Chapter 4: Smaller Classes, Better Teaching? Effective Teaching in Reduced-Size Classes

John Zahorik, Alex Molnar, Karen Ehrle, & Anke Halbach
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

One of the fundamental questions surrounding the issue of class-size reduction is whether or not smaller class sizes help teachers teach more effectively. A close look at a study conducted by the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) program in Wisconsin helps illuminate the effects of class size on the efficacy of the teacher.¹

SAGE studied the results of reducing class size to 15 students in approximately 300 first-grade classrooms across the state. Though the study will continue through the 2001-02 school year, early results indicate that reducing class size improves student academic performance. The study has observed achievement gains in reduced-size classes in reading, language arts, and mathematics that are significantly higher than gains in larger first-grade classes.

The study also found specific effects in the classroom associated with reducing class size. The most obvious result is that teachers are more apt to individualize their instruction to fit the needs of their students (see Figure 1). Through one-on-one tutoring, small-group learning, and total class teaching, individual student understanding and input are elicited, critiqued, and corrected or extended. The content taught is largely the same, but the teaching techniques vary for each student.

This increased use of individualization in reduced-size classes is possible because teachers can spend more time on students and less on disciplinary issues, have greater knowledge of their students, and feel more enthusiastic about their work. In turn, individualized instruction and more hands-on activities result in more in-depth instructional content, more student self-direction, and, ultimately, greater student achievement as reflected by higher achievement scores.

Still, although first-grade students in the SAGE program generally out-performed students from comparable schools outside of the program, test score gains varied among the SAGE schools. Clearly, some SAGE first-grade teachers are having more success than others. This study strives to find out why.

The Study

The study focused on 76 first-grade teachers or teacher teams who had participated in the SAGE program for a minimum of two years. They were teachers or teacher teams who had shown comparatively higher-than-expected achievement gains for each of the two years, as well as teachers or teacher teams who had shown comparatively lower-than-expected achievement gains for the same time period.

To determine the type of teaching used by highly effective teachers in reduced-size classes, two analyses were carried out over a six-month period:

1. Using qualitative research procedures, comparisons were made between the teaching behaviors observed among a group of highly effective first-grade teachers in reduced-size classes and those observed among groups of less effective first-grade teachers in reduced-size classes.
2. Questionnaires were distributed to all first-grade teachers participating in the SAGE program to determine their self-reported behavior and techniques. The results were then analyzed against gains in student achievement test scores using quantitative research procedures.

1. The Qualitative Analysis

Based on geographic accessibility, 13 of the SAGE teachers were selected for a qualitative study of their teaching techniques and behaviors. Nine of them were higher-achieving teachers (representing seven classrooms, since two were team-taught) and four were lower-achieving teachers.² All of them were teaching classes of 15 students, except for the team-taught classes, which had 30 students—maintaining the 15-to-1 ratio.

 

	Higher-Achieving (9)	Lower-Achieving (4)
Sex	7 female, 2 male	4 female, 0 male
Average Years of Teaching Experience	14 years	23 years
Education	2 with Master's degrees	1 with a Master's degree

The following are other relevant characteristics of the groups:

Data were collected over a six-month period using classroom observations, teacher inter-views, and a teacher self-reports.

Classroom Observations

Each teacher was observed a minimum of four times. Two of the observations were conducted as the teachers taught reading, and two were conducted as they taught mathematics. Observers focused on general aspects of teaching, such as objectives, learning activities, student behavior, classroom organization, and teacher behaviors found to be related to reduced class-size teaching in previous research (e.g., individualization, discipline, hands-on activities, and instructional time). Observers took notes, which were used to prepare expanded descriptive accounts of the classroom events.

Teacher Interviews

Introductory interviews were conducted with each teacher, followed by two additional interviews—one focusing on teaching reading and one on teaching mathematics.

The introductory interview obtained teacher background information, information about typical teaching characteristics, class composition, recent changes in teaching, and descriptions of normal testing procedures.

The reading and mathematics interviews asked teachers to describe their instructional philosophies regarding these areas, to describe a typical lesson in each of these areas, and to discuss perceived ways to improve their teaching in each of these areas.

