Is Small Better? The Effect of Class Size on Pupil Performance

and Teaching Quality

Maurice Galton

Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge UK

Presentation Seminar HKIEd 5 November 2003

Some Contrasting Views

Studies and research into the effects of class size have for the most part failed to demonstrate that pupils necessarily do better in small classes (OFSTED 1995)

The research suggests that for states, districts and even schools, class size is a very basic and significant variable in improving educational outcomes (Egelson et al 1995)

Some Early Evidence• Meta-analysis of 77 studies of class size and

achievement (Glass et al. 1982) Pupils in classes of 20 taught for 100 hours would exceed performance of pupils in classes of 40 by 60%.

• Effects are not linear (+ve for classes < 20; -ve for classes > 30) Optimum effect in classes of 15 and Grades 1 & 2.

• Larger effect sizes (>0.20) can be achieved through paired work, co-operative learning and individualized instruction for weakest pupils (Slavin 1989)

Teachers’ Views (Bennett 1996)

• More time for individual instruction

• Increase in pupil motivation

• Less pupil misbehavior

• Improved teacher-pupil personal relationships

• More time for marking and assessment

• Less stress

Tennessee Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) Project

• 7000 pupils randomly assigned to small (13-17), regular (22-25) and (regular + teaching assistant)

• Small classes did better from kindergarten to grade 3

• ethnic minority pupils did particularly well and had highest self-concept scores

• effects still present when pupils moved to regular classes from grade 4 to 6

(Nye et al. 2000)

Limitations of STAR• Reanalysis of data using multi-level modeling

reduces effect sizes, shows school vs. size and subject interactions

• No baseline measure so uncertainty about random assignment

• Too narrow a range of classes: in many countries class size is around 35

• Restricted range of school types (large, single age entry)

(Goldstein & Blatchford 1997)

IoE Class Size Study (Blatchford 2003)

• 9 Local Authorities,199 Schools, 330 classes and 7142 pupils

• Baseline Literacy (reception entry), standardized tests of literacy and maths (reception & Y1) and National Tests (Y2)

• Systematic Classroom Observation

• 79 classes (10-20), 163 (21-25), 294 (26-30), 133 (31+)

• Teacher Opinion survey

Class size vs. Attainment (Reception Year )Blatchford (2003)

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

12 18 24 30 36

class size

Gai

n sc

ore

MathsLiteracy

Class size vs. Attainment (Year 1)Blatchford (2003)

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

16 21 26 31 36

class size

Gai

n sc

ore

Literacy

Main Findings on Performance from Blatchford (2003)

• Effects are largest in reception class

• Effects are still present for literacy in Y1 but less pronounced by Y3

• In literacy both high, medium and low ability groups benefit in classes of 25. Below this only low ability pupils benefit

• In general, for mathematics effects are smaller

Social setting of Interactions [Number of observations] (Blatchford 2003)

0

25

50

75

100

125

Class Group Individual

SmallLarge

Teacher-Pupil Interactions [Number of observations] (Blatchford 2003)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

Task Preparation Procedure

SmallLarge

Pupil-Pupil Interactions [Number of observations] (Blatchford 2003)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Task Procedure Social Disruption

SmallLarge

Main Findings on Teaching from Blatchford (2003)

• More one to one teaching

• Teacher more actively involved in whole class or groups

• More task interactions

• Less task pupil-pupil interactions

Class Size and Teacher InteractionHargreaves & Galton (1998)

Teacher-Pupil Interaction PearsonCorrelation

Task questions - 0.23

Challenging questions - 0.25

Task feedback - 0.34

Monitoring + 0.49 **

Routine Class Management + 0.37 **

Critical Control + 0.28

Sustained Interactions (Hargreaves & Galton 1998)

0

5

10

15

20

25

15 20 25 30

class size

% o

bser

vati

on

Pre and Post Literacy Hour Questions (KS2)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1976 1996 2001 2002

closedopen

Cultural Contexts (Jin & Cortazzi 1998)

WesternApproach

Pacific RimApproach

Individual Short spontaneousExchanges

Prepared extendedexchanges

Groups Tasks plannedbut spontaneoustalk & later classfeedback

Task and talkprepared withimmediatefeedback

Whole Class Individualteacher-pupilexchanges

Whole classresponses

Principles SpeakerorientatedTeacherfacilitated

Listenerorientated,Teachercontrolled

THE SHANGHAI EXPERIENCE

Effective implementation depended on changes in classroom organization, pedagogies and teaching materials.

• Change in classroom culture so that students are placed at the centre of teaching and learning. Before “we trained our students to be passive receivers” but now “we realise the incredible potential of our students: they speak up and they speak well.”

• Classrooms have been reorganised to make use of greater space available, enabling pupils to sit in groups and teachers to move freely among them

• Teachers feel they have gained increased flexibility and autonomy in exercising their professionalism

Some Key Questions• Do teachers always maximize the benefits of smaller

classes? Is there a need for special training?

• Should other classroom interventions (e.g. peer tutoring, use of teaching assistants) be viewed as an alternative to class size reductions or a way of boosting their effects?

• Could initial teacher training offer opportunities of working with half the class while class teacher takes the remaining pupils elsewhere?

• Would flexible time tabling allow more pupils to experience small classes ( Is half the time in a class half the size more valuable?)

• When learning to learn is there a case for giving greater priority to pupils in the 9-11 range?

Some Key References

Blatchford, P. (2003) The Class Size Debate: Is small better? Maidenhead, UK. Open University Press.

Galton, M [Ed] (1998) ‘Class Size and Pupil Achievement,’ Special Edition International Journal of Educational Research, 29 (8).

Nye, B. et al. (2000) ‘The Effects of Class Size on Academic Achievement: The results of the Tennessee class size experiment’ American Educational Research Journal, 37 (1): 123-151.