TEACHING IN LARGE AND SMALL CLASSES

Peter Blatchford, Anthony Russell, and Penelope Brown

Introduction
In many countries over the world there has been a hotly contested and widely reported debate over the educational consequences of class size differences. Opinions vary from those academics and policy makers who argue that class size reduction is not cost effective to those who argue that it should be a cornerstone of educational policy. Despite the debate, there is general agreement, from both experimental (e.g., Finn & Achilles, 1999) and naturalistic studies (Blatchford, Bassett, Goldstein, & Martin, 2003), that smaller classes have positive effects on pupil academic performance, if introduced immediately after school entry, that is, with the youngest children in school. However, it is now widely appreciated that attention needs to move from studies of the effects on academic outcomes to better understanding of the classroom processes that might be involved (Anderson, 2000; Finn, Pannozzo, & Achilles, 2003; Grissmer, 1999). In this paper we concentrate on connections between class size and these classroom processes such as teacher and pupil behaviour and relationships, relationships between pupils, pupil engagement and involvement. Rather than a detailed review of research evidence, we are more concerned with the educational implications of class size differences, with a particular emphasis on maximising the benefits of small classes for pupil learning. The paper has four sections: 1. A review of key classroom processes affected by class size 2. Examination of factors that can modify or moderate effects of class size on classroom processes 3. Exploration of alternatives to Class Size Reduction (CSR) 4. A look at some implications for practice and policy

Key Classroom Processes Affected by Class Size

In this section we will summarize key findings from research. Given space limitations we will not present individual research findings but present overall trends drawing on main reviews, namely, Anderson (2000), Biddle and Berliner (n.d.), Blatchford and 779
L.J. Saha, A.G. Dworkin (eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching, 779790. Springer Science + Business Media LLC 2009

780 Blatchford et al.

Mortimore (2004); Blatchford, Goldstein, and Mortimore (1998), Cooper (1989), Ehrenberg, Brewer, Gamoran, and Willms (2001), Finn et al. (2003), Galton (1998), Grissmer (1999) and Hattie (2005). We are aware that these studies are Western orientated in the main, but we also draw on a review chapter written for the Asia-Pacific region, that drew on some Asian studies (Blatchford and Catchpole, 2003). For illustration and amplification we feature findings from a large scale naturalistic UK study of class size effects (the Class Size and Pupil Adult Ratio CSPAR) project, see, e.g., Blatchford (2003), Blatchford, Bassett, and Brown (2005), Blatchford et al. (2003), Blatchford, Moriarty, Edmonds, and Martin (2002). This project studied in a comprehensive way the effect of class size and pupil/adult ratios on pupils academic attainment and on classroom processes such as teaching, pupil attention and pupil relations. It tracked over 10,000 pupils in over 300 schools from school entry (at 4/5 years) to the end of the primary school stage (11 years). It featured a multi-method approach and integrated quantitative and qualitative research. It used a non-experimental design, measuring the effects of natural variations in class size, using a longitudinal follow-up study of children from school entry, and sophisticated multi-level regression statistical analyses in order to determine effects of class size controlling for other factors, such as pupil prior attainment.

A General Model of Effects of Class Size in Relation to Classroom Processes

There are several models of class size effects, notably that by Anderson (2000). Here we use an amended model first used to summarize findings from the first stage of

Class Size Differences

Size and Number of Within Class Groups Teacher

Teacher individual attention to pupils More teaching overall Easier classroom control and management

Pupil

Pupil attentiveness / Off-task behavior Active involvement with teacher

More time for marking, assessment and planning Peer relations Less teacher stress /compensatory efforts Better relationships with and knowledge of pupils More flexible/adventurous teaching

Fig. 1 Model of connections between class size and classroom processes

Teaching in Large and Small Classes 781

CSPAR (Blatchford, 2003). This is not meant to suggest that this is in some sense the correct version, but rather seems a good way of organizing key findings (Fig. 1).

