The Effect of Class Size on Achievement and Attitudes

Abstract

1) Students taught general psychology in an instructional pattern of three large lecture sessions (approximately 200 students each) and one small-group discussion (15 students) per week would perform as well on objective measures of achievement as students taught in the traditional pattern of four lecturediscussion classes (30 to 50 students) per week;(2) Students' attitudes toward the subject matter, the instructor and instruction, other students, and future work in psychology would not be negatively affected by this change in the pattern of instruction.

Effects of communication environment, immediacy, and communication apprehension on cognitive and affective learning

“…They compared a mixed-size format (i.e., large lecture of 160 and lab sections of 20 students) with smaller self-contained classes (i.e., 50 to 60 students). Similarly, Eash and Bennett (1964) uncovered no differences for psychology students between a mixed-size format and small classes on two different objective tests. Moreover, when the focus of cognitive achievement concerns knowledge acquisition, lecture-based teaching has been found to be particularly effective (e.g., McKeachie, 1994; see also Garside, 1996).…”

“…While research regarding the effects of teacher immediacy and student communication apprehension on learning has generated some consistent findings (Garside, 1996), research about the effects of delivery format has not. Whereas some research has shown a direct, negative effect for class size on cognitive learning (e.g., Glass & Smith, 1979;Hedges & Stock, 1983), other research on class size has challenged the idea that large-lecture formats are necessarily detrimental to learning outcomes (Eash & Bennett, 1964;Hayter, 1979;Hoover, Baumann, & Shafer, 1970;Kulik & Kulik, 1989). Moreover, the issue of class size and learning may become clouded when investigating a mixed-size format (i.e., lecture/break-out section format, where a large-lecture class is offered with 200 or more students in conjunction with small break-out sections having 25 or fewer students).…”

The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes

“…A perusal of student evaluations of teaching of such classes (most evident at the university level) shows the high desirability of organized lectures and lecturers, clear expectations of the exam system, provision of notes and resources, and a well signposted guided tour through text books, syllabi and assessments. At the tertiary level, there is plenty of evidence supporting the conclusion that size of class does not make a difference (Eash & Bennett, 1964;Feldhusen, 1963;Marsh, Overall, & Kesler, 1979;Maxwell, & Lopus, 1995;McKeachie, 1962); and where there are differences in learning outcomes they favor larger classes; although when students and teachers are interviewed they prefer smaller classes. A further and critical issue with these class sizes, is that the concept of ''student learning'' is more related to scores on achievement tests (assignments, end of course assessments) and less related to developing values, dispositions or learning strategies.…”