All interviews, which lasted from 30 minutes to more than an hour, were tape-recorded and transcribed.

Teacher Self-Reports

Teachers also were asked to complete self-reports regarding their instructional techniques. The self-report focused on those teaching behaviors and the effects perceived to be related to smaller classes.

Results

The general pattern of teaching found to be associated with smaller classes was evident to varying degrees in both the higher-achieving and lower-achieving classrooms. All of the teachers emphasized individualized instruction to some degree. They attended to the needs of individual students in several ways, including the following:

• Monitoring learning
• Eliciting understanding
• Requiring students to display skills
• Providing feedback and critiques
• Reteaching when necessary

Discipline and management were less important than they might have been in a larger class. Teachers also expressed greater enthusiasm for teaching, although some teachers indicated that their enthusiasm was down from prior years in the SAGE program. However, data regarding enthusiasm were collected in February—rather than in May, as in prior years—which might have been a factor in the morale level of teachers.

It was also found that teachers had greater knowledge of each student and used more hands-on activities, although still not as often as they would have preferred. There was also evidence that students were willing to learn more content in greater depth in a smaller classroom environment.

This pattern of teaching and learning was not uniform across the two types of classrooms, however. There were marked differences in instructional orientation, classroom management, and individualization between higher-achieving and lower-achieving classrooms.

Instructional Orientation

Instructional orientation refers to the "ends" and "means" preferred by the teacher. The goals or outcomes sought by the teacher are referred to as the desired ends. The means are the teaching methods or techniques the teacher uses to reach that outcome.

Data revealed that lower-achieving teachers emphasized personal development as the end goal. These teachers wanted to help students improve problem-solving skills, develop critical-thinking ability, gain deep understanding, enjoy learning, and generally become self-motivated, independent learners. Acquiring basic skills and fundamental concepts was not ignored, but it was secondary for these teachers.

The teaching methods preferred by teachers of lower-achieving classes were hands-on activities, cooperative group work, problem-solving tasks, and generally child-centered, experiential learning in which the teacher serves as a facilitator. The instructional orienta-tion of each of the teachers in the lower-achieving classrooms revealed one or more aspects of these kinds of goals and methods:

Teacher L3³: "I try [to] be hands-on. I try [to] explain things in a way so that everybody has the opportunity and understands…. So, I think the most dominant [characteristic] is my hands-on style…. I like to get the kids problem-solving. I like to not give them too much information. They're mainly having to come up with ideas themselves…. I tend to not do skill-and-drill type things, but to do small group problem-solving type of problems."

L1's emphasis on problem-solving and hands-on activities was evident in both her reading and mathematics instruction. Her room, which is organized into "interest centers," provides many opportunities for students—individually and in small groups—to engage in experiential learning on their own. Furthermore, the group activities she uses in mathematics often consist of solving problems, and the activities she uses in reading stress comprehension.

Both teachers L2 and L3 saw fun and enjoyment as major goals in their teaching:

Teacher L2: "One of the reasons I went into teaching is that I want kids to like reading. I'm not a reader… [but I believe] students will read more if they enjoy it…, so that is one of my main goals also….

Regarding mathematics:

Teacher L2: "I think that is a real important part of math that it should be a discovery part for them. It should be interesting, and it should be fun even though there are certain things that you have to do … it is important to get the interest level … I'm a real believer in having students feel comfortable and be able to express their feelings … I have a lot of hands-on things … [that] give them experience. That's one of the biggest things, I think."

Teacher L3, although not neglecting the need to memorize basic facts and acquire basic information, values creative teaching that produces student interest.

Teacher L3: "I'm creative. I don't know … how creative ‘creative' is, but I'm sure that is one thing … that [colleagues] would say is pretty visible in my teaching …. I can look past the typical type activities that you would do. For example … [we] do something using everyday materials that you wouldn't really think of, but [the materials] just happen to be there, and it's something that would be fun and it sparks the interest of kids."

