Table of Contents

Class Size and Its Effect on Academic Achievement

____________________________________________________________________

Does class size matter?

Maria O’ReganEdu 7202, Spring 2012

Table of ContentsStatement of the Problem Slide 3Review of Literature Slide 4Statement of Hypothesis Slides 5-6Method/Participants Slide 7Research Design Slide 8Internal & External Threat Slide 9Results Slides 10-14Discussions/Implications Slide 15References Slides 16

Statement of the ProblemWith class size at an all time high,

children are having trouble completing tasks and receiving the attention they

need. Teachers in larger class settings are not able to individually help each student or even trying to help a percentage of the

class proves to be difficult. Students in smaller classes have the opportunity to

receive more attention and better lessons allowing for better chance of success in

the classroom.

Review of Literature

Class size is a controversial topic (Gamoran & Milesi, 2006; Hedges, Konstantopoulos, & Nye, 2001).

STAR (Student/Teacher Achievement) : Small classes of 13 to 17 students had a positive impact on student achievement (relative to regular-sized classes of 22 to 26 students) (Achilles & Finn, 2003; Mosteller, Light, & Sachs, 1996; Hanushek & Krueger, 2000).

Solution to over crowding classroom: co-teaching, aide, assistant teacher (Achilles & Finn, 2003; Walter- Thomas, 1997). ◦ Conflicts, different teach methods, authoritative,

inconvenience (Achilles &Finn, 2003; Walter- Thomas, 1997).

Review of LiteraturePros

Early intervention allows students to benefit in later grades (Chung & Konstantopoulos, 2009; Achilles & Finn,2003)

Smaller class size allows for better teacher performance (Chen & Chen, 2009; Achilles, Finn & Pannozzoo, 2003).

Small classes are more unified in daily task (Achilles & Finn,2003; Funkhouser, 2009).

Cons

More costly to have small classes (Achilles & Finn, 2003; Hedges, Konstantopoulos, & Nye, 2001).

Less daily social interaction (Pedder, 2006; McLeod, 2007;).

Does not prepare students for life ahead when placed in large group, ie. college, work (Murdoch & Guy, 2002; Pedder, 2006)

Statement of the Hypothesis

HR 1: To teach one unit on math content and one unit on language arts content by one teacher to seven Pre-Kindergarten students from PS X in Brooklyn, NY for 45 minute sessions, over a six week period, three times a week, will increase their overall content knowledge in math and language arts as measured by a math and language arts test.

HR2: To teach one unit on math content and one unit on language arts content by two teachers to twenty-one Pre-Kindergarten students from PS X in Brooklyn, NY for 45 minute sessions, over a six week period, three times a week, will decrease their overall content knowledge in math and language arts as measured by a math and language arts test.

Method: Participants, Instruments, and ProcedureParticipants: 27 Prekindergarten students from P.S. X

in Brooklyn, New York. Instruments

◦Pretest: Mock Gifted and Talented Prep Exam◦Treatment: Lessons based on gifted and talented

prep◦Post Test: Mock Gifted and Talented Prep Exam

(same as pretest)◦Surveys: given to the teachers and students to see

they feelings about the gifted and talented exam.

Research Design

• Research Design: Quasi-Experimental Design• Nonequivalent Control Group Design• This designed is based upon two groups that will be pretested (O),

exposed to a treatment (X), and posttested (O).

• Two groups:• Symbolic Design: O X1 O

O X2 O • (O) Pre-test, (X1) Treatment for Group 1, (X2) Treatment for Group 2, (O)

Post-test • Two groups of students: Class A will consist of 21 kids and two teachers

Class B consists of 7 students and one teacher.

• The research will be focusing on the students progress in regards to class size ratio and tested by the NYC DOE Gifted and Talented Exam.

Threats

Internal Validity• History• Testing/Pre-test

Sensitization• Instrumentation• Mortality • Selection-

Maturation Interaction

External Validity• Ecological• Generalizable

conditions• Pre-test Treatment• Selection-Treatment

Interaction• Specificity of Variables

Treatment• Diffusion:Experimenter

Effect

Correlation: Class A Pretest and Attitudes Toward GTE Prep

For Class A, there is fair low correlation between their pretest score and attitudes toward GTE Prep.

