school achievement. Social Psychology of Education, 3,
41–62. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009603706414
 510 LAVRIJSEN, DOCKX, STRUYF, AND VERSCHUEREN
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Markman, J. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2003).
Does peer ability affect student achievement? Journal of Applied Econo-
metrics, 18(5), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.741
Hanushek, E. A., & Wößmann, L. W. (2006). Does educational tracking
affect performance and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence
across countries. The Economic Journal, 116(510), 63–76. https://doi
.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01076.x
Hargreaves, D. (1967). Social relations in a secondary school. Routledge.
Harker, R., & Tymms, P. (2004). The effects of student composition on
school outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(2),
177–199. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.15.2.177.30432
Hattie, J. A. (2002). Classroom composition and peer effects. International
Journal of Educational Research, 37(5), 449–481. https://doi.org/10
.1016/S0883-0355(03)00015-6
Hayduk, L. A., & Littvay, L. (2012). Should researchers use single indica-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tors, best indicators, or multiple indicators in structural equation mod-
els? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1), Article 159. https://
doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-159
Henderson, N. D. (1989). A meta-analysis of ability grouping achievement
and attitude in the elementary grades. Mississippi State University.
Hoffer, T. B. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and student achieve-
ment in science and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 14(3), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737014003205
Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of
fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 57(5), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023816
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari-
ance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118
Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfill-
ing prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved contro-
versies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(2), 131–155.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3
Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce?
Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper
Review, 26(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554235
Kelly, S., & Carbonaro, W. (2012). Curriculum tracking and teacher
expectations: Evidence from discrepant course taking models. Social
Psychology of Education, 15(3), 271–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11218-012-9182-6
Kindermann, T. A. (2007). Effects of naturally existing peer groups on
changes in academic engagement in a cohort of sixth graders. Child De-
velopment, 78(4), 1186–1203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007
.01060.x
Kriegbaum, K., Becker, N., & Spinath, B. (2018). The relative importance
of intelligence and motivation as predictors of school achievement: A
meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 25, 120–148. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.10.001
Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Effects of ability grouping on sec-
ondary school students: A meta-analysis of evaluation findings. Ameri-
can Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 415–428. https://doi.org/10
.3102/00028312019003415
Lavrijsen, J., & Nicaise, I. (2016). Educational tracking, inequality and
performance: New evidence from a differences-in-differences technique.
Research in Comparative and International Education, 11(3), 334–349.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499916664818
Lavrijsen, J., Nicaise, I., & Poesen-Vandeputte, M. (2014). The Flemish
education system in comparative perspective: A re-assessment of educa-
tional regime typologies. KU Leuven.
Lavrijsen, J., Preckel, F., Verachtert, P., Vansteenkiste, M., &
Verschueren, K. (2021). Are motivational benefits of adequately chal-
lenging schoolwork related to students’ need for cognition, cognitive
ability, or both? Personality and Individual Differences, 171, Article
110558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110558
Leiter, J. (1983). Classroom composition and achievement gains. Sociol-
ogy of Education, 56(3), 126–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112381
Lorah, J. (2018). Effect size measures for multilevel models: Definition,
interpretation, and TIMSS example. Large-Scale Assessments in Educa-
tion, 6(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0061-2
Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., &
d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review
of Educational Research, 66(4), 423–458. https://doi.org/10.3102/
00346543066004423
Lüdtke, O., Marsh, H. W., Robitzsch, A., & Trautwein, U. (2011). A 2 3 2
taxonomy of multilevel latent contextual models: Accuracy-bias trade-
offs in full and partial error correction models. Psychological Methods,
16(4), 444–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024376
Luyten, H., & der Hoeven-van Doornum, V. (1995). Classroom composi-
tion and individual achievement: Effects of classroom composition and
teacher goals in Dutch elementary education. Tijdschrift Voor Onder-
wijsresearch, 20(1), 42–62.
Magez, W. (2015). Biografische testvaliditeit CoVaT-CHC [Biographic
test validity CoVaT-CHC]. Thomas More.
Magez, W., & Bos, A. (2015). Validiteit wederzijdse relatie schoolse crite-
ria—testresultaten [Validity relationship educational criteria—Test
results]. Thomas More.
Magez, W., Tierens, M., Van Huynegem, J., Van Parijs, K., Decaluwé, V.,
& Bos, A. (2015). CoVaT-CHC: Cognitieve vaardigheidstest volgens
het CHC-model [CoVaT-CHC: Intelligence test based on the CHC-
model]. Thomas More.
Malmberg, L.-E., & Trempała, J. (1997). Anticipated transition to adult-
hood: The effect of educational track, gender, and self-evaluation on
Finnish and Polish adolescents’ future orientation. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 26(5), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024577805149
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T.,
Muthén, B., & Nagengast, B. (2009). Doubly-latent models of school con-
textual effects: Integrating multilevel and structural equation approaches to
control measurement and sampling error. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 44(6), 764–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170903333665
McGillicuddy, D., & Devine, D. (2018). “Turned off” or “ready to fly”—
Ability grouping as an act of symbolic violence in primary school.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.tate.2017.11.008
Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (2015). Mplus statistical analysis with latent
variables user’s guide.
Nye, B., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2000). The effects of small
classes on academic achievement: The results of the Tennessee class
size experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1),
123–151. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001123
Obergriesser, S., & Stoeger, H. (2015). The role of emotions, motivation,
and learning behavior in underachievement and results of an interven-
tion. High Ability Studies, 26(1), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13598139.2015.1043003
Opdenakker, M.-C., & Van Damme, J. (2001). Relationship between
school composition and characteristics of school process and their effect
on mathematics achievement. British Educational Research Journal,
27(4), 407–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120071434
Opdenakker, M.-C., & Van Damme, J. (2006). Differences between second-
ary schools: A study about school context, group composition, school
practice, and school effects with special attention to public and Catholic
schools and types of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improve-
ment, 17(1), 87–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450500264457
Opdenakker, M.-C., Van Damme, J., De Fraine, D. F., Van Landeghem,
G., & Onghena, P. (2002). The effect of schools and classes on mathe-
matics achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
