Oxford Review of Education Vol. 32, No. 2, May 2006, pp. 213–234
Are small classes better? Understanding relationships between class size, classroom processes and pupils’ learning David Pedder* University of Cambridge, UK Oxford 10.1080/03054980600645396 CORE_A_164515.sgm 0305-4985 Original Taylor 202006 32
[email protected] DavidPedder 00000May and & Review Article Francis (print)/1465-3915 Francis 2006 of Education Ltd (online)
Twelve years ago Blatchford and Mortimore’s authoritative review of class size research appeared in this journal. They concluded that a major problem with class size research was the lack of detailed studies of complex classroom processes that might mediate class size effects on pupils’ learning. This article reviews two UK class size reviews and quantitative, qualitative and mixed method class size research. Evidence from research, and insights from 30 years of classroom-based inquiry, form the basis for the development of theoretical models of relationships between class size, classroom processes and pupils’ learning. Recent research evidence from secondary school classrooms calls into question simple one-way relationships between class size and pupils’ learning. Politicians are challenged to face up to the complexities involved and to be open to more flexible approaches to reforming the organisation of teaching and learning in schools that go beyond expensive programmes of crude across-the-board class size reductions. Further class size research is recommended that incorporates sophisticated qualitative methods in order to adequately understand and represent the kinds of teacher and pupil expertise involved in promoting and maximising opportunities for high quality learning in different large and small class contexts in primary and secondary schools.
Introduction Useful educational research should focus on factors that significantly influence the quality of classroom teaching and learning. Such research should, furthermore, be responsive to the concerns of teachers and those whom they serve, and should be helpful to policy-makers in their practical decision-making. The perspectives of teachers and pupils are particularly important sources of insight into the key *University of Cambridge Faculty of Education, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 2BX, UK. Email:
[email protected] ISSN 0305-4985 (print)/ISSN 1465-3915 (online)/06/020213–22 © Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/03054980600645396
214 D. Pedder influences on the quality of their educational experiences in schools and classrooms (Cooper & McIntyre, 1996; Pollard, 1996; Rudduck et al., 1996; Pollard & Triggs, 2000; Rudduck & Flutter, 2000, 2004). It seems obvious to many teachers and parents that class size is an important factor influencing the effectiveness of what teachers and pupils are able to do to promote high quality learning. Politicians in this and other countries therefore come under great pressure to reduce class sizes or at least to prevent them from increasing. And since the economic implications of doing so are substantial, politicians look to educational researchers for definitive advice. There is thus a real demand for useful research on this, as on other factors that may be significant determinants of the effectiveness of teaching and learning. Class size research is also, however, characteristic of much other research in the nature of the conclusions that researchers can offer politicians from it. Politicians are rightly told that the messages from the substantial body of research evidence on class size are ambiguous and inconsistent. Neither the large-scale class size experiments (e.g. Pate-Bain & Achilles, 1986; Finn & Achilles, 1990, 1999; Weis, 1990; Word et al., 1990; Pate-Bain et al., 1992; Mosteller, 1995; Molnar et al., 1999; Nye et al., 2000), nor the statistical syntheses of all relevant class size studies (Glass & Smith, 1978; Robinson & Wittebols, 1986; Slavin, 1989), nor the reanalyses of the influential Tennessee experimental study (Prais, 1996; Goldstein & Blatchford, 1998; Grissmer, 1999) provide clear support for the claim that class size is an important determinant of pupil achievement. So, while Ofsted’s (1995) review of the evidence could confidently conclude that it is not class size but the quality of teaching that matters, Blatchford and Mortimore (1994, p. 411), in their authoritative review of class size research could conclude that, … there is now firm evidence of a link, but only in the early years and only with classes smaller than 20. The evidence supports the reduction of class sizes in the first years of school, especially with disadvantaged pupils, but much still needs to be researched.
The inconsistency of class size research has enabled politicians of different persuasions to select those particular findings which support their preferred policy choices (Blatchford & Martin, 1998). Hence, the Conservative government of the day chose to listen to the former advice while the current Labour government promised to listen to the latter. Taking class size research forward The findings from research can be seen to be unhelpful for a variety of reasons. Characteristically, researchers on class size say that the issues are much more complex than politicians want to know about. Both Blatchford and Mortimore (1994) and Day et al. (1996), in the two most authoritative British reviews of the evidence, conclude more specifically that the problem has been a lack of attention to the classroom processes that might, on the one hand, be influenced by class size and might, on the other, influence pupils’ attainments. Class size, they both reasonably suggest, is not likely to influence attainments except through the mediating effects of what happens
Are small classes better? 215 in the classroom. Remarkably, most research has treated the classroom as a black box, with the apparent expectation that any effects of class size upon pupils’ attainments would be automatic and direct, uninfluenced by the thinking and actions of those teaching and learning inside classrooms. Reaching understandings about class size effects in classrooms then requires detailed studies of complex classroom processes that might mediate the impact of class size on pupils’ learning. But asking what classroom processes are likely to mediate class size effects involves asking what kinds of research will help us find out. Clearly, there is a need for research to explore whether there are systematic relationships of some kind between class size and some aspects of what happens in classrooms, for example that there are things that teachers can do (but may not necessarily do) in smaller classes but not (or not so much) in larger classes; and we need to show that some of these aspects of classroom activity are systematically related to pupils’ attainments, although not perhaps in a simple way. For example, there may be more or better opportunities for learning in smaller classes where teachers act in certain ways, but pupils may not always have developed the skills or attitudes to take advantage of these opportunities. To establish such systematic relationships, there is a need for quantitative studies relating class size to classroom process variables, and relating these in turn to pupils’ attainments. But first we need to determine what process variables are worth attending to by exploring a number of different approaches. However, any hope of making progress with class size research that is both to be useful and also to face up to the real complexities of classroom life will depend on developing theoretical models of how class size effects on pupils’ learning are mediated by what happens in classrooms. Indeed, this remains the major theoretical task challenging class size researchers and is the main focus of this article. The aim of this article is to present a conceptual framework for developing understandings about relationships between class size, classroom processes and pupils’ learning in the form of three inter-related models. The models have been developed in the light of a critical review of class size research and of class size research reviews. In addition, they incorporate important insights from over 30 years of classroombased research into effective teaching and learning. In the next four sections I review two major UK reviews of class size research, and then I review quantitative, qualitative and mixed method research into class size effects on classroom processes and pupils’ learning. These reviews, together with insights from a substantial body of classroom-based research into effective teaching and learning then form the basis for the development of theoretical models of relationships between class size, classroom processes and pupils’ learning. Reviews of class size research To support the theorising that is needed we can look to class size studies that investigate relationships between class size, pupils’ attainments and classroom processes and as a starting point, we can look to the authoritative class size reviews of Blatchford
216 D. Pedder and Mortimore (1994) and Day et al. (1996) for guidance. Although both the major reviews are useful to the extent that they identify certain limitations of class size research, we are still left with important questions unanswered and critical issues unresolved. The reviews are limited in two significant ways which hinder a satisfactory conceptualisation of the impact of class size on teaching and learning. Firstly, they are not sufficiently articulate with regard to the conceptual flaws in class size research, which they address only in a general way. As a result of this conceptual vagueness, the reviews have neglected to address important ways in which class size research is flawed. Secondly, the reviews have failed to attend to a range of available insights from other research traditions into what aspects of classroom processes might mediate class size effects on pupils’ learning. The conceptual vagueness of the reviews Neither of the two main reviews adequately challenge the tendency of class size research studies to treat the classroom as a black box or, at best, to cast a superficial glance over its surface features. This reflects a serious lack of conceptual clarity seen most clearly in the general, unspecified ways the reviews refer to the complexities of classroom life. This is puzzling in that both reviews stress that research which seeks to understand the relationships between class size and attainment, particularly in the light of the experimental research findings of STAR (e.g. Finn & Achilles, 1990; Word et al., 1990) and PRIME TIME (Weis, 1990), needs to take account of the ways complex processes might mediate these relationships. For example, Blatchford and Mortimore (1994, p. 422) argue that, … we still need to ask what processes might explain the better performance of pupils in smaller classes. What effect does it have on classroom life? What differences are there between processes in classes of 15 in comparison to classes of 28?
