Table of Contents - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

noble-sherman
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Table of Contents PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Table of Contents

play fullscreen
1 / 18
Download Presentation
Table of Contents
67 Views
Download Presentation

Table of Contents

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Class Size and Its Effect on Academic Achievement____________________________________________________________________Does class size matter?Maria O’ReganEdu 7202, Spring 2012

  2. Table of Contents • Statement of the Problem Slide 3 • Review of Literature Slides 4-5 • Statement of Hypothesis Slide 6 • Method/Participants Slide 7 • Research Design Slide 8 • Internal & External Threats Slide 9 • Results Slides 10-14 • Discussions/Implications Slide 15 • References Slides 16-18

  3. Statement of the Problem With class size at an all time high, children are having trouble completing tasks and receiving the attention they need. Teachers in larger class settings are not able to individually help each studentandeven trying to help a percentage of the class proves to be difficult. Students in smaller classes have the opportunity to receive more attention and better lessons allowing for better chance of success in the classroom.

  4. Review of Literature • Class size is a controversial topic (Gamoran & Milesi, 2006; Hedges, Konstantopoulos, & Nye, 2001). • STAR (Student/Teacher Achievement) : Small classes of 13 to 17 students had a positive impact on student achievement (relative to regular-sized classes of 22 to 26 students) (Achilles & Finn, 2003; Mosteller, Light, & Sachs, 1996; Hanushek & Krueger, 2000). • Solution to over crowding classroom: co-teaching, aide, assistant teacher (Achilles & Finn, 2003; Walter- Thomas, 1997). • Conflicts, different teach methods, authoritative, inconvenience (Achilles &Finn, 2003; Walter- Thomas, 1997).

  5. Review of Literature Pros • Early intervention allows students to benefit in later grades (Chung & Konstantopoulos, 2009; Achilles & Finn,2003) • Smaller class size allows for better teacher performance (Chen & Chen, 2009; Achilles, Finn & Pannozzoo, 2003). • Small classes are more unified in daily task (Achilles & Finn,2003; Funkhouser, 2009). Cons • More costly to have small classes (Achilles & Finn, 2003; Hedges, Konstantopoulos, & Nye, 2001). • Less daily social interaction (Pedder, 2006; McLeod, 2007;). • Does not prepare students for life ahead when placed in large group, ie. college, work (Murdoch & Guy, 2002; Pedder, 2006)

  6. Statement of the Hypothesis • HR 1: To teach one unit on math content and one unit on language arts content by one teacher to seven Pre-Kindergarten students from PS X in Brooklyn, NY for 45 minute sessions, over a six week period, three times a week, will increase their overall content knowledge in math and language arts as measured by a math and language arts test. • HR2: To teach one unit on math content and one unit on language arts content by two teachers to twenty-one Pre-Kindergarten students from PS X in Brooklyn, NY for 45 minute sessions, over a six week period, three times a week, will decrease their overall content knowledge in math and language arts as measured by a math and language arts test.

  7. Method: Participants, Instruments, and Procedure • Participants: 27 Prekindergarten students from P.S. X in Brooklyn, New York. • Instruments • Pretest: Mock Gifted and Talented Prep Exam • Treatment: Lessons based on gifted and talented prep • Post Test: Mock Gifted and Talented Prep Exam (same as pretest) • Surveys: given to the teachers and students to see they feelings about the gifted and talented exam.

  8. Research Design • Research Design: Quasi-Experimental Design • Nonequivalent Control Group Design • This designed is based upon two groups that will be pretested (O), exposed to a treatment (X), and posttested (O). • Two groups: • Symbolic Design: O X1 O O X2 O • (O) Pre-test, (X1) Treatment for Group 1, (X2) Treatment for Group 2, (O) Post-test • Two groups of students: Class A will consist of 21 kids and two teachers Class B consists of 7 students and one teacher. • The research will be focusing on the students progress in regards to class size ratio and tested by the NYC DOE Gifted and Talented Exam.

  9. Threats Internal Validity • History • Testing/Pre-test Sensitization • Instrumentation • Mortality • Selection-Maturation Interaction External Validity • Ecological • Generalizable conditions • Pre-test Treatment • Selection-Treatment Interaction • Specificity of Variables Treatment • Diffusion:Experimenter Effect

  10. Correlation: Class A Pretest and Attitudes Toward GTE Prep For Class A, there is fair low correlation between their pretest score and attitudes toward GTE Prep. ATTITUDE RATING: I like GTE PREP 4-Strongely Agree, 3-Agree, 2-Disagree, 1-Strongly Disagree

