13. 学級規模と学習の様子
教師の関わり[Folmer-Annevelink et al., 2010]
Class Size Effects on The Number and Types Of Student-Teacher Interactions in Primary Classrooms
TABLE 2
Effect sizes for the difference between a class of 24 and a class of 15 students on the number of student-teacher interactions
Type of interaction
Interactions related to instruction Interactions related to classroom
TABLE 3
Significant differences in the number of interactions according to student characteristics (α < .05)
Interactions related to instruction Interactions related to
classroom management
Kindergarten -0.70*
-0.21
Grade 1 -1.04*
-0.43*
*
Significant at α < .05
慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV 第 5 講 2015 年 5 月 20 日 13 / 36
14. 学級規模と学習の様子
教師の関わり[Folmer-Annevelink et al., 2010]
Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 45.2 2010 35
The results will be organized according to the two re-
search questions that guide the present study.
1. Do students in smaller classes differ from students
in larger classes with respect to the amount and type of
interactions they have with their teachers?
and type of interactions they have with their teacher(s),
and are these differences dependent upon class size?
Interactions related to instruction Interactions related to classroom
management
Kindergarten
Average ability 0.31 0.11
High ability 0.24 -0.14
Disruptive behavior 0.52 -0.57
Withdrawn behavior 0.25 0.09
Grade 1
Average ability 0.20 0.01
High ability 0.21 -0.07
Disruptive behavior 0.09 0.31
Withdrawn behavior 0.22 0.25
Note: none of the effects are significant at α < .05
TABLE 4
Effect sizes for the difference between a class of 24 and a class of 15 students on the interaction between student charac-
teristics and class size, focusing on student-teacher interactions (students of low ability are the reference category)
2
Full tables can be obtained by the first author.
3
The following formula was used to calculate the effect size: (class size 24-
15) * (regression coefficient of class size /√ variance between students),
somewhat differently stated: (9 * B)/σ.
慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV 第 5 講 2015 年 5 月 20 日 14 / 36
18. 学級規模と学習の様子
学習・指導形態 [Galton and Pell, 2012]
devise their own strategies for finding solutions (in contrast to corrective feedback where answers were marked right or
wrong and the correct solution demonstrated) was highly correlated with attainment. These teachers might therefore be
describes as individual and pair sustained enquirers.
Type 2 teachers favour the use of group work. They have the lowest level of questioning overall but the highest percentage
of task direction statements, presumably to do with setting up the groups. They spend most time either listening to pupils
report or explain or else monitoring the pupils’ activity. They might be described group task monitors. Both Type 3 and Type 4
teachers favour whole class teaching. Whereas Type 4 teachers are distinguished by high levels of questioning across all five
categories, Type 3 teachers have high levels of statement of fact and of correcting feedback. When listening to pupils it is
mostly to hear them read rather than silently monitoring pupils while they work. We might thus describe Type 3 teachers as
class instructors while Type 4 practitioners might more aptly be named class questioners.
In Table 3 the proportions of these teacher types in small and normal classes are examined. The analysis is shown
separately for the 3 year groups given the possibility that as pupils advance through primary school the teaching
approach changes. In general, there tends to be a mix of teaching approaches in the small classes, particularly in the P1
year. In normal classes, however, one type tends to dominate in the different year groups. Thus 60% of teachers in P1
normal classes are whole class instructors while in P2 nearly half (46%) are whole class questioners and 54% of P3 normal
classes use a mixture of individual and pair work to promote sustained enquiry. These findings suggest that when
Table 3
% of teaching types in small and normal classes in P1–P3 years.
Teacher types P1 classes P2 classes P3 classes
Small Normal Small Normal Small Normal
Individual sustained enquirers 31 21 41 15 17 54
Group task monitors 21 6 14 15 31 5
Whole class instructors 23 60 23 23 34 28
Whole class questioners 25 13 23 46 17 5
Number of teachers 181 48 44 13 70 39
M. Galton, T. Pell / International Journal of Educational Research 53 (2012) 22–31 27
慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV 第 5 講 2015 年 5 月 20 日 18 / 36
19. 学級規模と学習の様子
学習・指導形態 [Galton and Pell, 2012]
switch to individual and pair work with an emphasis on challenging questions rather than factual statements. English shows
some change although individual enquirers and class instructors appear to remain the dominant teaching approach. Both
Tables 3 and 4 suggest a willingness among practitioners to experiment in the use of different teaching methods when faced
with a smaller class. Further analysis shows a shift away from group task montoring towards more challenging individual and
pair work among teachers with the greatest experience of small class teaching during the three years in which observations
were made.