Teachers Teacher Individua\l Attention to Pupils

Perhaps the most consistent finding is that the most important classroom process, affected by reduced pupil adult ratios and class size, is individualization of teaching. This increase in individualization is expressed in different ways but essentially means that the smaller the class the more likelihood there is that a teacher will spend more time with individual pupils. Results from the CSPAR systematic observations, for example (Blatchford et al., 2005), showed that overall there was a heavy reliance on whole class teaching and individual work in primary schools but that pupils in small classes were more likely to experience one-to-one teaching and were more often the focus of a teachers attention. Potentially at least this suggests that smaller classes allow more differentiation of teaching (but see below). In this vein, Anderson sees small classes encouraging a more personalized and appropriate curriculum for individual pupils.

More Teaching Overall

In smaller classes there tends to be more teaching overall. The CSPAR study showed that throughout the primary years there was more teacher to pupil talk in smaller classes that was directly concerned with the substantive content of subject knowledge, communicating concepts, facts or ideas etc.

Easier Classroom Control and Management

A number of studies have reported that pupil discipline tends to be more difficult in large classes and more of an intrusion into the teaching and learning process. This means that large classes present more challenges for classroom management and pupil control.

More Time for Marking, Assessment and Planning

Finding time for marking, planning and assessment is more of a problem in large classes.

Less Teacher Stress/Compensatory Efforts

Many studies report that teachers are put under more strain when faced with large classes. This comes about probably because of the increased demands on them but also because they are faced with compromises to their preferred pedagogy. Teachers often believe that learning is best served by maximizing individual attention to pupils and by the tradition of supporting work to be done individually by pupils. It is small wonder that teachers of large class sizes report that they are exhausted and pupils learning needs are not always fulfilled.

782

Blatchford et al.

Better Relationships with and Knowledge of Pupils

Much of the evidence for the next two facets stems from more qualitative research, including teacher reports, so is less easily verifiable, but there is a fair degree of agreement that in smaller classes it can be easier for teachers to spot problems and give feedback, identify specific needs and gear teaching to meet them, and set individual targets for pupils. Teachers in small classes tend to experience better relationships with, and have more knowledge of, individual pupils.

More Flexible/Adventurous Teaching

In small classes there is evidence that teachers can be more flexible in their teaching and more adventurous rather than sticking to a restricted range of teaching methods and curriculum coverage.

Pupils Pupil Attentiveness/Off-task Behaviour

Common sense and logic suggest that with more children in the class there will be more potential for distraction, and more possibility of being off task, and this is indeed a finding reported by a number of studies. Finn et al. (2003) and Cooper (1989) argue for a connection between small classes and increased student engagement in learning. There are two kinds of inattentiveness: an externalizing form in the sense of overtly disruptive behaviours and mucking about, and a more internalizing form in the sense of being disengaged and distracted from work. Finn et al. (2003) conclude that the research evidence supports effects on both types: students in small classes in the elementary grades are more engaged in learning behaviours, and they display less disruptive behaviour than do students in larger classes. They also conclude that effects on processes appear to fade out by later grades and that class size seems to affect student engagement more than teaching. In the CSPAR study, we found in the case of 4/5year-old pupils more off task behaviour in larger classes, but especially more passive off task behaviour more disengagement when working on their own. However, we found no effects on pupil attentiveness in 10/11year-old pupils, which we attributed to the higher degree of control exercised by the UK curriculum and preparation for end of Key Stage tests at this age.

Active Involvement with Teacher

Larger classes can also lead to pupils having a passive role in class. Systematic observation research in the UK found that two allied behaviours were more common in large classes: times when the child is simply listening to the teacher and times when they are not singled out by the teacher, either on a one to one basis or in a group or whole class situation; they are one of the crowd. Conversely, in smaller classes pupils were more likely to interact in an active way with teachers. This was seen in the greater likelihood of initiating and responding to teachers and sustained contact with them.

Teaching in Large and Small Classes 783

Peer Relations
It might be expected that in larger classes with more competition for a teachers attention, pupils would turn to each other and pupil-pupil interactions might increase. In the CSPAR there was more pupil-pupil interaction overall in larger classes in the early years of primary education but by the later primary school years there was no evidence for such an effect. It is likely that this result owed much to the strong pressure on pupils to accord to particular curriculum and work demands, which left little time for interactions with peers. It might be expected that in larger classes there would be more negative and aggressive behaviours between children. This is supported by research on children at nursery level but other research with older pupils seems less clear. In the CSPAR we did not find that pupils in smaller classes had better peer relations; indeed, peer relations were if anything worse.