Day et al. (1996, p. 21) make the criticism that class size research ‘… has failed to take into consideration the full complexity of cause and effect in classroom life’. More specifically Day et al. (1996) have indicated the need for observational studies as appropriate ways of uncovering complex classroom processes; however they do not define what aspects of classroom processes could fruitfully be observed or what form of observation might be appropriate. Nevertheless, Day et al. are more articulate than Blatchford and Mortimore with regard to what they mean by the complexity of classroom life. For example, in their critique of the British correlational studies (1996, p. 18) they imply that this complexity is manifest in the interaction of a range of variables. With so many variables involved in the teaching-learning process it is difficult to be certain that the findings are attributable to class size alone, rather than to the cumulative and aggregative effect of other variables in the teaching-learning process and school environment working in association with each other.
Their review, however, remains unclear about the different ways these process variables might combine with class size to have an impact on teaching and learning
Are small classes better? 217 outcomes. One important consequence of this vagueness has been that neither the Blatchford and Mortimore (1994) nor the Day et al. (1996) review provide an explicit challenge to the flawed analysis inherent in the reviewed class size research studies; the analysis which appears to shape the class size research studies they review assumes a theoretical perspective that identifies class size as an isolated factor operating to have direct effects on pupils’ cognitive and behavioural outcomes. It is possible that the reviewers might have been influenced as much by the need to present clear and useful ‘lessons’ from class size research to decision-makers as by their own understanding of the complex realities of classroom teaching and learning. For example, Day et al. (1996) organise their review of class size research in relation to a number of seemingly isolated variables and independent relationships and mainly in the context of large classes: ● ● ● ● ● ●
Large classes, management strategies and the quality of education. Large classes, overcrowding and the quality of education. Class size, classroom practice and the quality of education. Class size, special educational needs and the quality of education. Class size and pupil behaviour. Class size and teacher work load and stress.
Day et al. (1996) fail to elucidate connections among the broad categories of variables that they identify as key and neglect to relate any of these explicitly to the quality of teaching and learning. Therefore it is not clear on what basis the selected variables have been identified nor how they might be related theoretically to an understanding of the complex mediation of class size effects. Similar problems arise from the conceptual vagueness of the Blatchford and Mortimore (1994) review. In addition to their analysis of class size effects on pupil attainment, they organise their review of class size research in relation to classroom processes as a list of the following isolated relationships and in the context of small classes (1994, pp. 423–425): ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Small classes and individualisation. Small classes and the quality of teaching. Small classes and curriculum coverage. Small classes and pupil attention. Small classes and teacher management of pupils’ behaviour. Small classes and time and space. Small classes and teachers’ and pupils’ morale. Small classes and pupil-pupil relations.
Nevertheless, both reviews achieve an accurate synthesis of class size research and emphasise the importance of attending to the complexity of classroom processes and their mediation of class size effects on pupils’ attainments. However, it can be seen that neither review effectively challenges the core assumption implicit in all the reviewed class size studies that the best way to analyse class size effects is within a naïve positivist framework of unmediated cause-effect relations. Instead both reviews
218 D. Pedder confine themselves largely to a methodological rather than a conceptual critique of class size research, but even here their critique is limited. Important areas of neglect in the reviews In neglecting to critically examine the naïve deterministic assumptions which underpin the bivariate analysis of class size on learning outcomes, the reviews omit as secondary or irrelevant a range of preoccupations that have formed the focus of much of the classroom-based research into teaching and learning of the last quarter of a century. Attention to such preoccupations as teachers’ and pupils’ observable strategies which they adopt in different classroom contexts to achieve their goals, the sophisticated knowledge and expertise that teachers and pupils use in different classroom contexts and the decisions they take would point towards alternative understandings of the impact of class size on pupils’ learning. Instead, class size research and the reviews have chosen to ignore the focus of this substantial body of educational research in preference to the behaviourist assumptions and conceptualisations dominant in the 1950s and 1960s but outmoded and discredited as inadequate theoretical formulations since the 1980s. By neglecting insights from a wide body of educational research, the reviews fail to provide a clearly formulated, integrated analysis of how class size effects on pupils’ learning might be mediated by classroom processes. The reviews leave us instead with an assemblage of variables in isolated relationship with class size; class size itself appears to be construed in the reviews as a disembedded feature of classroom contexts of teaching and learning. In the next three sections I briefly review useful quantitative, qualitative and mixed method research into the impact of class size on teaching and learning (see Pedder, 2001 for a more detailed review and discussion of class size research).