ATTITUDE RATING: I like GTE PREP 4-Strongely Agree, 3-Agree, 2-Disagree, 1-Strongly Disagree

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

GTE Pre Test and Attitudes Towards GTE Prep - Class A

y-Pretest Score

Attitudes Toward GTE Prep

Score

on G

TE P

rete

st

Correlation: Class B Pretest and Attitudes Toward GTE Prep

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

2

4

6

8

10

12

GTE Pre Test and Attitudes Towards GTE Prep - Class B

y-Pretest Score

Attitude Toward GTE

Score

on P

rete

st

For Class B, there is fair high correlation between their pretest score and attitudes toward GTE Prep.

ATTITUDE RATING: I like GTE PREP. 4-Strongely Agree, 3-Agree, 2-Disagree, 1-Strongly Disagree

Correlation Between Hours Spent and Post Test Scores

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Hours Spent on GTE at Home

yLinear (y)

Hours Spent

Post

Test

Score

How often do you do Gifted and Talented Practice tests at home (outside school)? 1- 0-2 Hours a Week 2- 3-5 Hours a Week 3- 6-8 Hours a Week 4- 9 or more Hours a Week

*Important Correlation- more outside help better the score

Data Analysis Pre and Post Test

1 2 3 4 5 6 70

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Pre and Post Test Scores Class B

Pretest Score Posttest Score

Student

Sco

re

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 200

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18 Pre and Post Test Score Class A

Pretest Score

Posttest Score

Student

Sco

re

Bell Curve: Dispersion of Post-test Scores

48% of the students tested scored within -1 SD of the average mean, 7.18.18% of the students tested scored within +1 SD of the average mean, 7.18.

Discussion and Implications Based on the Results:

In this study, it showed that students in a smaller class, class B did significantly better the the GTE. Every student increased their score.

Smaller classes give more opportunity for small group work as well as one to one.

Students in a larger class size, class A had less of an opportunity

to increase their score, however more than half, 65% scores increased, 20% stayed the same and 15% decreased.

Class A in the survey showed they have more outside class time (tutoring, hw, etc) spent on GTE prep than class B.

This study with other participants may be affected by variables such as class size and the materials accessible for the teachers. The preparation for gifted and talented requires a lot of one on one work as well as concentration and focus.

ReferencesAchilles, C., & Finn, J.D. (1999) Tennessee’s class size study: findings, implications, misconceptions, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97–109, Retreived from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164294Achilles, C. & Finn, J.D. (2003). Class Size: Counting Students Can Count. American Education Research Asssociation, 1-4. Retrieved from www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and...Points/RP_Fall03.pdfAchilles, C., Finn, J. D., & Pannozzo, G.,(2003). The “Why's” of Class Size: Student Behavior in Small Classes. Review of Educational Research v. 73 (3), 321-68. Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/hww/Results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/advancedsearch/advanced_search.jhtml.4#curPg=21|40|20|brief|0|21Arias, J. J. & Walker, D. (2004). Additional Evidence on the Relationship between Class Size and Student Performance. The Journal of Economic Education (35)4, 311-29. Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/results/results_common.jhtml.35.Akyüz, G., & Berberoğlu, G. (2010). Teacher and classroom characteristics and their relations to mathematics achievement of the students in the TIMSS. New Horizons in Education, 58(1), 77-95. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=51301327&site=ehost-liveBlatchford, P., Baines, E., Kutnick, P., & Martin, C. (2001). Classroom contexts: Connections between class size and within class grouping. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 283. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=7258387&site=ehost-live Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Goldstein, H., & Martin, C. (2003). Are class size differences related to pupils' educational progress and classroom processes? findings from the institute of education class size study of children aged 5-7 years. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 709. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11184894&site=ehost-live Borland, M. V., Howsen, R. M., & Trawick, M. W. (2005). An investigation of the effect of class size on student academic achievement. Education Economics, 13(1), 73-83. doi:10.1080/0964529042000325216Brewer, D., Ehrenberg, R., Gamoran, A., & Willms, D. (2001). Class Size and Student Achievement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, (2)1, 1-30. Retreieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40062283.Chapman, L., & Ludlow, L. (2010). Can Downsizing College Class Sizes Augment Student Outcomes? An Investigation of the Effects of Class Size on Student Learning. JGE: The Journal Of General Education, 59(2), 105-123. Retreived from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/detail? vid=7&hid=23&sid=64b64bdb-6e49-4d73-b520-bd00c3671697% 40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=54425469