13(4), 399–427. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.13.4.399.10283
 CLASS COMPOSITION AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Pablico, J. R., Diack, M., & Lawson, A. (2017). Differentiated instruction
in the high school science classroom: Qualitative and quantitative analy-
sis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research, 16(7), 30–54.
Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., & Trautwein, U. (2013). Differential
school contextual effects for math and English: Integrating the big-fish-little-
pond effect and the internal/external frame of reference. Learning and
Instruction, 23, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.001
Pinxten, M., Wouters, S., Preckel, F., Niepel, C., De Fraine, B., &
Verschueren, K. (2015). The formation of academic self-concept in ele-
mentary education: A unifying model for external and internal compari-
sons. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 124–132. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.12.003
Pozas, M., Letzel, V., & Schneider, C. (2020). Teachers and differentiated
instruction: Exploring differentiation practices to address student diver-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
sity. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
217–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12481
Prast, E. J., Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E.
(2018). Differentiated instruction in primary mathematics: Effects of teacher
professional development on student achievement. Learning and Instruction,
54, 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.009
Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation
models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psy-
chological Methods, 16(2), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022658
Preckel, F., Götz, T., & Frenzel, A. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted stu-
dents: Effects on academic self-concept and boredom. The British Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 80(Pt. 3), 451–472. https://doi.org/10
.1348/000709909X480716
Preckel, F., Schmidt, I., Stumpf, E., Motschenbacher, M., Vogl, K.,
Scherrer, V., & Schneider, W. (2019). High-ability grouping: Benefits
for gifted students’ achievement development without costs in academic
self-concept. Child Development, 90(4), 1185–1201. https://doi.org/10
.1111/cdev.12996
Raitano, M., & Vona, F. (2013). Peer heterogeneity, school tracking and
students’ performances: Evidence from PISA 2006. Applied Economics,
45(32), 4516–4532. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2013.791020
Rees, D. I., Brewer, D. J., & Argys, L. M. (2000). How should we measure
the effect of ability grouping on student performance? Economics of Educa-
tion Review, 19(1), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(98)00050-8
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted
students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quar-
terly, 44(3), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400302
Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., Townsend, T.,
Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (2014). Educational effectiveness research
(EER): A state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improve-
ment, 25(2), 197–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885450
Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and tal-
ented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 51(4), 382–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306324
Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Horn, S. P. (1997). Teacher and classroom
context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evalua-
tion. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 57–67.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007999204543
Scheerens, J. (2000). Improving school effectiveness. UNESCO.
Schofield, J. W. (2010). International evidence on ability grouping with
curriculum differentiation and the achievement gap in secondary
schools. Teachers College Record, 112(5), 1492–1528.
Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in
the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling
meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307310317
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2014).
Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow
511
theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158–176. https://doi.org/10
.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A
meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research,
75(3), 417–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elemen-
tary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational
Research, 57(3), 293–336. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057003293
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary
schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
60(3), 471–499. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060003471
Smale-Jacobse, A. E., Meijer, A., Helms-Lorenz, M., & Maulana, R.
(2019). Differentiated instruction in secondary education: A systematic
review of research evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2366.
Snyder, K. E., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). A developmental, person-
centered approach to exploring multiple motivational pathways in gifted
underachievement. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 209–228. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.835597
Stäbler, F., Dumont, H., Becker, M., & Baumert, J. (2017). What happens
to the fish’s achievement in a little pond? A simultaneous analysis of
class-average achievement effects on achievement and academic self-
concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 191–207. https://
doi.org/10.1037/edu0000135
Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What
one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping
and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of
two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research,
86(4), 849–899. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417
Steinmayr, R., Weidinger, A. F., Schwinger, M., & Spinath, B. (2019). The
importance of students’ motivation for their academic achievement—
Replicating and extending previous findings. Frontiers in Psychology, 10,
Article 1730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01730
Tierens, M. (2015). Onderzoeksrapport Constructvaliditeit [Research
report: Construct validity]. Thomas More.
Tierens, M., & Magez, W. (2016). Onderzoeksrapport Normering
[Research report: Norming]. Thomas More.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the
needs of all learners. ASCD.
Van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Mijs, J. J. (2010). Achievement inequality and
the institutional structure of educational systems: A comparative per-
spective. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 407–428. https://doi.org/10
.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102538
Van Houtte, M. (2016). Lower-track students’ sense of academic futility:
Selection or effect? Journal of Sociology, 52(4), 874–889. https://doi
.org/10.1177/1440783315600802
Van Houtte, M., & Stevens, P. A. (2008). Sense of futility: The missing
link between track position and self-reported school misconduct. Youth
& Society, 40(2), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X08316251
Van Houtte, M., & Stevens, P. A. (2010). The culture of futility and its
impact on study culture in technical/vocational schools in Belgium.
Oxford Review of Education, 36(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03054980903481564
Van Praag, L., Van Houtte, M., Boone, S., & Stevens, P. (2013, August).
The paradox of the cascade system: When homogeneous grouping leads
to more heterogeneity in the classroom. 11th Conference of the Euro-
pean Sociological Association, Turin, Italy.
Vigdor, J., & Nechyba, T. (2007). Peer effects in North Carolina public
schools. In L. Woessman & P. Peterson (Eds.), Schools and the equal
opportunity problem (pp. 73–101). MIT Press.
Vogl, K., & Preckel, F. (2014). Full-time ability grouping of gifted students:
Impacts on social self-concept and school-related attitudes. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 58(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513795
 512 LAVRIJSEN, DOCKX, STRUYF, AND VERSCHUEREN

Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achieve-
ment: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1174–1204. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0036620
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psy-
chological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/
j.ctvjf9vz4
Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response
theory. Psychometrika, 54(3), 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294627
Zeidner, M., & Schleyer, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the effects of full-time
vs part-time educational programs for the gifted: Affective outcomes
and policy considerations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(4),
413–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(99)00027-0

Appendix

Measurement Model (Item Level Estimates Relative to Table 3)

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Table A1
Predictor Estimate SE Est./SE p-value
Academic orientation BY
KTKLASG1_C 0.698 0.093 7.493 0.000
KTKLASG2_C 0.714 0.073 9.716 0.000
KTKLASG3_C 0.615 0.079 7.758 0.000
KTKLASG4_C 0.782 0.084 9.276 0.000
KTKLASG1_C WITH
KTKLASG4_C 0.136 0.051 2.681 0.007
Differentiated instruction BY
WLKDI1 0.386 0.033 11.689 0.000
WLKDI2 0.416 0.035 11.794 0.000
WLKDI3 0.178 0.019 9.430 0.000
WLKDI4 0.195 0.020 9.995 0.000
WLKDI5 0.262 0.022 12.171 0.000
WLKDI3 WITH
WLKDI4 0.049 0.010 4.768 0.000
Intercepts
KTKLASG1_C 0.036 0.084 0.434 0.664
KTKLASG2_C 0.062 0.083 0.745 0.456
KTKLASG3_C 0.030 0.088 0.345 0.730
KTKLASG4_C 0.039 0.086 0.452 0.651
WLKDI1 0.002 0.036 0.048 0.962
WLKDI2 0.006 0.038 0.155 0.877
WLKDI3 0.008 0.031 0.247 0.805
WLKDI4 0.002 0.029 0.075 0.940
WLKDI5 0.012 0.033 0.379 0.705
Residual variances
KTKLASG1_C 0.302 0.093 3.232 0.001
KTKLASG2_C 0.320 0.064 4.978 0.000
KTKLASG3_C 0.456 0.064 7.162 0.000
KTKLASG4_C 0.186 0.075 2.482 0.013
WLKDI1 0.000 0.000 999.000 999.000
WLKDI2 0.000 0.000 999.000 999.000
WLKDI3 0.066 0.014 4.804 0.000
WLKDI4 0.050 0.009 5.215 0.000
WLKDI5 0.042 0.011 3.792 0.000
Note. Standardized estimates. KTKLASG = class academic orientation; WLKDI = use of differentiated instruction.

Received June 29, 2020

Revision received June 29, 2021
Accepted July 31, 2021 n