Useful quantitative research into class size and classroom processes Because the reviews, and the ‘black box’ class size research to which the reviews primarily attend, tell us little about the classroom processes that might be important factors in mediating class size effects on pupils’ learning, I shall concentrate on other research that has been reported and which has developed useful insights. Two such useful studies are Bourke (1986) and Shapson et al. (1977, 1980). Bourke’s study, concerned with Year 5 mathematics classes in Australia, was a naturalistic one, so that class sizes varied in ways that were related to other variables. He used multiple regression and path analysis to examine relationships among four sets of variables seen as sequentially related. 1. What factors affect class size? He found that students of higher ability were in larger classes, and also that larger schools and those in wealthier areas had larger classes. These factors accounted for 29 per cent of the variance in class size.
Are small classes better? 219 2. What factors affect teachers’ classroom practices? He studied 14 teaching practice variables, and found that they varied in complex ways according to pupil ability and class size. 3. What factors affect student achievement? He found that student ability had a large direct effect and that teaching practices had a substantial effect. The effect of class size could be accounted for entirely by the effect it had on teaching practices. The teaching practices used in smaller classes which he understood to be leading to higher attainments were: increased use of whole class teaching, fewer student questions seeking help or clarification, more frequent teacher probing and longer waiting for pupil responses. Bourke’s study is probably the most useful yet conducted, and is especially valuable in its exploration and demonstration of how class size is embedded in a complex network of relationships among variables. The main weakness is his lack of explanation of his selection of teaching practice variables. Shapson’s study (1977, 1980) was larger scale, an experimental study of Canadian Grade 4 and 5 classes. Shapson is similarly reticent about his choice of classroom variables, which were more detailed and differentiated than Bourke’s, focusing on variables of teacher verbal behaviour and pupils’ classroom participation. He found, however, very little relationship between class size and classroom activities, and very little relationship between class size and pupils’ attainments. Why Shapson’s findings should be so different from Bourke’s is puzzling, although this apparent inconsistency is typical of class size research and indeed much other effective teaching research. Shapson’s study was experimentally controlled, Bourke’s was not. Shapson treated his classroom variables in isolation, and found them largely unrelated to class size; Bourke did the same, but then went on to create a composite teaching practices variable that was related to both class size and pupils’ attainments: that may be the critical difference. Or it might be that the two studies were conducted with different cultures in different systems in different places: we should not necessarily expect to find the same relationships in all contexts.
Qualitative research on class size Almost all qualitative class size research studies (e.g. Shapson, 1980; Finn & Achilles, 1990; Weis, 1990; Word, 1990; Bennett, 1996; Molnar et al., 1999) has been of a very straightforward kind (cf. Korostoff, 1998), with teachers being asked questions in a decontextualised way about the effects of differences in class size on their teaching. Hence the greater part of their professional knowledge, especially their interactive thinking and decision-making (Clarke & Peterson, 1986), regarding the impact of class size, has been left neglected. Rather consistent findings from such studies have indicated that teachers tend to believe that class size has a major effect on what they do and on the effectiveness of what they do, for example in their relationships with pupils, in the amount of time they can give to individual pupil guidance and assessment and in the use of supplementary text and enrichment materials.
220 D. Pedder However, these findings must be treated with some caution. Such studies ask teachers to treat class size as an isolated variable influencing their teaching. In contrast, when teachers are asked to talk about specific observed teaching in which they are engaged (Brown & McIntyre, 1993; Pedder, 2001), it is clear that class size influences their practices in complex ways that interact with many other aspects of these specific contexts. Asking teachers to talk about the effects of class size in isolation may be convenient for researchers with their particular research agendas, but involves teachers in moving out of their normal practices and into a new artificial kind of world. What teachers say in such contexts is not unimportant, but it is not surprising if what they then say is rather different from what they can be observed to do (e.g. Shapson, 1980). Multiple-method research into relationships between class size, classroom processes and pupils’ learning achievements Recent multiple method research carried out in the UK has made important headway in studying class size effects as a complex educational phenomenon. In this section I briefly review two studies, one study carried out in primary school classrooms, the other in secondary school classrooms. Class size effects on teaching and learning in primary school classrooms The Class Size and Pupil Adult Ratio (CSPAR) project—a large UK based longitudinal class size study carried out by researchers at the London Institute of Education (e.g. Blatchford et al., 2001; Blatchford et al., 2002; Blatchford, 2003)—worked with two cohorts of more than 10,000 children in the first four years of primary schooling over a three-year period and combined a range of qualitative and quantitative approaches: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
pupil start of school and end of year assessments; termly teacher questionnaires; teacher and headteacher end of year questionnaires; pupil behaviour ratings on each child of the study; systematic classroom observation; teacher estimates of time allocation; case studies of classes drawn from the sample which included semi-structured interviews with teachers and headteachers and end of session/day comments and judgements by fieldworkers based on their qualitative observation notes and records.
Statistical analysis showed significant class size effects on progress in literacy and mathematics during the reception year after adjusting for such potentially confounding factors as prior attainment, term of entry, eligibility for free school meals and age (Blatchford, 2003, p. 121). The benefit of small classes on literacy progress was more evident in lower ability than higher ability pupils but the benefit of small classes on
Are small classes better? 221 mathematics progress was similar for all ability groups (Blatchford, 2003, p. 141). The study found no strong evidence to support a continuation of the benefits to progress in literacy and mathematics of small classes in Years 1 and 2. Turning their attention to classroom processes that might mediate class size effects, the researchers identified, on the basis of initial field visits and a review of class size and other relevant research, the following aspects of classrooms and classroom processes (e.g. Blatchford & Martin, 1998): ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
physical space; grouping practices; establishment of routines; classroom discipline; tasks and the curriculum; teacher–pupil interaction and knowledge of children; teacher stress and enthusiasm; atmosphere/ethos; assessment and record keeping; pupil adjustment and peer relations; relationships with parents; special educational needs.
