Instructional Practice and Student Behavior

A r c h i v e d I n f o r m a t i o n

Class Size and Students At Risk: What is Known?...What is Next? - April 1998

Instructional Practice
and Student Behavior

Two questions may be posed with respect to teaching practices in small classes:

How does teacher behavior actually change when there are fewer students in the classroom (and are these changes beneficial)? and
What sorts of teaching practices should be implemented to take maximum advantage of a small-class setting?

Some answers to the first question are available and are summarized below but, to date, the second question can only be answered with additional research.

This discussion focuses on the construct "student engagement" on the assumption that a primary objective of instructional practice should be to maximize the engagement of individual students in the learning process. Research is reviewed that addresses three propositions, each of which is discussed in detail:

Student engagement--having both behavioral and affective elements--is essential to learning;
Disengagement from learning--in both behavioral and affective forms--is especially problematic among students at risk; and
Small classes, by their nature, promote student engagement in learning and provide the conditions for teachers to encourage student engagement further, if they wish.

Student Engagement

The phrase "engagement in school" is often cited as an essential component of dropout prevention programs or other interventions for students at risk. However, there have been very few attempts to define engagement behaviorally or to study it as part of the learning process. Finn (1989) presented a model of student engagement with two central components, participation and identification.

Participation, the behavioral component, includes basic behaviors such as the student's acquiescence to school and class rules, arriving at school and class on time, attending to the teacher, and responding to teacher-initiated directions and questions. Noncompliant behavior--for example, inattentiveness, disruptive behavior, or refusing to complete assigned work--represents a student's failure to meet these basic requisites. Other levels of participation include initiative-taking on the part of the student (initiating questions or dialogue with the teacher, engaging in help-seeking behavior), and participation in the social, extracurricular, and athletic aspects of school life.

Identification, the affective component, refers to the student's feelings of belonging in the school setting (sometimes called school membership) and valuing the outcomes that school will provide, for example, access to post-school opportunities.

To the extent that it has been studied, the relationship of specific engagement behaviors with academic performance is strong and consistent across populations defined by background characteristics and grade level (see Finn, 1989; Finn, 1993; Finn & Rock, 1997; for summaries). These studies also have shown that positive engagement behaviors explain why some students perform well in school in spite of the adversities they face as members of high-risk populations; that is, they are "academically resilient."

Engagement and Students At Risk

Behavioral and affective disengagement from class and school is a particular problem among minority students from low-income homes (Steele, 1992). It may be difficult or impossible for some students to see any advantage to school participation when the immediate rewards are few and relationships with school staff are adversarial. And there is a substantial body of evidence that poor engagement behaviors are more common among students at risk. For example, minority students participate less fully in learning-related activities in class (Finn, Folger, & Cox, 1991; Lamborn, et al., 1992; Treuba, 1983) and exhibit more behavior problems in school (Farkas,et al. 1990; McFadden,et al. 1992; Velez, 1989) in comparison to their non-minority peers.

One form of disengagement--inattentive-withdrawn behavior--is worthy of special note because of educators' failure to recognize the severity of the problem, even though it has been shown to be related to depressed academic performance in the elementary grades (Finn, Pannozzo, & Voelkl, 1995). Exhibited more commonly among minority students, inattentive- withdrawn behavior has been characterized as a "loss of contact with what is going on in class" (Swift & Spivack, 1968, p. 141). Such students generally avoid calling attention to themselves;¹⁸ may seem distracted or preoccupied; and, if required to participate in classroom interactions, may give responses that are off-topic. They are even less likely than disruptive students to be directed to constructive learning activities. Finn, Pannozzo, and Voelkl (1995) found that, although the academic performance of both groups was below par, inattentive-withdrawn students performed significantly lower than disruptive students on all achievement measures.

It is established that small classes have a positive impact on academic achievement, at least in the early grades. If small classes also have a positive effect on student engagement, then the effects are likely to be especially profound for minority students and for other students at risk of educational failure. Further, a small class setting may make it difficult for a youngster to withdraw from participating, and make it difficult for a teacher to overlook the needs of particular students.

These relationships can be summarized in the form of a diagram:

Figure 1.
Relationship between class size and academic performance

[Class Setting (size; other features)/Instructional Behavior] = Student Engagement = Academic Perfomance]

Although the diagram is intended only to indicate where class size and engagement fit into a larger picture, it serves as a rudimentary model for explaining pupil achievement. The arrow from academic performance to student engagement represents the assumption that positive outcomes tend to reinforce productive behaviors; if this cycle is established, the likelihood that a student will persist in school is also increased.¹⁹

Teacher and Pupil Behavior in Small Classes

Until recently, the classroom processes that distinguish small from large classes have proven remarkably elusive. For example, a well-designed study of process was conducted in Toronto, Canada (Shapson,et al. 1980), Teachers and students in grade 4 classes were assigned at random to one of four class sizes: 16, 23, 30, or 37 pupils. Students were randomly reassigned in grade 5 and followed for another year. In addition to achievement measures, ratings were made by trained observers that included measures of teacher-pupil interaction, pupil participation, pupil satisfaction, method of instruction, subject emphasis, physical conditions, use of instructional aids, classroom atmosphere, and the quality of classroom activity. Additional questionnaires were administered to participating teachers and pupils.