ReferencesChen, W., & Chen, W. (2010). Surprises learned from course evaluations. Research in Higher Education

Journal, 91(9). Retrieved fromWei-Kian, C., & Won-Sun, C. (2010). Surprises learned from course evaluations. Research in Higher Education Journal, 91-9. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=24&sid=6df39f1e-173f-464c-b34a-fc6da9d5ce63%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ehh&AN=57463899

Chung, V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2009). What are the long-term effects of small classes on the achievement gap? evidence from the lasting benefits study. American Journal of Education, 116(1), 125-154. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=45073947&site=ehost-live

Ecalle, J., Magnan, A., & Gibert, F. (2006). Class size effects on literacy skills and literacy interest in first grade: A large-scale investigation. Journal Of School Psychology, 44(3), 191-209. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.03.002

Funkhouser, E. (2009). The effect of kindergarten classroom size reduction on second grade student achievement: Evidence from california. Economics of Education Review, 28(3), 403-414. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.06.005

Gameran, A. & Milesi, C. (2006). Effects of Class Size and Instruction on Kindergarten Achievement. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 28(4), 287-313. Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/advancedsearch/advanced_search.jhtml.4

Hanushek, E., & Krueger, A. (2000). THE CLASS SIZE POLICY DEBATE .Economic Policy Institute, 121, 1-49, Retreived from epi.3cdn.net/aa2f4bcd5fb7ed5d53_3sm6b5jsf.pdf

McLeod, S.(2007). Vygotsky. Psychology Academic Articles for Students, Simply Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html

Mitchell, D. E., & Mitchell, R. E. (2003). The Political Economy of Education Policy: The Case of Class Size Reduction. Peabody Journal Of Education (0161956X), 78(4), 120, Retreive from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=23&sid=64b64bdb-6e49-4d73-b520-bd00c3671697%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d##db=a9h&AN=10755447.

ReferencesMosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades. Future of Children, 5(2), 113-127. Mosteller, F., Light, R. J., & Sachs, J. A. (1996). Sustained inquiry in education: Lessons from skill

grouping and class size. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 797-842 .Retreived fromhttp://ehis.ebscohost.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=23&sid=64b64bdb-6e49-4d73-b520-bd00c3671697%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d

Pedder, D. (2006). Are small classes better? understanding relationships between class size, classroom processes and pupils' learning. Oxford Review of Education, 32(2), 213-234. doi:10.1080/03054980600645396

Shin, Y., & Raudenbush, S. (2011). The Causal Effect of Class Size on Academic Achievement: Multivariate Instrumental Variable Estimators With Data Missing at Random. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 36(2), 154-85. doi: 10.3102/1076998610388632

Sohn, K. (2010). A skeptic's guide to project STAR. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 7(2), 257-272. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=57715544&site=ehost-live

Thijs, J., Verkuyten, M., & Helmond, P. (2010). A Further Examination of the Big-Fish–Little-Pond Effect Perceived Position in Class, Class Size, and Gender Comparisons. Sociology of Education, 83(4), 333-345.

Walther-Thomas, C. (1997). Co-Teaching Experiences: The Benefits and Problems that Teachers and Principals Report Over Time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 395-407. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=24&sid=6df39f1e-173f-464c-b34a-fc6da9d5ce63%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ehh&AN=9707134012