  11. Correlation: Class B Pretest and Attitudes Toward GTE Prep For Class B, there is fair high correlation between their pretest score and attitudes toward GTE Prep. ATTITUDE RATING: I like GTE PREP. 4-Strongely Agree, 3-Agree, 2-Disagree, 1-Strongly Disagree

  12. Correlation Between Hours Spent and Post Test Scores • How often do you do Gifted and Talented Practice tests at home (outside school)? • 1- 0-2 Hours a Week 2- 3-5 Hours a Week • 3- 6-8 Hours a Week4- 9 or more Hours a Week • *Direct Positive Correlation- more outside help better the score

  13. Data Analysis Pre and Post Test

  14. Bell Curve: Dispersion of Post-test Scores 48% of the students tested scored within -1 SD of the average mean, 7.18. 18% of the students tested scored within +1 SD of the average mean, 7.18.

  15. Discussion and Implications Based on the Results: • In this study, it showed that students in a smaller class, class B did significantly better the the GTE. Every student increased their score. • Smaller classes give more opportunity for small group work as well as one to one. • Students in a larger class size, class A had less of an opportunity to increase their score, however more than half, 65% scores increased, 20% stayed the same and 15% decreased. • Class A in the survey showed they have more outside class time (tutoring, hw, etc) spent on GTE prep than class B. • This study with other participants may be affected by variables such as class size and the materials accessible for the teachers. The preparation for gifted and talented requires a lot of one on one work as well as concentration and focus.

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

  17. References Chen, W., & Chen, W. (2010). Surprises learned from course evaluations. Research in Higher Education Journal, 91(9). Retrieved fromWei-Kian, C., & Won-Sun, C. (2010). Surprises learned from course evaluations. Research in Higher Education Journal, 91-9. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=24&sid=6df39f1e-173f-464c-b34a-fc6da9d5ce63%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ehh&AN=57463899 Chung, V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2009). What are the long-term effects of small classes on the achievement gap? evidence from the lasting benefits study. American Journal of Education, 116(1), 125-154. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=45073947&site=ehost-live Ecalle, J., Magnan, A., & Gibert, F. (2006). Class size effects on literacy skills and literacy interest in first grade: A large-scale investigation. Journal Of School Psychology, 44(3), 191-209. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.03.002 Funkhouser, E. (2009). The effect of kindergarten classroom size reduction on second grade student achievement: Evidence from california. Economics of Education Review, 28(3), 403-414. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.06.005 Gameran, A. & Milesi, C. (2006). Effects of Class Size and Instruction on Kindergarten Achievement. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 28(4), 287-313. Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/hww/results/getResults.jhtml?_DARGS=/hww/advancedsearch/advanced_search.jhtml.4 Hanushek, E., & Krueger, A. (2000). THE CLASS SIZE POLICY DEBATE .Economic Policy Institute, 121, 1-49, Retreived from epi.3cdn.net/aa2f4bcd5fb7ed5d53_3sm6b5jsf.pdf McLeod, S.(2007). Vygotsky. Psychology Academic Articles for Students, Simply Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html Mitchell, D. E., & Mitchell, R. E. (2003). The Political Economy of Education Policy: The Case of Class Size Reduction. Peabody Journal Of Education (0161956X), 78(4), 120, Retreive from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=23&sid=64b64bdb-6e49-4d73-b520-bd00c3671697%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d##db=a9h&AN=10755447.

  18. References Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades. Future of Children, 5(2), 113-127. Mosteller, F., Light, R. J., & Sachs, J. A. (1996). Sustained inquiry in education: Lessons from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 797-842 .Retreived fromhttp://ehis.ebscohost.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=23&sid=64b64bdb-6e49-4d73-b520-bd00c3671697%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d Pedder, D. (2006). Are small classes better? understanding relationships between class size, classroom processes and pupils' learning. Oxford Review of Education, 32(2), 213-234. doi:10.1080/03054980600645396 Shin, Y., & Raudenbush, S. (2011). The Causal Effect of Class Size on Academic Achievement: Multivariate Instrumental Variable Estimators With Data Missing at Random. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 36(2), 154-85. doi: 10.3102/1076998610388632 Sohn, K. (2010). A skeptic's guide to project STAR. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 7(2), 257-272. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=57715544&site=ehost-live Thijs, J., Verkuyten, M., & Helmond, P. (2010). A Further Examination of the Big-Fish–Little-Pond Effect Perceived Position in Class, Class Size, and Gender Comparisons. Sociology of Education, 83(4), 333-345. Walther-Thomas, C. (1997). Co-Teaching Experiences: The Benefits and Problems that Teachers and Principals Report Over Time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 395-407. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=24&sid=6df39f1e-173f-464c-b34a-fc6da9d5ce63%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ehh&AN=9707134012