Size and Number of Within Class Groups

Class size and grouping of pupils in the classroom are closely linked. As the size of the class increases, the size and/or number of groups necessarily increases. Group size can have effects on teaching, e.g., through the amount and quality of teacherpupil interaction. Larger groups can result in more off task behaviour, and mask the particular needs of individuals within them and allow some to freewheel. Some groups can miss out on a teachers attention. Many studies find that though pupils are often seated in groups they only infrequently engage in collaborative work. Worryingly, research finds a tendency for less groupwork to take place in smaller classes, no doubt because teachers are availing themselves of the opportunities for more contact with individual pupils. We return to this and other findings below.

Factors Moderating the Effects of Class Size on Classroom Processes

There are several key ways in which the effect of class size on classroom processes is moderated. It is important to be clear about these because a good grasp of the relationships involved can inform practice and policy. They also suggest directions for future research.

Overall Class Sizes

Research evidence and debate on effects of class size are usually conducted within the parameters of class sizes normally experienced in countries within North America, Europe and Australasia. However, average class sizes and Pupil Teacher Ratios (PTRs) can vary greatly between countries, and in some countries, e.g., in Asia, can be very

784

Blatchford et al.

much larger. Hattie (2005) has pointed out that different class sizes will affect what is considered effective in teaching. Very different styles of teaching will be necessary, and different class size effects can be expected, when faced with class size bands as different as 80+, 3080, and 1530 students in a class.

Age of Student
The STAR and CSPAR projects are consistent in showing that effects on academic outcomes are clearest with the youngest students and there would seem to be clear support for policies involving CSR in the first years of school. There is, though, still debate about whether CSR effects are best seen as age dependent or a start up effect. If the former, then the class size effect cannot be separated from the age of the children; small classes work because the children are new to school, and because small classes give the child and the teacher the opportunity for children to learn to learn, to learn how to be students. If the latter, then it may be that CSR is advantageous soon after strategic points of transition in students school lives, e.g., primary to secondary education. Research evidence to settle this debate is not available. Just as age of child is a factor when considering effects of class size on academic outcomes, age can also be a factor when considering effects on classroom processes. Putting together results reviewed by Finn et al. (2003), with those from the CSPAR, suggests that age may influence effects of class size on pupil attention, with the youngest pupils most affected, while effects on teacher pupil interactions (see above) are evident throughout the primary years. Relatively little is known about the effects of class size on classroom processes in older school pupils and more research on older age groups is needed.

Attainment Level of Student

Research shows that the effect of class size differences vary for different kinds of children in schools. In general, smaller classes seem to benefit students most in need academically, and who thus have most ground to make up. These findings further suggest where targeting of resources (in this case small classes) might be best directed. However, the relations between class size, pupil attainment level and classroom processes are less clear.

Curriculum
Class size effects can vary by school subject. Rice (1999) found that in mathematics, but not science, as class size increased, less time was spent on small groups and individuals, innovative instructional practices, and whole group discussions. In the CSPAR study, the overall effects of class size on individualized attention were found in all subjects but English, probably because English is the most discussion based subject and relies less on questioning of individual pupils. Also teachers in larger classes tended to use more

Teaching in Large and Small Classes 785

groups, but for science only, perhaps because of the nature of the curriculum and the use of group experiments, and also because the value of group work was not recognized in English and mathematics. One direction for future research would be to identify more precisely ways in which class size effects vary in relation to particular school subjects and student age, and to explore factors that explain any differences found.

School Size
We also note here that strictly speaking a full understanding of class size effects would need to distinguish effects from those connected to school size. Understandably research on class size effects has tended to consider the class as a discrete unit, rather than set it in the wider context of the school. But it is possible that some effects of class size on teaching, learning and attainment may be explained by processes at the school level, which may in turn be connected to the size of the school. Large schools may, for example, have different kinds of educational interactions and ethos to small schools, and this might be reflected in processes evident within classes within these schools. This suggestion would need to be examined carefully. In general, research on size of school in relation to academic outcomes has not produced consistent results. From the perspective of this chapter, however, such research would need to disaggregate the effects of class size from school size, in order to show where school size has an independent effect on outcomes (i.e., that is not explained by class size). As far as we are aware this has not been done in a systematic way.