Their findings show broad consistency with other research into class size effects on classroom processes. In their end of year reports, for example, teachers mentioned that they were spread too thinly across students in larger classes, that better quality of support was available to students in small than in large classes, that monitoring, checking and providing appropriate feedback is more difficult in larger than smaller classes, that more time can be devoted to supporting individual learning in smaller classes and that teachers can develop more and deeper knowledge of their students in smaller classes. Similar findings were developed from case study reports which combined data from observations and field notes and semi-structured interviews with teachers. Observation data that focused on teacher–child and child–teacher interactions showed that in smaller classes there were more interactions between teachers and students on a oneto-one basis, that there was about double the amount of task preparation time, more teacher social talk with children, that children interacted with the teacher more often than children in larger classes and that there was more attending, initiating and responding and less off-task behaviour among students in small classes. Taken together, the findings of the Blatchford study so far reported appear to support the hypothesis that small classes provide the best conditions for effective teaching and learning. Like Bourke, but unlike Shapson, Blatchford observed teaching to vary quite systematically with class size. Unlike either of the two other studies though, the CSPAR study was able to draw on a wider range of other data to strengthen their findings. The use by Blatchford and colleagues of a range of methods is an important development towards greater sophistication of design. In addition, their adoption of the
222 D. Pedder principle that class size is one among many contextual influences on classroom life is a welcome departure from previous American class size research. Yet we are still in need of richly-theorised research to further explore relationships between class size, classroom processes and pupils’ learning in different educational contexts, including secondary school contexts. Class size effects on teaching and learning in secondary school classrooms A small-scale class size study has been carried out on the impact of class size in secondary school classroom contexts and rather different findings were developed (Pedder, 2001). A key justification for the secondary school focus was the argument that the more complex intellectual tasks older pupils are required to undertake beyond Key Stage 1, and especially after transfer to secondary school, warrant the use by teachers of the kinds of scaffolding and support strategies that tend to become more vulnerable to increases in class size. The importance of teachers’ craft expertise as a mediating factor of class size effects on pupils’ learning was an important feature of the research study. Like Blatchford and colleagues I combined quantitative and qualitative methods: ● ● ● ●
systematic classroom observation; generalised interviews with teachers; post-lesson craft knowledge interviews with teachers; feedback interviews with teachers.
A differentiated approach was adopted for gaining access to the expertise of experienced teachers. Generalised interviews. Semi-structured interviews with a sample of 20 experienced history teachers, selected from schools in the vicinity of Cambridge and experienced in teaching both large and small classes, were held in order to elicit accounts of teachers’ broader pedagogic understandings and professional case-based knowledge (Calderhead, 1990) as they relate to the impact of class size on teaching and learning. In these interviews, teachers were asked to talk about the full range of factors, including class size, that they perceived to influence their promotion of learning opportunities. Classroom observation. Two teachers, each with a small and a large history class of sufficient class size variation, and who were interested in participating in the observation study, were selected from the sample of 20 teachers who took part in the generalised interviews. One teacher was observed teaching her small (16–20) and large (26–31) Year 8 class. The other teacher was observed teaching his small (17– 21) and large (23–27) Year 9 class. Over the course of a term, classroom observations were carried out using reliable systematic observation procedures based on the theoretical models presented in the next section. The purpose of the observation was to arrive at descriptions of patterns of difference in each of the teacher’s small and large
Are small classes better? 223 classes as a basis for eliciting their commentaries and reactions in feedback interviews (see below). Post-lesson interviews. A series of post-lesson interviews were held with each of the two teachers observed to gain access to their craft knowledge as this relates to class size. The informant style of interview (Powney & Watts, 1987) used here did not include questions that explicitly addressed class size as a focus for discussion. I can report that teachers did not mention class size in their post-lesson accounts. Feedback interviews. After analysis of the observation data, lengthy interviews were conducted with each of the two teachers to elicit their commentaries and reactions to observed patterns of their classroom practices in each of their small and large classes respectively. In particular, these interviews helped me to find out how and to what extent the teachers attributed observed patterns of classroom processes to class size; whether they construed class size to influence patterns of interactions in direct or indirect ways in interaction with other variables and if the latter, then which other variables were significant. In addition, the feedback interviews offered opportunities for finding out from teachers which patterns of behaviour they were conscious of, not conscious of or at least were not fully conscious of. Unlike Blatchford’s findings, this study showed little consistency with other research into class size effects on classroom processes. It was clear from teachers’ generalised and feedback interview accounts and from the observation data that, just as Bourke (1986) had found in his Year 5 mathematics classes in Australia, class size has an impact on classroom processes and outcomes in interaction with other variables. The most important and consistent finding of this study, from different kinds of data, was that class size variation does not give rise to opportunities for teachers to promote the quantity and quality of learning opportunities as an independent, isolated variable. Space, resources, teachers’ resourcefulness and expertise, pupils’ ability and personality characteristics, marking loads and workloads more generally were important salient factors that interacted with class size to mediate class size effects on classroom processes and pupils’ learning. A second and related key finding was that there were no simple one-way relationships between class size and classroom processes hypothesised to affect the quantity, quality and distribution of pupils’ learning opportunities. Thus evidence from the study suggests that there are benefits to pupils’ learning in both large and small class contexts and that conditions in small as well as in large classes can have adverse effects on pupils’ learning. Theorising class size effects on classroom processes and pupils’ learning How then might the impact of class size on classroom processes and pupils’ learning be conceptualised? In this section, I present three related models of class size effects. The models hypothesise that class size effects on pupils’ learning are mediated through the decisions and judgements that teachers make about the appropriateness of a range
224 D. Pedder of strategies for maximising learning opportunities in particular classroom contexts including the number of pupils in a class. Teachers make these judgements by exploiting the complex base of their professional craft knowledge (Brown & McIntyre, 1993). The first model hypothesises class size effects on the quantity of learning opportunities. The second model moves beyond questions of quantity and explores how variations in class size might influence the quality of learning opportunities. The third model theorises differentially negative effects on the quantity and quality of learning opportunities for different pupils in classes of different size. The major purposes of the models are (a) to make explicit relationships between class size, classroom processes, and pupils’ learning and (b) to provide a framework for justifying the selection of particular variables that might help us to understand the dynamics of class size effects on pupils’ learning. It is hoped that this will provide a useful conceptual resource for future class size research. Model 1: Variations in class size have an impact on pupil attainment by influencing the freedom with which teachers and pupils can choose from their repertoires strategies which maximise the quantity of learning opportunities Increases in pupil attainments depend on teachers and pupils taking advantage of increased opportunities that can arise in both large and small classes and by minimising constraints that can also arise in both small and large classes. Reduced scope for maximising the quantity of learning opportunities in large classes Model 1 is grounded in the important conclusions of Rosenshine and Berliner (1978) and Brophy and Good (1986) that academic learning is influenced by the amount of time pupils spend engaged in academic or curricular learning activities. Although teachers will differ in their repertoires and skills and so will take advantage of teaching contexts in different ways, model one proposes that as class size increases, teachers tend to lose scope to choose from their repertoire of skills to increase the time available for academic activities. In larger classes, more time is needed for non-academic activities related to administrative and organisational procedures and to the management and control of discipline. The importance of maximising the amount and duration of academic activities in relation to pupil attainment is based on evidence that curriculum coverage is positively associated with pupil learning outcomes (e.g. Nuthall & Church, 1973; Dunkin, 1978). Reductions in the quantity of learning opportunities constrain teachers from achieving the necessary pace, depth and breadth of curriculum coverage as class size increases. In addition, where grouping strategies are adopted by teachers in larger classes (e.g. Hallinen & Sørensen, 1985; Blatchford, 2003) it is suggested that in larger classes the time each pupil is exposed to direct teacher instruction reduces markedly while unsupervised seatwork increases with accompanying loss of pupil concentration and negative associations with pupil attainment (i.e. Soar, 1973; Brophy & Evertson,
Are small classes better? 225 1974; Stallings & Kaskowitz, 1974). Their findings fully support the proposition that pupil time spent in whole class contexts is associated with greater cognitive involvement and time on task than time spent on unsupervised seatwork. Cognitive engagement, in turn, has been shown to be positively related to achievement (e.g. Harnischfeger & Wiley, 1974). Minimising constraints on the quantity of learning opportunities in large classes Evidence from classroom observations and teachers’ different kinds of interview accounts (Pedder, 2001) led to a number of hypotheses articulating how teachers’ and pupils’ decisions, behaviours and characteristics minimise negative effects of large classes on the quantity of learning opportunities. ●
●
●
Increases in the time normally spent on non-academic interactions concerned with class control, course reports, evaluations and other administrative matters commonly associated with large classes are likely to apply to a lesser degree in large classes composed of pupils of high academic ability and/or with positive behavioural characteristics. Teachers’ skills and effort in simultaneously responding to multiple demands in lessons can offset the negative impact of increases in non-academic interactions in large classes. This is often achieved though at considerable cost to teachers’ energy, stress and morale. The quantity of academic interactions in large classes tends to be enhanced through teachers’ more formal structuring of lessons when they set firmer standards of behaviour and establish a more tightly controlled environment.
