Does size matter?

I was just about to close my computer the last Friday of the term and I received a tweet from Kristina Miguel suggesting I enrol for #ditchsummit. The Ditch That Textbook Digital Summit was a nine-day, virtual event which brought together some of the brightest minds in education to discuss technology, pedagogy, inquiry and more. Being the sucker I am for learning of course I enrolled. Who needs a Christmas break anyway when you can learn!

The first keynote was from Mike Soskil discussing the use of Skype in the classroom to build global connections, so far so good. The second keynote was from Kasey Bell discussing the use of google apps in the classroom, useful for those new to google in education. Then came the keynote from Alice Keller and that is where it got really interesting for me. Alice's message was dealing with homework and whether it was of any use or needed to be re-evaluated. I disagreed with parts of Alice's message in this regard for various reasons which I have outlined in previous blog posts, but that is not the reason why this particular presentation got to me. 

The reason is that it challenged me to reflect, in particular, one line from Alice:

The most valuable thing I can do is to sit down next to a kid.

So why this particular line? Well having moved from NZ to China to teach one of the major differences has been the size of classes. When teaching in NZ my average class size was around 30, whereas here in China it has been reduced to 10. So this one line made me challenge my teaching as  it created questions:

1. Was this common sense statement correct?  
2. If this is the case, was I actually doing this more now I had small class sizes?

One of the big assumptions about teaching is that reducing classes improves learning as you have more time available to focus on the individual students. There have been wide-ranging discussions about this with most teachers and parents believing the smaller the class, the better the outcomes. Policy makers, in turn, argue that major research studies do not prove that smaller class sizes have a strong impact in improving student academic performance as much as quality teaching.

We as educators read and interpret research in an attempt to confirm our own common sense views, beliefs and expectations. Early research on class size tended to focus on the numbers. Overall these studies found that the greatest increase in learning, in terms of the number of students in the classroom, occurred in early education and when students were from a disadvantaged background (Watson, Handal, Maher & McGinty, 2015) 

Researchers then began to re-examine and re-interpret evaluations of these previous studies. Studies during the 2000s and more recently have used mixed methods which included interviews and observations that enabled researchers to understand why and how class size reductions influenced student achievement (Handal, Maher & Watson, 2014). 

These later qualitative studies concluded that class size had an organic effect on the dynamics of the classroom. These studies focused on the potential for gains like more student and teacher interaction, the student with student interaction, classroom management and engagement (Stecher & Borhnstedt, 2000). 

John Hattie in his 2013 book Visible Learning argues that it is not difficult to find evidence on both sides of the argument about whether small class sizes lead to improved learning or not. Hattie attempts to identify the reasons for the inconsistent findings of the effect of class size reductions and in so doing positions its influence in terms of other, interrelated influences.

His analysis inferred that smaller class sizes do not always translate into improvement in student achievement and that the real indicator of student achievement seems to be quality teaching. Studies on class size revealed that when teachers were given smaller classes they kept enacting pedagogies suitable for large classes, that is, they did not change the way they taught. This insight coupled with Alice's statement was powerful. Was I teaching the same way with 10 students when I had 30 students? Well, I knew the answer to that. I was. So this is something I will need to incorporate new strategies and change. Dedicated small class size strategies should promote help-seeking behaviours, differentiated teaching approaches, remedial instruction, non-routine learning activities requiring discovery and exploration, project work, field investigations, group work and collaborative learning.  I was already beginning to implement some these approaches, but my time with individual students had not really increased and this is an area I am going to improve on next year. So thank you, Alice, for making me reflect on this.

The underlining conclusion is that class size in isolation is a small factor in increasing student learning. Class size reduction achieves its effect size as an enabler of increased student achievement only when the desired pedagogies are implemented effectively. So next year I shall begin developing those approaches in the classroom. Without having my PLN constantly challenging my teaching, I would not learn and develop each day as an educator.

So happy holidays and looking forward to learning and growing together in 2017!

References  

Handal, B., Watson, K., & Maher, M. (2015). Multi-positioning Mathematics Class Size: Teachers’ Views. International Journal of Mathematics Teaching & Learning.

Hattie, J. (2013). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

Stecher, B. M., & Bohrnstedt, G. (2000). Class size reduction in California: The 1998-99 evaluation findings.

Watson, K., Handal, B., & Maher, M. (2014). Class size: teachers' perceptions.