Teacher L4 is dissimilar to the other teachers who had lower achievement, having goals that emphasize thinking and other personal qualities or methods that emphasize hands-on activities and experiential learning. However, she is similar in that basic skills and concepts are not a primary goal for her. Her main goal appears to be coverage:

Teacher L4: "Well, I try to get to the designated grade level at the end of the year, get through the book …. They give us the [math] book and then [tell us] this is what we have to take…. We have to read and figure out what we're going to do. It's a lot of running off and a lot of preparation for everybody. [In] our math program, we have six of these books to go through."

This focus on coverage is coupled with an elaborate system for recording coverage progress and issuing grades. For Teacher L4, recording student progress often substitutes for helping students see errors and reteaching.

For the teachers of higher-achieving classes, instructional orientation included personal goals and experiential methods, but to a somewhat lesser degree than the lower-achieving teachers. The higher-achieving teachers have goals that are comprehensive, but that emphasize basic skills and processes in general and in relation to the needs of individual students.

Their reading programs focus on word attack skills and sight words along with comprehension. Their mathematics programs are based on problem solving, but they add an emphasis on basic facts and computational skills. This balanced set of goals is matched by a balanced set of instructional methods.

The higher-achieving teachers have a variety of methods, including experiential methods; however, they give more attention to drill and practice than do lower-achieving teachers. When they do use discovery, problem solving, and other student-centered techniques, they use them in a teacher-centered way. The teacher directs and controls the activity to reach predetermined objectives.

This balanced instructional orientation, with special attention given to the acquisition and practice of basic skills, is characteristic of the teaching of each higher-achieving teacher.

Teacher H3: "You need to have a balanced reading program where you have phonics, you have some whole language … you need to have a lot of writing and reading, [so] that [the students] have a lot of practice …. [Reading] is a combination of phonics, picture clues, and comprehension…. I believe in [phonics] very strongly…. There [are] so many words that [the students] are going to come across that if you were teaching [just] sight vocabulary, they would have no skills to break down words.… My strengths, I think, are teaching basics and the structure."

Teacher H7: "I think it's great when we do [hands-on activities], but I also do the skills. They still have to know two plus two equals four in my room, and my students do know…. I know [teachers] complain their series doesn't have a lot of skill work, but I give [the students] skill work … on my own … So, as you can see, I still do some skills too, because I think it's important."

Teacher H6T: "We do a lot of supplementing because we don't feel that the kids are getting what they need from their series. In fact, they're missing a lot. A lot of stories don't reinforce the basic sight words and that's what we feel they need."

Most higher-achieving teachers stressed the need for both teacher-centered instruction and learner-centered instruction. Students need variety, but the variety must include drill and practice as well as explicit explanation and modeling.

Teacher H2: "In order to teach them how to read, you're going to have to use a lot of different methods because children have different ways of learning."

Teacher H5T: "You know you want to try to hit things from as many different angles as possible so that kids who need different angles pick up on things.… [W]e have to have a variety of ways to approach things."

Comments by the teacher team H6T and teacher H7 exemplify the views of higher-achieving teachers about drill and practice. Teacher team H6T said their teaching is game-oriented and they use lots of projects:

Teacher team H6T: "We still like the rote-type activity because that's what math is all about."

Teacher H7 regarding reading: "I could see at a glance who was catching on and who wasn't. And you know we'll go over it again and again."

In relation to explicit teaching, teacher H7 said, "I think it's better if they see a teacher model first…. I know you're supposed to let them create and see what they come up with, but I think it just works better if the teacher models first, and that's what I like to do."

Teacher H3: "I do some direct instruction because I think they need that modeling. They need to be guided sometimes. They need that modeling and the redirection and checking for understanding."

Classroom Management

The second aspect of teaching on which higher- and lower-achieving teachers differ is student and lesson management. Student management refers to classroom discipline polices and practices. Lesson management refers to the structuring, directing, and pacing of learning activities.

Interviews and observations revealed that teachers in lower-achieving classrooms differed from higher-achieving teachers in student management, lesson management, or both—in several ways.

Student management typical of the lower-achieving teachers can be characterized as permissive and inconsistent. The lesson management of lower-achieving teachers revealed a tendency for the lessons to have unclear goals, lack logical sequence, and pursue tangential ideas, and the teachers tended to have lengthy exchanges with one or two students. The outcome of both of these sets of traits was student inattention and reduced engagement in learning tasks.