Threats to the quantity of learning opportunities in smaller classes ●
●
Lower levels of academic engagement can occur in smaller classes when teachers structure lessons less formally and when pupils react to a more relaxed classroom ethos by disengaging from academic learning activity. Small classes can provide the context in which the visibility and impact of the behaviour of disruptive pupils increases to reduce the quantity of academic learning.
Model 2: Variations in class size can have an impact on pupil attainment by influencing the freedom with which teachers and pupils can choose from their repertoires strategies which maximise the quality of learning opportunities. In so far as teachers and pupils take advantage of the increased opportunities which both larger and smaller classes offer, and minimise the constraints that can arise in both small and large classes, pupil attainments are likely to be increased The propositions articulated in this model reflect a transactional view of the quality of classroom teaching and learning (Cooper & McIntyre, 1996). High quality
226 D. Pedder classroom learning opportunities are accomplished through classroom processes in which teachers and pupils share and test out intersubjective meanings and negotiate interpretations (Bruner & Haste, 1987). The ways teachers mediate the impact of class size on pupils’ learning can not be understood as a set of uniform patterns of decision-making. Teachers maximise the quality of learning opportunities by balancing a range of strategies in large and small classes. For example, the strategy of engaging in sustained and extended individual curriculum interactions (Galton et al., 1999) is balanced against other strategies in order to maximise high quality learning opportunities in classes of different size. Teachers in larger classes might reduce the length of curriculum interactions by probing pupils’ responses less or by offering briefer more summative feedback, so that they can use other strategies, which are also positively associated with attainment, such as increasing the amount of time spent recapitulating at the beginning of a lesson or reviewing subject matter at the end of a lesson. Teachers differ in their repertoires and skills and so will take advantage of teaching contexts in different ways. Reduced scope in larger classes for maximising the quality of learning opportunities Model 2 proposes that teachers’ structuring of information (Wright & Nuthall, 1970; Brophy & Good, 1986), challenging forms of questioning (e.g. Brown & Wragg, 1993) and formative approaches to feedback (e.g. Black & Wiliam, 1998; Black et al., 2003) are key elements in the provision of high quality learning opportunities; yet it appears likely that each of these strategies is especially vulnerable to time constraints. Structuring: presenting and reviewing concepts and ideas. Well exemplified, appropriately pitched explanations are part of a teacher’s repertoire of effective strategies (Brophy & Good, 1986) for structuring pupils’ learning of new concepts and ideas. Structuring moves (Bellack et al., 1966) are likely to be vulnerable to time constraints in large classes. A plausible case can be made for identifying redundancy as one aspect of structuring which teachers might regard as optional in the face of time constraints in large classes. Clear structuring would seem to entail the multiple exemplification of new curriculum concepts and ideas if teachers are to fully take account of the different needs and backgrounds of their pupils. This represents an important way teachers are likely to maximise the quality of learning opportunities. It can be argued, however, that in larger classes, teachers may dispense with these kinds of structuring strategies making it more difficult for pupils to engage appropriately with new curriculum materials or to support their continued and extended understanding of previously presented concepts and ideas. Questioning. In addition to the likely tendency for teachers to discard certain time-consuming feedback strategies, increases in class size might also have an
Are small classes better? 227 impact on the types of questions which teachers decide to ask. With less time in larger classes for academic interactions, teachers might decide to reduce their use of open-ended, higher-order questions that probe pupils’ understandings and reasoning and make greater use of lower-order questions as a way of speeding up interactions. Although lower-order questions of a factual nature have their important place in effective teaching, maintaining such a questioning strategy as curriculum demands increase in complexity would appear to have an adverse influence on pupils’ understanding and ability to apply new concepts and ideas. Interactive feedback. Observational research carried out by Hawkins and Taylor (1972), Bellack et al. (1966), Wright and Nuthall (1970) and Hughes (1973) have found that a range of different types of teacher feedback to pupils’ responses and contributions are positively associated with pupil attainment, such as taking time to probe incomplete, incorrect or no responses, and providing adequate wait time during which pupils can consider how they might respond to teachers’ questions. Such feedback strategies encourage pupils to extend their responses; they also support pupils’ thinking at levels they would otherwise be incapable of achieving. It is plausible to assume that, in the face of time constraints operating in larger classes, teachers may dispense with these kinds of sustained interactions in favour of briefer more summative forms of feedback. Thus, when responding to a pupil’s contribution, teachers in larger classes are less likely to sustain the kinds of interactions with pupils within which they can help them to understand where they are in their learning or why their contribution is incorrect or inappropriate or what their strengths are and how they can improve and build on their current understandings (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Instructional tasks. Class size can influence the quality of pupils’ learning by affecting the kinds of instructional tasks a teacher feels able to set (e.g. Alton-Lee & Nuthall, 1990). The quality of pupils’ learning in large classes can be negatively affected when teachers limit the variety of instructional tasks they consider feasible, especially in large-class contexts where classroom space is limited and/or where pupils’ behavioural characteristics are poor. Yet scope for setting a variety of instructional tasks can also be reduced in small classes composed of disruptive or shy pupils. Moreover, large class size can reduce scope for teachers to set appropriately pitched tasks for pupils, especially where the ability range is wide. Teacher–pupil interactions individually and in groups. On the basis of evidence from a great deal of class size research, teachers are constrained from sustained individual or small group interactions of the kind needed to support pupils in high quality learning. Whether considering reductions in individual interactions with students in larger classes or the increased size of groups they tend to form in larger classes (Blatchford,
