有许多不同类型的分组计划，教师可以使用在他们的教室和学校。其中包括全班分组、跨年级分组、小班分组、一对一分组、同质分组和异质分组。现有的许多研究都是针对这些不同类型的分组配置进行的。当涉及到数学课程时，许多老师利用整个小组，小团体和伙伴小组。整个小组课程的效果很好，在深入讲解主要内容之前，可以将一般信息传达给全班同学。Brooks和Thurston(2010)对不同分组配置下的ELL学生的engagement水平进行了研究。他们发现，ELL的学生很少有机会参与学术性语言的产生。他们还发现，这些学生在听老师讲课，但没有参与到讨论和练习新技能的学术对话中(Brooks & Thurston, 2010)。整个小组教学并不总是能激发所有学生的充分参与，但它是课堂中最常用的小组教学形式之一。许多老师把小组教学作为个性化教学的一种方式来帮助每个孩子取得成功。两种主要的小组结构包括异质分组和同质分组或能力分组，通常在课堂上使用。布鲁克斯和瑟斯顿发现，孩子们在小组中比在整个小组中更积极地参与学术语言的产生。Chorzempa和Graham(2006)发现，每四个参与他们研究的教师中就有一个使用能力分组。虽然这比过去其他研究发现的要少得多，但仍然是大量的教室。许多教师采用能力分组的主要原因是为了使学生能够以相同的速度移动以达到一个共同的目标(Lou, Abrami， & Spence, 2000)。Kulik和Kulik(1992)收集了数据，发现在高水平能力组的学生往往受益最多。低分组的孩子们的自尊心没有受到任何伤害，他们实际上在这个分组计划中获得了一些学术地位。Kulik and Kulik(1992)总体上发现能力分组对儿童的影响大多是积极的，而消极的影响几乎为零。然而，Abedi et al.(2006)发现能力分组会对儿童产生负面影响。他们认为能力分组否定了孩子们学习的全部经验。由于许多老师把他们的能力等同于他们的英语熟练程度，所以厄尔孩子的这种能力会被放大。这是许多老师不采用能力分组的一个原因，尤其是在数学课程中。许多教师在阅读中使用能力分组来将孩子们的阅读水平调整到他们的水平，这样他们的同龄人就能读到相似的文章。
There are many different types of grouping programs that teachers can use within their classrooms and schools. Some of these include whole-class grouping, cross-grade grouping, small groups, one-on-one groups, homogeneous grouping and heterogeneous grouping. Much of the existing research has been conducted on these different types of grouping configurations. When it comes to math courses, many teachers utilize whole group, small group and partner groups. Whole group lessons work well to get general information out to the entire class before diving into the meat of the content. Brooks and Thurston (2010) conducted research on engagement levels among ELL students in different grouping configurations. They found that there was little chance that the ELL students would engage in academic language production. They also found that these students were listening to their teachers, but were not engaging in academic conversations to discuss and practice new skills (Brooks & Thurston, 2010). Whole group instruction does not always elicit full engagement from all students, but is one of the most prominently used group configurations in classrooms. Small groups are used by many teachers as a way to individualize instruction to help each child be successful. Two main small group configurations include heterogeneous grouping and homogeneous grouping, or ability grouping, are often used in classrooms. Brooks and Thurston found that children were more actively engaged in academic language production in small groups than they were in whole groups. Chorzempa and Graham (2006) found that one in every four teachers that participated in their study used ability grouping. While this is far less than other studies have found in the past, it is still a large number of classrooms. The main reason that many teachers use ability grouping is so that the students can move at the same pace to reach a common goal (Lou, Abrami, & Spence, 2000). Kulik and Kulik (1992) collected data and found that the students in the higher level ability groups often have the most benefits. The children in the lower group’s self-esteem is not harmed in any way, and they actually gain some academic ground in this grouping program. Overall Kulik and Kulik (1992) found that ability grouping had mostly positive effects on the children and the negative effects were almost zero. However, Abedi et al. (2006) found that ability grouping can have negative effects on children. They believe that ability grouping denies children the full experience of learning. This can be amplified for ELL children as they are often put into lower level classes because many teachers equate their abilities with their English proficiency (Abedi, Courtney, Leon, Kao, Azzam, 2006). This is one reason many teachers do not use ability grouping, especially in mathematics courses. Many teachers use ability grouping in reading to break children into their reading level so they have peers that are reading similar texts.