Of the four lower-achieving teachers, teachers L2 and L3 had difficulty in both student management and lesson management. Teacher L1's student management was effective, but her lesson management led to student confusion. Teacher L4's management style, although different from that of the others, had a similar effect on students.

Teacher L3's management style was evident in the opening-day activities and a reading lesson that she taught. The day began as Teacher L3 called the class of 14 students to the rug area. All of the students sat on the rug, except for two who continued to walk around the main section of the room or over to the reading "cubby hole," a section of the room enclosed by bookcase dividers four feet high. The teacher did not require these two students to join the group. She generally ignored them and possibly lost track of them, because once in the cubby area they were not visible.

The activities consisted of previewing the day's events by having students place pictures and times on a chart at her direction (e.g., Gym 12:30), discussing the date using a large calendar, and reading a story aloud to the class.

During the events and calendar activities, many if not all of the students had opportunities to make contributions. Some students shouted out their comments, which were accepted by the teacher, while a few students waited for the teacher's recognition. The pace of both activities was slow and deliberate. She dwelled on topics with individual students for long periods of time, while the rest of the class fidgeted, talked, and distracted one another.

The discipline techniques teacher L3 used were positive and humane, (e.g. "James, when I hear you talking, I can't hear Michael."), but they were mostly ineffective in bringing about desired results.

After a story had been read to the class and a brief discussion had taken place, the class was asked to return to their desks. The teacher and class engaged in another activity, this time about the weather. Again, many students chatted amongst themselves. Some roamed about the room and generally ignored the teacher, or the teacher interacted with one student at length. As some students continued to misbehave, the teacher began to write their names on the board, but compliance remained elusive.

The last activity was to write a story based on the story that had been read aloud. The teacher modeled what she intended students to do, monitored the activity, and provided assistance when needed. In general, students settled into the activity, although a few still walked around the room or escaped to the "cubby hole."

The actual activities and methods that teacher L3 used were sound, and the stories that many of the students wrote were imaginative and detailed, but the effectiveness of the opening-day activities was undoubtedly reduced by the teacher's acceptance and, in some cases, facilitation of student inattention. Her discipline procedures, lesson pacing, sequence of activities, and even room arrangement resulted in taking time and focus away from instruction.

Teacher L2's classroom management resembled that of Teacher L3. She pursued individual students' comments that were only marginally related to the objectives of the lesson and discussed them at great length, while the class began to unravel. She was inconsistent in enforcing her policy of raising hands to seek permission to speak, and she dwelt on topics beyond the students' ability to understand.

The lesson-management problems of teacher L1 consisted of vague goals for some of her lessons, a sequence of activities of tasks that lacked logic, and a slow pace. The slow pace and poor clarity of the lessons often resulted in interruptions—as students sought clarification—and inattention, leading to incomplete or poorly completed tasks.

Teacher L4, as seen in relation to instructional orientation, had a teacher-centered and teacher-controlled classroom. She had a discipline policy that she followed consistently, and her lessons were carefully organized and sequenced. Her management, however, appeared to be excessive. Lessons seemed to progress regardless of whether students understood them. Misbehavior was dealt with instantly and sometimes harshly. She said to one student, "I don't want you to touch my stapler any more this year. Don't put your hand on my stapler again this year. If I had wanted you to staple them, I would have told you." In teacher L4's classroom, student learning and attention appeared to be secondary to classroom efficiency and order.

By contrast, the higher-achieving teachers are considerably more able to manage students and manage lessons so that students are engaged in the intended academic pursuits. Many see their ability to structure and organize as one of their most important teaching characteristics.

Teacher H4: "[Other people] would say I have a structured classroom. I try to maintain a routine because the children really need to have a routine. They need to know what to expect."

Teacher H1 (when asked what her colleagues might say about her techniques): "They'd say, ‘Oh, she's structured,' and I feel our kids … need some structure. I try to keep a daily routine … so that it isn't always changing, because the behaviors are such that they can't handle that."

Teacher H3: "Another thing is I'm pretty organized; I have to be organized or it would drive me nuts."