Alternatives to Class Size Reduction (CSR)

One general approach to the efficacy of class size reduction is to compare it with alternative educational initiatives. Hattie (2005) argues that we should consider effects of class size not in relation to zero i.e., having no effect but in comparison with other interventions, e.g. tutoring, phonics training, Success for All. In general, CSR fares badly in these comparisons. But this is not a fair test. Class size is not an intervention like phonics training but simply involves changing the number of people in a room i.e., changing a classroom contextual factor with no control over what happens in the room. It should be no surprise that reducing class sizes in and of itself does not result in gains in student achievement as obvious as those stemming from involvement in a defined educational intervention. We argue that a fairer test is to compare it with effects of other, alternative classroom contextual changes. Here we consider three alternatives.

Reduced PTRs
It is not always realised that PTRs are not the same as class size, in that PTRs refer to the overall ratio of students to teachers in a school, not all of whom will have a moment by moment instructional role. Is having two classes of 25 pupils each with a teacher the same as a class of 50 with two teachers? The evidence suggests they are not, and

786

Blatchford et al.

Finn et al. (2003) argue this may be because there is something special about a small class in terms of the social psychological environment it provides.

Increase in Teaching Assistants

An alternative use of funds is to invest in increased numbers of teaching assistants. This is a much adopted policy in many countries but it is not at all clear it can be considered a better alternative to CSR. The evidence suggests that teaching assistants do not always have a positive effect on student outcomes, and one reason for this is because assistants are not always well trained and clear about their role, and their deployment can be ad hoc or only connected to pupils with special needs. At very least one would need to carefully address the deployment and pedagogical approaches involved in having assistants in classrooms. Currently, we have little understanding of the pedagogical practice of assistants and teachers and how each can complement the other.

Flexibility in Classroom Grouping

Another contextual alternative is greater flexibility of student grouping, e.g., taking out small groups to be taught in a different classroom or the library. It is agreed that this can be a valuable practice, but does not mean it is a better alternative to smaller classes. Flexibility in grouping can also require a good deal of preparation and organisation skills, if it is not to lead to disruption and lack of continuity. Moreover, if groups are used for collaborative work between students, this will also require the development of relational skills to help students work well together (Blatchford, Galton, Kutnick, & Baines, 2005). It may be that students, especially younger ones, benefit from stability of personnel, both teachers and other students, and that small classes can provide a secure base for socialising younger pupils into school learning. Current evidence therefore suggests that these alternative classroom contextual changes are no better than CSR, and involve difficulties not always taken into account. Overall, though, there is a need for studies to compare systematically different contextual approaches.

Implications for Practice and Policy

We can therefore think of class size as one type of classroom contextual factor, and we can also conceive of it as existing in dynamic relation with two other important factors first, the curriculum and assessment arrangements, and, second, teachers pedagogical approaches. It is likely that the relationship between the three key factors will vary in different countries and cultures, but in many countries it seems likely that large classes will present problems for curriculum coverage and preferred pedagogies. This is not the place to assess curriculum and assessment arrangements, nor Governmental or State policies on class sizes. This leaves pedagogy, and we feel it would be helpful to think more strategically about the best pedagogical approaches with classes of a different size.

Teaching in Large and Small Classes 787

It has often been pointed out that teachers do not necessarily change the way they teach when faced with smaller classes and this might well account for the relatively modest effects of class size on achievement. But how should teachers change the way they teach? As Galton (1998) has pointed out, one problem is that we do not have a lot of knowledge about effects of class size on teaching on which to base practical advice. Also, and more fundamentally, we do not have a well worked through theory underpinning teaching and pedagogy. Differences in practice between expert and competent teachers are therefore hard to pin down, and it is hard to show competent (or worse) teachers how to become expert, and it is difficult to know how to advice teachers when faced with different sized classes. It may be helpful to distinguish those processes most likely to follow from differences in class size and those that are potentially likely to follow but which will depend on what a teacher makes of a smaller class. Drawing from the review above, it seems likely that the following things are likely to follow from smaller classes: 1. 2. 3. 4. More individualisation of teaching Easier classroom control More time for marking, assessments and planning Less teacher stress

But it seems likely on the basis of the evidence that the following benefits will require more careful thought in order to maximize the opportunities afforded by small classes.