228 D. Pedder 2003), teachers have tended to report a number of negative outcomes on pupils’ learning. Teachers report that reduced opportunities for individual interactions in larger classes make it more difficult than in smaller classes for them to establish and maintain rapport with pupils, to develop knowledge of pupils’ needs, interests, background and academic progress, and to provide personalised forms of support and formative guidance. For students, reduced scope for carefully structured and formative conversations with their teacher about their learning not only limits opportunities for pupils to develop the skills and dispositions to interact for extended periods of time with the teacher, but can also lead to students becoming insufficiently practised at thinking about and articulating problems and strengths in their learning with others. Nevertheless, there are no automatic benefits to students’ learning of increased opportunities for individual interactions between teacher and pupil that arise in smaller classes. For students to benefit from increased opportunities to interact individually with the teacher depends on the skills and expertise that the teacher can bring to engaging students in carefully structured conversations that can help students engage creatively with problems they experience and build on the strengths that they bring to their classroom learning. Moreover, teachers reported (Pedder, 2001) that reductions in opportunities for private interactions with their teacher restricts the quality of learning for high ability students in large classes to a lesser degree than it does for lower ability students. Teachers explained that it was characteristic of higher ability students in larger classes that they were more open and ready than their less able peers to engage and to learn from the public talk of their teacher and of their peers and to contribute ideas to public dialogue and discussion during whole class phases of lessons.
Small class constraints on the quality of learning opportunity Secondary school teachers (Pedder, 2001) also reported that, in relation to the quality and helpfulness to learning of teacher–pupil interactions, there are risks associated, not only with larger classes but also with smaller classes: ●
●
●
The expectation by pupils of increased opportunities in smaller classes for interacting with the teacher on an individual basis can encourage the development of an individual orientation among pupils. Here, pupils tend not to attend to the teacher’s public messages in the expectation that they will have increased access to the teacher on an individual basis. Poor interactive dynamics in small classes can become the norm where pupils display poor behavioural characteristics in which undercurrents of resentment and infighting become more evident with fewer students in the class. Poor interactive dynamics were also reported by teachers to occur in small classes that contain a large number of reticent students. In these contexts, class discussions
Are small classes better? 229 in small classes tend to be dominated by the teacher or a minority of self assured individuals underlining the marginal participation of the majority of students in the class. Model 3: As class size increases, teachers and pupils respond to prevailing time constraints by adopting strategies which have differentially negative effects on the quality of and quantity of learning opportunities for different pupils The quantity and quality of teacher interaction tend to favour pupils whom teachers expect to achieve well over their peers (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Brophy & Good, 1974). Teachers are generally aware of such differential patterns of classroom interaction and aim to compensate for this by engaging in private interactions with lower achieving pupils. Increases in class size are predicted to reduce the quantity and appropriateness of such compensatory interactions. Academic ability. Drawing on the well-known work of Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), Brophy and Good (1974) argue that teachers treat pupils differently according to the expectations they have for their potential academic achievement. The quantity and quality of teacher interaction tend to favour pupils whom teachers expect to achieve well academically over their peers (e.g. Brophy & Good, 1974). Teachers are generally aware of such differential patterns of classroom interaction and aim to compensate for this by engaging in private interactions with the lower achievers. Increases in class size are predicted to reduce the quantity and appropriateness of such compensatory interactions. Good (1970) and Kranz et al. (1970) found that teachers have more substantive interactions and more interactions with the top third of their class than with average and low achievers. The attitude a teacher forms towards a pupil may affect how that pupil is treated in class and how his/her performance is graded. Cooper and McIntyre (1996) found that teachers’ labelling of pupils according to ability level was already marked by Year 7. Teachers’ attributions of extremes of ability tended to be made early on in the teacher–pupil relationship, within the first term. Attributions of other members of the class were made during the second term and remained stable for the duration of the year. Disaffected pupils. In addition, larger classes exacerbate problems faced by teachers and pupils with regard to disaffected pupils. Chaplain (1996) discusses how complex processes can operate where teacher expectation effects encourage pupils to infer from their teachers the message that their failure is due to their lack of ability. Such pupils then lose self-esteem and become increasingly disengaged from classroom learning. Teachers in large classes are hypothesised to increasingly adopt avoidance of provocation strategies (Hargreaves, 1975) with disaffected pupils thus entailing reductions in the quantity and quality of learning opportunities available to these pupils.