3.2. Pupil behaviour in small classes
A similar analysis can be carried out with the pupil observations. Again four substantial clusters emerged. Because of
the large number of categories only those discriminating between the clusters which help to identify the pupil types are
shown in Table 5. As before, mean scores for each type were tested against the pooled mean for the other three using the
Table 4
% of teaching types in the three core subjects.
Teacher types Chinese English Mathematics
Small Normal Small Normal Small Normal
Individual sustained enquirers 20 28 29 42 37 24
Group task monitors 27 10 12 0 25 11
Whole class instructors 26 48 35 40 18 40
Whole class questioners 27 14 24 18 20 25
Number of teachers 94 29 101 38 96 37
慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV 第 5 講 2015 年 5 月 20 日 19 / 36
20. 学級規模と学習の様子
学習・指導形態 [Galton and Pell, 2012]
These are the groups with the highest levels of off task behaviour. In both cases the level of significance reaches 1% and result
in medium effect sizes.
It is also possible to examine the relationship between teaching and pupil types and this is shown in Table 7. Only the
profile of the whole class instructors differs from the overall distribution giving rise to a small effect size at the1% significance
level. The fact that these class instructors have a higher proportion of pupils ‘on task’ may, however, be no guarantee that it
necessarily results in increased understanding, since when the teacher is addressing the class and these pupils are listening
there may some who are uncomprehending. The fact that, overall, pupil classification appears independent of teaching
Table 6
% Pupil types broken down by class size and year group.
Solitary workers Intermittent workers Active collaborators Attention grabbers N
Class
Small 43.2 21.2 25.2**
10.4 1177
Normal 45.4 25.8 18.0 10.8 399
Year
P1 44.0 24.6 20.2 11.2 913
P2 41.9 20.7 23.3 14.1 227
P3 44.3 18.6 30.0**
7.1*
436
*
p < 0.05% (small effect size).
**
p < 0.01% (small effect size).
approach (at least in terms of this typology) suggests that the different pattern of behaviour exhibited by certain pupils may
partly be a function of their personality. It might, for example be that the attention grabbers consist mainly of pupils who are
shy, anxious introverts who need to seek constant reassurance.
Table 7
Variation of % of pupil profiles by teacher types.
Pupil type Teacher type N
Individual enquirers Group monitors Class instructors Class questioners
Solitary workers 36 42 53**
42 687
Intermittent workers 25 19 21 22 352
Active collaborators 26 32 17 23 368
Attention grabbers 13 17 9 12 165
Total percentage 100 100 100 100
N 528 240 498 306 1572
**
p < 0.01 (small size effect).
M. Galton, T. Pell / International Journal of Educational Research 53 (2012) 22–3130
慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV 第 5 講 2015 年 5 月 20 日 20 / 36
24. 学級規模と学習の様子
学級の質 [Graue et al., 2009]
FIG. 1.—CLASS domains, dimensions, and behavioral markers
184 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV 第 5 講 2015 年 5 月 20 日 24 / 36
25. 学級規模と学習の様子
学級の質 [Graue et al., 2009]
結果 (Table 2)
SAGE の小規模学級群と CLASS の「反応のよい学級」との
特徴が似ている。
SAGE の小規模学級群の方が CLASS の「反応のよい学級」
より好ましい側面も見られる。
Positive/negative climate(学級風土),Behavior
management(児童の行動を予見しながらの生活指導等),
Quality of feedback(児童に考え方の手掛かりを与えること等)
「学級規模縮小の潜在的な力は様々なアプローチを通して引
き出される」
慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV 第 5 講 2015 年 5 月 20 日 25 / 36
26. 学級規模と学習の様子
学級の質 [Graue et al., 2009]
TABLE 2. Mean Class/Domain Scores for Sample SAGE Schools and CLASS Empirical Sample
a
SAGE Sample
(n ϭ 27)
CLASS K
(n ϭ 730)
CLASS 1–5
(Responsive
Classroom;
n ϭ 88)
CLASS Grade
3 (n ϭ 82)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