Differentiation
A recurring theme of this paper has been the value teachers attach to individualization of instruction, and differentiation, and the way this is compromised by large classes. If teachers are serious about implementing a more individualized pedagogy then they need to think through ways of maximizing individual attention. Some teachers do not take advantage of the possibilities of increased individualization, for example, by still relying on whole class teaching with very brief interactions with individuals. Conversely, teachers can pressurize themselves by seeking to maximize individual contact even in a small class this can be difficult. The overall aim, in line with Andersons (2000), would include efforts to increase personalized, appropriate instruction. One strategy is to teach more to small groups. This would have the benefits of interactive whole class teaching, but would be potentially more focused and better differentiated in terms of pupil ability. It is in such contexts that one might seek to maximize the effectiveness of individual attention.

Quality of Teaching
As suggested above, smaller classes can enable more adventurous and flexible teaching. Obviously there can be excellent teaching in large classes but there are likely to be more constraints on what is possible. Smaller classes allow more degrees of freedom and this can allow greater flexibility. It is not intended to give specific details here,

788

Blatchford et al.

because this will in any case vary between subjects and stages of education, and will also be grounded in different school cultures (see conclusions below).

Effective Collaborative Learning

One danger to be warned against is to see all the benefits of smaller classes in terms of increased opportunities for individualized teaching. We need to be careful not to overlook the benefits that can stem from other contexts for learning, for example, pupils learning together with a deliberate attempt to minimize the teachers input. It has been found that truly collaborative group work can be used as part of an everyday pedagogical approach, and can have positive effects on pupil achievement and classroom interactions, though it requires careful development and training for both teachers and pupils (Blatchford et al., 2005). Teachers could make better use of small classes if they did not reduce group instruction. It can also help teachers with large classes, in terms of maximizing their time with other pupils, and encouraging independence in learning.

Conclusion
Rather than considering CSR in comparison with educational initiatives, such as tutoring or phonics training, we have argued that it would make more sense to compare it with other classroom contextual changes, like extra support in classrooms. But one can go further. We have suggested several ways in which CSR can be accompanied by pedagogical changes to enhance beneficial effects for students. It would then make sense to evaluate CSR in conjunction with these particular interventions, i.e., it is the combined effect of class size reduction along with appropriate pedagogical and curricular changes that is of most relevance, and which needs to be evaluated. But we end with another point. It may be too simplistic, especially in an international context, with its huge variety of resourcing, structures, cultures and pedagogies, to seek to identify particular educational practices that will be affected by class size and which should be adopted in small classes. Rather, we may do better to be clear as educators about the educational aims that we consider important and then think through carefully where class size reductions can help. Teachers will vary in their educational goals for very good reasons because of the age of pupils, the subject area, the emphasis at a given point in the year, in response to a particular cohort of pupils, and because of fundamental differences of opinion about appropriate pedagogical approaches. Teachers may be better equipped, when given the opportunities afforded by small classes, if they consider educational principles rather than specific practices. So if we consider well rehearsed polarities in educational goals performance versus mastery orientation, teaching for knowledge versus teaching for understanding, teaching for self or task versus teaching for the pupil we may conclude that smaller classes can help the latter polarity i.e., allow teachers to be more mastery, understanding/learning and pupil centred. The task is then to consider how small classes can help.

Teaching in Large and Small Classes 789

We are not suggesting that teachers undertake this in isolation but that it be approached at different levels school, local area or state. There is also a clear role here for initial and continuing professional development where we feel that there could be a much bigger role for a close consideration of classroom contextual features, of which the number of children in the class is one. Some have argued that professional development is a better investment than CSR, but we argue that they should not be seen as in opposition; rather, professional development should be used to help teachers harness the opportunities of small classes, and help them develop strategies for realizing educational objectives in large classes.