230 D. Pedder Discussion: reforming the organisation of teaching and learning in schools The secondary school study (Pedder, 2001) developed no evidence of simple oneway relationships between class size and optimum conditions for all kinds of teaching and learning. This is a key finding. Different teachers recognised increased opportunities for promoting and supporting learning in large as well as in small classes; they also recognised constraints in small as well as in large classes. Politicians therefore need to be receptive to the possibility that benefits to pupils’ learning arise in large as well as in small classes and thus need to promote frameworks within which schools can adopt more flexible approaches to allocating pupils to learning groups of different size for different teaching and learning purposes. The American large-scale class size reduction experiments mentioned at the beginning of this article appear to be motivated by a concern with political and economic decision-making at government level more than with decision-making at school or classroom level. At a glance it might seem, therefore, that the focus on class size as an isolated variable is not only understandable but also justifiable. However, research approaches that combine, within the same design, observation of patterns of classroom behaviour with fine grained analysis of practitioners’ perspectives stand the best chance of developing evidence that is relevant to and useful for, thinking and decision-making at the global policy level. The challenge is for politicians to face up to the complexities involved and to be open to more flexible approaches to the organisation of teaching and learning in schools. Class size reductions in primary and secondary schools can be achieved within a framework of more cost effective and flexible organisational change than the expensive across-the-board reductions favoured in the USA (e.g. Korostoff, 1998) if they are implemented in conjunction with, rather than as alternatives to, a range of other organisational innovations (cf. Slavin, 1989). Consistent with Green Paper recommendations (DfEE, 1998), innovations that have been suggested include increased class size for certain purposes, more non-contact time, increased peer tutoring, creative and more frequent use of computer-assisted self-learning materials, and classroom assistants to free teachers to work interactively with pupils in smaller groups (Galton, 1998; Hargreaves et al., 1998). In a related though broader framework of reform, McIntyre (2000) raises important questions about the adequacy of traditionally configured classroom teaching arrangements as environments in which teachers can effectively guide and support pupil learning. So that teachers can feasibly respond to current expectations that they be able to incorporate new and multiple kinds of information within their professional thinking (e.g. Hargreaves et al., 1998), McIntyre (2000) argues for flexible reform that includes increased non-contact time for teachers and pupils and more flexible arrangements for conducting face-to-face contact between teachers and pupils individually as well as in classes and groups of different size on a fitness for purpose basis. Should politicians and policy makers begin to construe the development of class size policy within this kind of inclusive framework of change then it may be possible to
Are small classes better? 231 gain the potential benefits from small classes but also the benefits from large classes without a net increase in expenditure in the long run. Conclusion Politicians can be helped in their decision-making by research that uses multiple methods of inquiry into effects of class size variation in both primary and secondary school contexts. Further research is needed to help us develop much better understanding of the kinds of strategies and knowledge teachers can adapt for effectively promoting high quality learning opportunities for all pupils in different contexts of class size variation. Such research should aim to generate useful insights into how, in large and small classes, learning for a range of different purposes can best be promoted. Class size research needs to attend to the contexts within which class size variation occurs by investigating the different ways class size interacts with other key variables. Teachers bring different strengths and expertise to the classroom. They teach different subjects and work in contexts of varying levels of resourcing and space. The pupils they teach come to class with different personalities, behavioural and ability characteristics. Taking all these facets of classroom life into account it is unsurprising if we find teachers maximising opportunities for pupils to learn in classes of different size in different ways. We need further research to find out how teachers manage to do this in classes of different size in different primary and secondary school contexts. Blatchford and colleagues have made important headway through their CSPAR study in developing research that investigates the impact of class size as one among many important factors influencing classroom processes. Greater sophistication of qualitative design is still needed, though, if we are to adequately understand and represent the kinds of teacher and pupil expertise involved in promoting and maximising opportunities for high quality learning in different large and small class contexts. Here, class size research can learn a great deal from a growing tradition of classroom-based research that is making exciting progress in gaining access to pupils’ perspectives and experiences of classroom learning as a means to improving what we know about effective classroom processes (e.g. Cooper & McIntyre, 1996; Pollard, 1996; Rudduck et al., 1996; Pollard & Triggs, 2000; Rudduck & Flutter, 2000, 2004). By contrast, class size research has neglected pupils’ voices as key sources of insight. Embracing their perspectives, as well as their teachers’, provides the best opportunity for improving our theoretical and practical understandings of class size effects on classroom teaching and learning processes and outcomes. Acknowledgement I would like to express my thanks to Professor Donald McIntyre for his constructive and formative influence on the development of the research that has shaped the arguments presented in this article.
232 D. Pedder Notes on contributor David Pedder is Lecturer in Education at the University of Cambridge having worked as Senior Research Associate on Pupil Voice and Learning How to Learn Research Programmes. His interests include classroom contexts and processes of teaching and learning, teachers’ learning, and the organisational conditions that support innovation in teachers’ and pupils’ learning. References Alton-Lee, A. & Nuthall, G. (1990) Pupil experiences and pupil learning in the elementary classroom: an illustration of a generative methodology, Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(1), 27–45. Bellack, A. A., Hyman, R. T., Smith, F. L., Jr. & Kliebard, H. M. (1966) The language of the classroom (New York, Teachers College Press). Bennett, N. (1996) Class size in primary schools: perceptions of head teachers, chairs of governors, teachers and parents, British Educational Research Journal, 22(1), 33–55. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D. (2003) Assessment for learning (Maidenhead, Open University Press). Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998) Assessment and classroom learning, Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–75. Blatchford, P., with Bassett, P., Goldstein, H., Martin, C., Catchpole, G., Edmonds, S. & Moriarty, V. (2003) The class size debate: is smaller better? (Maidenhead, Open University Press). Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Kutnick, P., & Martin, C. (2001) Classroom contexts: connections between class size and within class grouping, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 283–302. Blatchford, P. & Martin, C. (1998) The effects of class size on classroom processes: it’s a bit like a treadmill—working and getting nowhere fast, British Journal of Educational Studies, 46(2), 118–137. Blatchford, P., Moriarty, V., Edmonds, S. & Martin, C. (2002) Relationships between class size and teaching: a multi-method analysis of English infant schools, American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 101–132. Blatchford, P. & Mortimore, P. (1994) The issue of class size for young children in schools: what can we learn from research? Oxford Review of Education, 20(4), 411–428. Bourke, S. (1986) How smaller is better: some relationships between class size, teaching practices, and student achievement, American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 558–571. Brophy, J. & Evertson, C. (1974) Process-product correlations in the Texas teacher effectiveness study: final report (Research Report No. 74–6) (Austin, University of Texas, R&D Center for Teacher Education) (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 099 345). Brophy, J. & Good, T. (1974) Teacher–student relationships: causes and consequences (New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston). Brophy, J. & Good, T. (1986) Teacher behavior and student achievement, in: M. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching (London, MacMillan), 328–375. Brown, G. & Wragg, E. (1993) Questioning (London, Routledge). Brown, S. & McIntyre, D. (1993) Making sense of teaching (Buckingham, Open University Press). Bruner, J. & Haste, H. (1987) Making sense: the child’s construction of the world (London, Methuen). Calderhead, J. (1990) Representations of teachers’ knowledge, in: P. Goodyear (Ed.) Teaching knowledge and intelligent tutoring (New York, Ablex). Chaplain, R. (1996) Making a strategic withdrawal: disengagement and self-worth protection in male pupils, in: J. Rudduck, R. Chaplain & G. Wallace (Eds) School improvement. What can pupils tell us? (London, David Fulton), 101–115.