This ability of higher-achieving teachers to organize and manage is illustrated in a reading lesson taught by Teacher H1. The lesson began with Teacher H1 calling the class of 15 students together to listen to directions for the day's seatwork. As she waited for them to assemble, she reviewed the class rules for sharpening pencils. In response to a child's request to get a drink, the teacher gently reminded him that students are not permitted to get drinks while the teacher is talking.

The seatwork consisted of four activities. The first, a multipart task involving vocabulary related to animals was carefully explained and demonstrated by the teacher. After each part was explained step-by-step and the students began that part, the teacher and classroom aide circulated and offered help where needed. The other three tasks were routine activities involving an addition sheet, a word recognition sheet, and a story to be written in the students' journals. These tasks also were explained in detail.

Following the explanation of seatwork, the teacher explained and assigned "interest centers" where students could go after completing their seatwork. The centers included a computer center, library-reading center, listen-to-a-taped-story center, and board-activity center. The centers were located in various sections of the room, but the children in the centers were visible from any area in the room. None of the bookcases and other dividers were tall enough to create hidden "cubby holes."

As the students began the seatwork, the teacher called the first of five reading groups to the front reading table. The groups, formed on the basis of reading ability, used different reading and instructional material, but followed a similar routine. Each included vocabulary work; relating the story to students' experiences; predicting story events; oral reading either to the group, to the teacher, or in pairs; discussion of the story; and assigning of story-specific skill or comprehension exercises.

During the reading group sessions, the teacher continually surveyed the room and issued quick, decisive, but kindly commands if students were becoming disruptive. For example, "Bruce, I shouldn't be able to hear your voice." As one group left the reading area and another group came to it, the teacher circulated around the room making sure each student was on task. When the last reading group returned to their desks, the teacher turned off the lights, signaling the end of the reading period and time to put away or turn in their work.

Throughout this reading lesson, all of the students were engaged and on task. The teacher gave clear directions, the tasks were appropriate and followed a logical progression, and the pace was brisk. In her management of the students, teacher H1 was positive and nurturing, but she was also firm and decisive.

Although the management of all of the higher-achieving teachers results in a high degree of student engagement and production, teacher teams H5T and H6T have especially effective management. Student management is accomplished in a novel way in the teamed classrooms. One teacher is almost always available to oversee student attention and give help while the other presents a lesson. Furthermore, because teamed teachers share their views of individual children, they are able to develop an in-depth understanding of each child and target responses to student inattention. In addition, however, each team has an elaborate student management system.

Teachers in team H5T have developed a ticket/sticker system in which tickets are placed in a student's envelope for good behavior and removed for poor behavior. One of the teachers said, "Three, two, one, we're done. Everyone freeze. I'll take a ticket from anyone not quiet."

Implementation of the system was neither rigid nor harsh. At another time, the teacher said, "Now direct your attention up here. Please. Pretty please. Pretty please with sugar on top. Cherries?"

The other team's approach is based on self-control. The following comment was characteristic of their classroom: "Someone in back is being disrespectful. Being disrespectful is making poor choices. It is important to always…," and the class chimes in, in unison, "Make good choices."

The teacher collaboration that produced these systems and their implementation also influences lesson management. Because lessons are planned together and are discussed and critiqued at length, they are usually well organized and efficiently presented. Unproductive tangents, ambiguous deviations, and slow pace rarely occur.

Individualization

In the reduced-size classroom, the direct effect of an instructional orientation that emphasizes academic development and management that enables it to flourish is increased use of individualization. Individualization means meeting the needs of individual students by providing opportunities for them to reveal their understandings and abilities and offering critique and assistance in all settings. It occurs in both lower-achieving and higher-achieving classrooms almost automatically as a result of having a reduced-size class. But it occurs more often in higher-achieving classrooms than in lower-achieving classrooms.

The teachers in lower-achieving classrooms are not necessarily less inclined to focus on individuals, but their focus is less teacher-directed and they have less time available to attend to teaching in general and to individuals in particular, because of their management problems.