Biographical Notes
Peter Blatchford is Professor in Psychology and Education at the Institute of Education, University of London (website: www.ioe.ac.uk/PHD). His main area of interest is social developmental processes in school settings. He directed a large scale research project on the educational effects of class size differences in children aged 411 years which has led to a number of publications including the book The Class Size Debate: Is Small Better? (2003, Open University Press) (see www.classsizeresearch.org.uk). He also co-directed a major UK research council funded project that developed and evaluated a programme to improve the effectiveness of pupil groups in classrooms (www.SPRinG-Project.org.uk). He is currently directing a large scale study of the deployment and impact of support staff in England and Wales the DISS project (www.supportstaffresearch.org.uk). He has an international reputation for his work on peer social life in schools and school breaktimes/recess. Anthony Russell has more than 30 years experience in education, mostly in primary school contexts, as class teacher, deputy head teacher, initial teacher training lecturer, Local Education Authority advisor and consultant on curriculum development projects in Africa, Asia and Europe. He has carried out research for the Department for Education and Skills on pupils progress in practical science skills, the introduction of the Key Stage 3 Standard Attainment Tests and the effects of class size and adult pupil ratios in Key Stage 2 classes in England. The role, status and impact of teaching assistants has been of particular interest and this has been pursued further in the DISS (Deployment and Impact of Support Staff) Project, from 2003 to 2007, where the focus has been on the quality of pedagogical interactions with pupils. Penelope Brown is an experienced researcher with a long history of working with children of all ages. Previous work has included observations, experiments and assessments with individuals, groups and classes. She worked on the Class Size and Pupil Adult Ratios project and is currently working on a large scale project on the Deployment and Impact of Support Staff in Schools (DISS). Penelope has several areas of interest including dyslexia, particularly diagnosis, deficits and teaching programmes. Previous research has also included work on redintegration; left-handedness and development of dyslexia spelling programmes.

790

Blatchford et al.

References
Achilles, C. A. (1999). Lets put kids first, finally: Getting class size right. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Anderson, L. (2000). Why should reduced class size lead to increased student achievement? In M. C. Wang & J. D. Finn (Eds.), How small classes help teachers do their best (pp. 324). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education. Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (n.d.). What research says about small classes and their effects. Part of series In Pursuit of Better Schools: What research says. Downloadable from www.WestEd.org/policyperspectives or http://edpolicyreports.org Blatchford, P. (2003). The class size debate: Is small better? (128pp). Maidenhead: Open University Press. 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 57 Years. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 709730. Special Issue In Praise of Educational Research, Guest Editors: S. Gorrard, C. Taylor and K. Roberts. Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., & Brown, P. (2005). Teachers and pupils behaviour in large and small classes: A systematic observation study of pupils aged 10/11 years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 454467. Blatchford, P., & Catchpole, G. (2003). Class size and classroom processes. In J. P. Keeves. & R. Watanabe (Eds.), International handbook of educational research in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 741754). Dordrecht: Kluwer Blatchford, P., Galton, M., Kutnick, P., & Baines, E. (2005). Improving the Effectiveness of Pupil Groups in Classrooms. Final Report to ESRC (L139 25 1046). Blatchford, P., Goldstein, H., & Mortimore, P. (1998). Research on class size effects: A critique of methods and a way forward. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 691710. Blatchford, P., Moriarty, V., Edmonds, S., & Martin, C. (2002, Spring). Relationships between class size and teaching: a multi-method analysis of English infant schools. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 101132. Blatchford, P., & Mortimore, P. (1994). The issue of class size in schools: What can we learn from research? Oxford Review of Education, 20(4), 411428. Cooper, H. M. (1989). Does reducing student-to-teacher ratios affect achievement? Educational Psychologist, 24(1), 7998. Ehrenberg, R. G., Brewer, D. J., Gamoran, A., & Willms, J. D. (2001, May). Class size and student achievement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(1), 130. Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessees class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97109. Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Achiles, C. M. (2003). The whys of class size: Student behaviour in small classes. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 321368. Galton, M. (1998). Class size: A critical comment on the research. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 809818. Grissmer, D. (1999). Class size effects: Assessing the evidence, its policy implications, and future research agenda. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 231248. Hattie, J. (2005). The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 387425 Rice, J. K. (1999). The impact of class size on instructional strategies and the use of time in High School mathematics and science courses. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 215229.