Are small classes better? 233 Clark, C. M. & Peterson, P. L. (1986) Teachers’ thought processes, in: M. C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching (New York, Macmillan), 255–296. Cooper, P. & McIntyre, D. (1996) Effective teaching and learning (Buckingham, Open University Press). Day, C., Tolley, H., Hadfield, M., Parkin, E. & Watling, R. (1996) Class size research and the quality of education: a survey of the literature related to class size and the quality of teaching and learning (Haywards Heath, N.A.H.T). DfEE (1998) Teachers meeting the challenge of change (HMSO, Cm 4164). Dunkin, M. (1978) Characteristics, classroom processes, and student achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(6), 998–1009. Dunkin, M. J. & Biddle, B. J. (1974) The study of teaching (New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston). Finn, J. D. & Achilles, C. M. (1990) Answers and questions about class size: a statewide experiment, American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 557–577. Finn, J. D. & Achilles, C. M. (1999) Tennessee’s class size study: findings, implications, misconceptions, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97–109. Galton, M. (1998) Class size: a critical comment on the research, International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 809–818. Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C. & Wall, D., with Pell, A. (1999) Inside the primary classroom 20 years on (London, Routledge). Glass, G. & Smith, M. L. (1978) Meta-analysis of research on the relationship of class size and achievement (San Francisco, Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development). Goldstein, P. & Blatchford, P. (1998) Class size and educational achievement: a review of methodology with particular reference to study design, British Educational Research Journal, 24(3), 255–268. Good, T. (1970) Which pupils do teachers call on?, Elementary School Journal, 70, 190–198. Grissmer, D. (1999) Class size effects: assessing the evidence, its policy implications and future research agenda, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 231–248. Hallinen, M. T. & Sørensen, A. B. (1985) Class size, ability group size, and student achievement, American Journal of Education, 71–89. Hargreaves, L., Galton, M. & Pell, A. (1998) The effects of class size on teacher-pupil interaction, International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 779–795. Hargreaves, D. H., Hester, S. K. & Mellor, F. J. (1975) Deviance in classrooms (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul). Harnischfeger, A. & Wiley, D. E. (1976) The teaching-learning processes in elementary school: a synoptic view, Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 5–43. Hawkins, W. H. & Taylor, S. (1972) Teacher reactive behavior related to class size and to the teaching of mathematics, social studies and English, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Canberra, Australia. Hughes, D. (1973) An experimental investigation of the effects of pupil responding and teacher reacting on pupil achievement, American Educational Research Journal, 10(1), 21–37. Korostoff, M. (1998) Tackling California’s class size reduction policy initiative: an up close and personal account of how teachers and learners responded, International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 797–807. Kranz, P., Weber, W., & Fishell, K. (1970) The relationships between teacher perception of pupils and teacher behavior toward those pupils, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. McIntyre, D. (2000) Has classroom teaching served its day?, in: B. Moon., M. Ben-Peretz & S. Brown (Eds) The Routledge international companion to education (London, Routledge), 83–108. Molnar, A., Smith, P., Zahorik, J., Palmer, A., Halbach, A. & Ehrle, K. (1999) Evaluating the Sage program: a pilot program in targeted pupil-teacher reduction in Wisconsin, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 165–177.
234 D. Pedder Mosteller, F. (1995) The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades, The Future of Children, 5(2), 113–127. Nuthall, G. & Church, J. (1973) Experimental studies of teaching behavior, in: G. Chanan (Ed) Towards a science of teaching (London, National Foundation for Educational Research), 9–25. Nye, B., Hedges, L. V. & Konstantopolous, 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. Ofsted (1995) Class size and the quality of education (London, HMSO). Pate-Bain, H. P. & Achilles, C. M. (1986) Interesting developments in class size, Phi Delta Kappan, 67(9), 662–665. Pate-Bain, H. P., Achilles, C. M., Zaharias, J. B., & McKenna, B. (1992) Class size does make a difference, Phi Delta Kappan, 74(3), 253–256. Pedder, D. (2001) The impact of class size on effective teaching and learning: a conceptual and methodological investigation. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cambridge University Faculty of Education. Pollard, A. & Triggs, P., with Broadfoot, P., McNess, E. & Osborn, M. (2000) What pupils say: changing policy and practice in primary education (London, Continuum). Pollard, A., with Filer, A. (1996) The social world of children’s learning: case studies of pupils from four to seven (London, Cassell). Powney, J. & Watts, M. (1987) Interviewing in educational research (London, Routledge). Prais, S. J. (1996) Class size and learning: the Tennessee experiment—what follows? Oxford Review of Education, 22, 399–414. Robinson, G. E. & Wittebols, J. H. (1986) Class size research: a related cluster analysis of decision making (Arlington, V. A., Educational Research Service). Rosenshine, B. & Berliner, D. (1978) Academic engaged time, British Journal of Teacher Education, 4(1), 3–15. Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968) Pygmalion in the classroom: teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development (New York, Holt). Rudduck, J. & Flutter, J. (2000) Pupil participation and pupil perspective: carving a new order of experience, Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1), 75–90. Rudduck, J. & Flutter, J. (2004) How to improve your school: giving pupils a voice (London, Continuum). Rudduck, J., Chaplain, R. & Wallace, G. (1996) School improvement: what can pupils tell us? (London, David Fulton). Shapson, S. M., Wright, E. N., Eason, G. & Fitzgerald, J. (1977) Effects of class size in the junior grades: a study (Ontario, Ministry of Education). Shapson, S. M., Wright, E. N., Eason, G. & Fitzgerald, J. (1980) An experimental study of the effects of class size, American Educational Research Journal, 17, 144–152. Slavin, R. (1989) Class size and student achievement: small effects of small classes, Educational Psychologist, 24(1), 99–110. Soar, R. S. (1973) Follow through classroom process measurement and pupil growth (1970–1971, final report) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 106 297) (Gainesville, University of Florida Institute for Development of Human Resources). Stallings, J. & Kaskowitz, D. (1974) Follow through classroom observation evaluation 1972-1973 (Sri Project Uru-7370) (Stanford, CA, Sri International). Weis, T. (1990) Indiana’s Prime Time, Contemporary Education, 62(1), 31–32. Word, E., Achilles, C. M., Bain, H., Folger, J., Johnson, J. & Lintz, N. (1990) Project Star final executive summary: kindergarten through third grade results (1985–1989) Contemporary Education, 62(1), 13–16. Wright, C. & Nuthall, G. (1970) Relationships between teacher behaviors and pupil achievement in three experimental elementary science lessons, American Educational Research Journal, 7(1), 109–121.