Teacher L3, for example, uses a variety of methods, elicits student understandings, has one-on-one sessions with students, and shows concern for individuals, but her individualization is not productive. In fact, in some cases, it is counterproductive. Her opposition to drill and practice and her inability to control the class negate any benefits of individualization. As we have shown, when she does seek students' understanding or offers help to an individual student, she does it for an extended period of time, which causes misbehavior on the part of other students.

This same problem affects Teacher L1's teaching, because her explanations are often confusing, and Teacher L2's teaching, because of her concern for students' emotional well-being. In one instance, Teacher L2, in discussing a story during a reading lesson, asked the class to name possible enemies of the city. One student said it was the car. Another, however, remarked that he did not like birds and began to tell the class why he did not like birds. The teacher encouraged the student to share his thoughts about birds at great length, even though it was unrelated to the story and caused the class to become disruptive.

The higher-achieving teachers mention—and their teaching reflects—a high degree of individualization. They diagnose present levels of achievement, elicit students' thoughts, offer feedback, reteach when necessary, and give periodic reviews. Their lessons are characterized by a variety of types of activities in an attempt to facilitate various learning styles, by much sharing and oral reading, and by monitored practice.

Teacher H2: "You're going to have to use a lot of different methods because the children have different ways of learning.… I do some individual reading with every child. With this small class I can get around and listen to every child read individually every day."

Teacher H3 has regular writing conferences with her students individually, which require students to read their work to the teacher, edit their work with the teacher, answer questions about the finished stories, share their interpretations, and read the finished stories to the teacher and eventually to the class. Her goal is "that each child grows throughout the year.… I just need to meet their needs."

Teacher H4 holds conferences with students individually about their books, discusses any questions they might have, and asks them to reread their favorite parts aloud to her.

Teacher H5T: "You want to hit things from as many different angles as possible so that the kids who need different angles pick up on things. If you're forced to throw it down their throats in one way, it would be like eating pudding all of the time. You know some kids can't eat pudding.… [W]e need to have a variety of ways to approach things."

Models of Less Effective and More Effective Teaching

The models depicted in Figures 2 and 3 represent two types of teaching that result from using the same techniques differently. Teachers in both higher-achieving and lower-achieving classes use all of the elements identified in both figures, but the higher-achieving teachers use the elements in Figure 3 more often than the lower-achieving teachers, and the reverse is true in Figure 2.

Figure 2 does not represent all of the lower-achieving teachers from whom data were col-lected. Teacher L4, as we have seen, is an exception with her different teaching characteris-tics; however, the effects of her teaching match those of the other lower-achieving teachers.

 

Less-Effective Teaching in Reduced-Size Classes

Figure 2 shows the following characteristics of teachers in lower-achieving classrooms:

• Teachers in lower-achieving classes have goals that emphasize the personal development of students and stress methods that facilitate independent, experiential learning. These preferences result in a de-emphasis of the teacher's role and a reduced focus on the basic skills and concepts of reading and mathematics in comparison to teachers in higher-achieving classrooms.
• Teachers in lower-achieving classes have student management procedures that are tolerant and permissive and lesson management practices that evolve and develop. These methods are time-consuming and result in less time for academic, goal-directed instruction in comparison to higher-achieving teachers.
• Lower-achieving teachers use individualization in their reduced-size classes. However, because of their attitude toward the active teaching of basics and the limited time available for instruction in their classrooms, the individualization is less teacher-directed and basics-oriented than in higher-achieving classes. The result, it is hypothesized, is reduced academic achievement.

More Effective Teaching in Reduced-Size Classes

Figure 3 shows the following characteristics of teachers in higher-achieving classrooms:

• Teachers in higher-achieving classes have more balanced goals that include attention to personal development, but they emphasize basic skills and concepts. The methods they prefer are those associated with explicit teaching, such as explaining, modeling, checking, and evaluating. These goals and methods result in more active teaching of the basics compared to lower-achieving teachers.
• Higher-achieving teachers are more structured and organized in their management of the classroom. Students are treated in a positive but consistent and firm manner. Lessons are aimed at important goals and proceed in a systematic, efficient way. Together, these student management techniques increase academic learning time while decreasing distractions.
• Because of the inclination to focus on the active teaching of basics and the increased amount of time available for instruction, the individualization of higher-achieving teachers is more teacher-oriented and basics-oriented than in lower-achieving classrooms. The result, again hypothesized, is increased student achievement.