In spite of the plethora of measures, most of the findings were negative. Teachers expected smaller classes to facilitate more individualized programs and stated later that their expectations were confirmed. They generally had more positive attitudes in the smaller classes and were .pleased with the ease of managing and teaching in a small-class setting. They felt that they had made changes to adapt to the different class sizes. However:

The observation of classroom process variables revealed very few effects of class size. Class size did not affect the amount of time teachers spent talking about course content or classroom routines. Nor did it affect the choice of audience for teachers' verbal interactions; that is, when they changed class sizes, teachers did not alter the proportion of their time spent interacting with the whole class, with groups, or with individual pupils. (pp. 149-150)

No differences were found in pupil satisfaction or affective measures, and no differences were found for most teacher activities, subject emphasis, classroom atmosphere, or the quality measures.

We can only speculate about the reasons for the negative findings in such a thorough investigation. One possibility, raised in Project STAR and Project Challenge, is that a small class intervention in later grades (grade 2 and up) is not as effective as an earlier intervention. However, even today, the question of classroom process remains a top priority for further work. Some recent research has begun to reveal differences associated with class size.

A study of teaching practices in year 5 mathematics classes conducted in Melbourne, Australia (Bourke, 1986) produced a list of factors related to class size. The 63 classes studied ranged from 12 to 33 students, with more than 10 percent of the classes having 20 students or fewer. Significant positive correlates of class size included amount of noise tolerated, non-academic management, and teacher lectured or explained. The significant negative correlates were more numerous: use of whole class teaching, amount of homework assigned and graded, teacher probes after a question, teacher directly interacting with students, and positive teacher response to answer from student.

The non-experimental nature of the study leaves us with a number of possible explanations for these correlations, and the results may be specific to mathematics. However, the pattern of results suggests that in smaller classes:

Less time is spent on classroom management; and
There is more interaction between teachers and individual students, with the interaction more protracted.

Both of these are conducive to increasing the academic engagement of pupils.

Several STAR-related studies also support these conclusions. For example, observations were made of mathematics and reading lessons in 52 of STAR's grade 2 classrooms (Evertson & Folger, 1989). Although the amount of observation time was limited, the positive findings included the following.

"Teachers in the small classes devoted an average of an hour to reading instruction, while teachers in regular classes spent an hour and twenty-four minutes" (p. 7). That is, higher average levels of performance were obtained with less time expenditure.
In mathematics, students in small classes initiated more contacts with the teacher, for purposes of clarification, giving answers to questions that were open to the whole class, and contacting the teacher privately for help.
In reading, small classes had more students on-task and fewer students off-task and spent less time waiting for the next assignment, compared with students in regular classes.
Teachers in small classes were rated as better monitors of students' understanding of class material and as more consistent in their management of student behavior.

Interviews conducted with STAR teachers were consistent with the observations. Teachers preferred the small-class setting and felt they were able to provide more individual attention, make greater use of supplemental texts and enrichment activities, and provide more frequent opportunities for pupils to engage in firsthand learning activities (Bain,et al. 1992). In total, it appears that classroom management was more efficient and the quality of teacher-student interaction was improved in smaller classes.

North Carolina's Success Starts Small (Achilles,et al. 1994; Kiser-Kling, 1995) provided further support. In this study, trained observers collected over 7,100 "communication events" in the small and matched regular-size classes. Events were classified as personal, institutional, or task oriented. In brief, the study found a greater percentage of on-task events in small classes and a smaller percentage of institutional events (e.g., discipline or organizational) in comparison to regular-size classes. On-task behaviors increased as a percentage of all behaviors between October and April in small classes, and decreased over the same time span in the larger classes. Further, discipline referrals among grade 1 pupils declined in small classes from 38 to 28 to 14 over the 3-year period.

The studies described here indicate that student engagement and the conditions that facilitate engagement are affected positively in a small-class setting. In general, management problems were reduced and instructional interactions were enhanced.

Other Outcomes

Short- and long-term benefits in addition to enhanced performance and academic engagement may accrue from small-class participation. Research to date suggests a number of practices that may be impacted, as described below.

Discipline. The STAR grade 4 follow-up (e.g., the LBS) demonstrated that students who had been in small classes were less disruptive than their peers in regular classes. The Success Starts Small project documented that grade 1 disciplinary referrals dropped over successive years in small classes. We have yet to learn whether this pattern persists through the grades.

Grade retentions. A dissertation study was conducted from STAR data that focused on pupils who entered kindergarten and grade 1 as retainees (Harvey, 1993). The study concluded that proportionately fewer students were retained in small classes and that pupils in small classes were passed to the next grade with a wider range of scores. The possibility of using small class placement as an alternative to grade retention was raised. To date, no analysis of student retentions through later grades has been performed.

Special education. With both academic and behavioral advantages, it is possible that small classes could reduce the need for special education placements. This would, of course, represent an important cost savings.

Attendance. The STAR analysis of attendance did not reveal any differences in grades kindergarten through 3. However, younger pupils do not have the autonomy that would permit skipping classes or school. Attendance needs to be monitored through later grades.

Summary

Project STAR demonstrated that small classes benefit students in grades kindergarten through 3 academically. That pupil behaviors are affected was shown clearly in the STAR grade 4 follow-up (i.e., the LBS). Ratings of specific engagement dimensions revealed improvements in the expenditure of effort, initiative taking, and reduced disruptive and inattentive behavior in comparison to students in regular classes. Both of these outcomes--enhanced performance and academic engagement--are likely to be beneficial especially to students at risk. Yet results for this population have not been examined closely enough to reveal the extent to which this is so.

Substantially more research is needed to tell us about the connections among teaching practices, engagement behaviors, and academic achievement--particularly for students at risk, and particularly through the later grades.

¹⁸ Brophy and Evertson (1981) termed such students "invisible" students.

¹⁹ This is not a necessary assumption since no conclusions in this paper rest on it being correct. The cycle depicted here is part of the "participation-identification model" presented in Finn (1989; 1993).

-###-

[Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Smaller Classes]

[Research Priorities]