CLASS dimension:
b
Positive climate 5.49 1.2 5.14 NR 4.91 .93 4.44 1.17
Negative climate 1.48 .56 1.55 .65 1.35 .65 2.22 1.16
Teacher sensitivity 5.03 1.34 4.64 .86 4.74 1.01 4.60 1.10
Regard for student
perspectives 4.67 1.22 NR NR 4.28 1.08
Behavior management 5.36 1.17 5.18 .79 5.14 .95 4.98 1.29
Productivity 5.65 1.09 4.67 .73 4.98 1.00 4.69 1.14
Instructional learning
formats 4.95 1.12 4.11 .84 4.23 .73 4.21 1.22
Concept development 4.35 1.13 2.11 .74 3.82 1.01 3.84 1.32
Quality of feedback 4.35 1.12 1.84 .64 4.77 1.03 3.54 1.31
Language modeling 4.32 1.04 NR
c
NR
CLASS domain:
Emotional support 5.43 5.41
d
5.92 4.78
Classroom organization 5.32 4.65 5.06 4.63
Instructional support 4.34 1.98 3.26 3.69
Average CLASS score 5.10 4.27 4.74 4.50
a
As reported in the technical appendix of the CLASS manual, Table A.1 (Pianta et al., 2008, p. 97).
b
Maximum score in each category ϭ 7, minimum score ϭ 1, in all categories, except “Negative climate,”
where a high rating would be undesirable.
c
NR ϭ not rated.
d
Domain and averages calculated from dimension results.
SYNERGY OF CLASS SIZE REDUCTION 185
慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV 第 5 講 2015 年 5 月 20 日 26 / 36
32. 引用文献
引用文献 I
[Blatchford et al., 2001] Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Kutnick, P.,
and Martin, C. (2001).
Classroom contexts: Connections between class size and
within class grouping.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71:283–302.
[Bosworth, 2014] Bosworth, R. (2014).
Class size, class composition, and the distribution of student
achievement.
Education Economics, 22(2):141–165.
[Dee and West, 2011] Dee, T. S. and West, M. R. (2011).
The non-cognitive returns to class size.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1):23–46.
慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV 第 5 講 2015 年 5 月 20 日 32 / 36
33. 引用文献
引用文献 II
[Folmer-Annevelink et al., 2010] Folmer-Annevelink, E.,
Doolaard, S., Mascare˜no, M., and Bosker, R. J. (2010).
Class size effects on the number and types of student-teacher
interactions in primary classrooms.
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 45(2):30–38.
[Galton and Pell, 2012] Galton, M. and Pell, T. (2012).
Do class size reductions make a difference to classroom
practice? The case of hong kong primary schools.
International Journal of Educational Research, 53:22–31.
慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV 第 5 講 2015 年 5 月 20 日 33 / 36
34. 引用文献
引用文献 III
[Graue et al., 2009] Graue, E., Rauscher, E., and Sherfinski, M.
(2009).
The synergy of class size reduction and classroom quality.
Elementary School Journal, 110(2):178–201.
[Jakobsson et al., 2013] Jakobsson, N., Persson, M., and
Svensson, M. (2013).
Class-size effects on adolescents’ mental health and
well-being in Swedish schools.
Education Economics, 21(3):248–263.
慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV 第 5 講 2015 年 5 月 20 日 34 / 36
35. 引用文献
引用文献 IV
[Konstantopoulos and Traynor, 2014] Konstantopoulos, S. and
Traynor, A. (2014).
Class size effects on reading achievement using PIRLS data:
Evidence from Greece.
Teachers College Record, 116(2):1–29.
[Krassel and Heinesen, 2014] Krassel, K. F. and Heinesen, E.
(2014).
Class-size effects in secondary school.
Education Economics, 22(4):412–426.
慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV 第 5 講 2015 年 5 月 20 日 35 / 36
36. 引用文献
引用文献 V
[Molnar et al., 1999] Molnar, A., Smith, P., Zahorik, J., Palmer,
A., Halbach, A., and Ehrle, K. (1999).
Evaluating the sage program: A pilot program in targeted
pupil-teacher reduction in wisconsin.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21:165–177.
慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV 第 5 講 2015 年 5 月 20 日 36 / 36