It should be noted that although the teaching goals and methods of lower-achieving teachers jeopardize achievement as measured by standardized tests, they may not be harmful over time and might indeed be helpful. If the goals of teaching students to think about and solve problems are realized, students will be served in the future even though the attainment of basics is delayed.

Other Possible Factors Affecting Student Achievement

This analysis is based on the assumption that teacher behavior is the critical factor in separating higher- and lower-achieving reduced-size classrooms. However, several other factors could be responsible in whole or in part for the achievement differences. Three of the most plausible factors are students, aides, and testing.

Student ability and behavior could cause achievement differences between the two sets of classrooms, but differences between these classrooms regarding these variables did not exist. Since pre-test achievement data—rather than post-test achievement data—were used to identify higher- and lower-achievement teachers, student ability differences in reading and mathematics were controlled. In each of the 11 schools, the school used a stratified random procedure based on student behavior to form classes. Students likely to misbehave and disrupt the class were equally distributed across classes. This procedure served to reduce or eliminate behavioral problem differences across classes and between the two sets of classes.

A related student factor that could possibly explain achievement differences is the number of exceptional education students in each classroom. Here, too, however, students classified or likely to be classified as having exceptional education needs were equally distributed across classrooms rather than placed in one classroom. An exception was Teacher L3, who had special-education certification and was assigned a greater number of exceptional education students than other first-grade teachers in her school.

A classroom with many teacher aides or assistants could be thought to have an advantage over a classroom in which the teacher is the only adult providing instruction to students. The range of assistance varied from 0 to 16 hours per week in the 11 classrooms. However, between the two sets of classrooms, differences in the amount of aide time were minimal. The roles and responsibilities of the aides also could have an impact on achievement, but these data were beyond the scope of this analysis.

Substantive and procedural preparation for the achievement test obviously could affect the test scores. Every teacher in both sets of classrooms reported that he or she prepared students for the test by practicing filling in circles and other format features of the test and by trying to relax the students to prepare them to do their best. With only one exception, the teachers said that they did not specifically identify and teach content that would be tested. The exception, Teacher H1, said, "I'm always thinking back to the testing when I am teaching. What things need to be stressed? What do they need to do to learn?.… I've always looked at the state Terra Nova, and … am I hitting all those points?"

None of these factors were found to be a major cause of achievement differences in this study.

2. The Quantitative Analysis

The SAGE database was used to provide quantitative data regarding achievement test scores, teacher questionnaire responses, and student profile reports.

Student Achievement

Mean achievement gain scores were obtained for each class taught by the 76 SAGE teachers for two successive years using the Terra Nova Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS). Tests were administered in October and again in May. The mean gains for each of the two years were combined to arrive at a group mean achievement gain score for each teacher.

Teacher Questionnaire

Each spring, SAGE administered a teacher questionnaire to all participating teachers. Of the 76 teachers, 59 teachers or teacher teams completed the questionnaires in at least one of the two years.

The questionnaire asked teachers to rate and rank their use of 12 teaching behaviors that could be expected to be the result of smaller classes (see Appendix). Teacher scores for each of the two years were averaged to provide a total teacher score for each item.

Student Profile

The student profile is administered in the fall and spring in each SAGE classroom. The profiles provide descriptive class information regarding size, enrollment, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and dominant language. These data also were combined for the two-year period.

Results

The correlation between the ratings of each of the 12 questionnaire items and class achievement is positive (see Table 1). Since most teachers perceived themselves as using almost all of the behaviors to a high degree, this finding is not surprising.

 

Table 1 Correlations of Ranking and Rating of Teacher Behaviors with Mean Classroom Achievement in Reduced-Size Classes at the First-Grade Level
	Ratings1	Rankings2
1. Spent more time teaching rather than managing the classroom	.220	.218
2. Covered more content	.017	-.195
3. Integrated content from several subjects	.162	.159
4. Covered content in more depth	.089	-.289*
5. Spent more time individualizing instruction, assessing learning, providing learning activities, and giving help	.164	.172
6. Spent more time engaging students in discussion, encouraging them to share their ideas, and answering their questions	.101	.065
7. Involved students in more hands-on activities	.251	-.201
8. Based activities on students' prior knowledge, understandings, and skills	.271*	.096
9. More often involved students in problem solving, creating, and experimenting	.207	-.036
10. More often organized the class into cooperative groups	.126	.033
11. Offered more opportunities to choose among learning activities and materials	.076	-.112
12. Am more enthusiastic about my teaching	.159	-.185
Notes: 1 Ratings of teaching behaviors were obtained using a 5-point Likert scale. 2 Rankings consist of the three most important teaching behaviors teachers used. * P < .05

The rankings, where teachers were required to discriminate among the 12 items by identifying the three most important behaviors, reveal a different result. The following six teacher behaviors correlate negatively with student achievement:

• Covered more content
• Covered more content in depth
• Involved students in more hands-on activities
• More often involved students in problem solving, creating, and experimenting
• Offered more opportunities to choose among learning activities and materials
• More enthusiastic about teaching

The six teacher behaviors that correlate positively with student achievement are as follows:

• Spent more time teaching than managing the classroom
• Integrated subjects
• Spent more time individualizing
• Spent more time in discussion
• Based activities on students' prior knowledge
• More often used cooperative groups

These two sets of correlations are generally consistent with the findings from the qualitative analysis regarding teaching behavior and serve to support and confirm those findings, particularly with regard to negative correlations and instructional orientation and amount of individualization.

Since the teacher questionnaire did not contain items related to specific forms of student management, characteristics of lesson management, and elements of teacher-directed methods, comparisons between qualitative and quantitative data cannot be made in these areas. Concerning methods, however, the opposite of hands-on activities, problem solving, and opportunity to choose is likely to be presenting, modeling, checking, and similar behaviors, which would be consistent with the behaviors used by the more effective teachers of reduced-size classes examined in the qualitative analysis.

Discussion and Implications

These findings, although limited in scope by the size of the sample and the examination of only one grade level, have possible implications for staff development in schools with reduced-size classes.

Improved teaching and learning seems to occur in most first-grade classrooms when class size is reduced to about 15 students. It is not unreasonable to speculate that even the teaching of less-effective teachers improves in a smaller class. The results of this study suggest that all teachers of reduced-size classes could affect students' learning to a much greater degree if they employed particular kinds of instruction and management.

Although smaller classes result in fewer student management problems and increased one-on-one time, the policy does not ensure that students will benefit. As we have seen, some teachers might use the increased time to sit back and relax. The time saved by fewer discipline problems and a more manageable class might cause some teachers to become less assertive, ill-prepared, and less focused. A smaller class seems to permit these behaviors without the danger of the class getting out of control.

Experiential learning and a clear focus on what is best for the students are of the utmost importance and should be present in every classroom. Teachers of reduced-size classes need to recognize the unusual opportunity they have to advance the achievement of the individual students in their classrooms. They should be encouraged to increase their emphasis on academic learning, not decrease it. They should spend more time, not less, on teacher-directed, basics-oriented individualization—with a special emphasis on student articulation of understandings, teacher critique, and reteaching.

Staff development programs emphasizing the teacher behaviors used by the more-effective teachers of reduced-size classes can conceivably strengthen the positive results found to be associated with the policy. Reducing class size alone will not increase student achievement, but helping teachers become more effective in those smaller classes will.

Endnotes

1. For more detailed background information about the SAGE program, please see Chapter 1, Reducing Class Size in Public Schools: Cost-Benefit Issues and Implications, by John Witte.

2. Originally, ten higher-achieving and five lower-achieving teachers/teacher teams were selected. One from each group was later dropped from the study due to insufficient data.

3. Teacher comments and remarks are used to illustrate the findings of the study. Attribution will be made as follows: Teachers from the high-performing classes will be indicated by H1-7 (Teacher teams indicated with a T). Lower-achieving teachers will be L1-4.

Previous | Table of Contents | Next