150520 教育学特殊XIV 第5講

慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV(第 5講)学級規模を研究する

3. 海外の文献のレビュー (その 2)

文部科学省国立教育政策研究所

文部科学省

国立教育政策研究所

総括研究官やま山もり森

こう光よう陽

(教育心理学)[email protected]

2015年 5月 20日

この内容は個人的見解であり国立教育政策研究所の公式見解ではありません

はじめに

本日の出席とスライド

本日のスライド

http://www.slideshare.net/koyoyamamori/cs150520

慶應義塾大学教育学特殊 XIV 第 5 講 2015 年 5 月 20 日 2 / 36

はじめに

今回の内容

1 前回の内容から

2 学級規模と学習の様子

3 文献レビューの作成


前回の内容から


学級規模と児童生徒学級規模と学力

スナップショットスタディでは学級規模と学力との関係は見られず[Konstantopoulos and Traynor, 2014]。過去の学力を投入したモデルでは小規模学級の方が学力が高い傾向[Bosworth, 2014, Krassel and Heinesen, 2014]。

しかしその差はあまり大きくない。ばらつき (標準偏差)に着目すると小規模学級の方がばらつきが小さい[Bosworth, 2014]。

すべての児童生徒に一様の効果があるわけではない。

学級規模と授業態度等 (非認知能力)

大規模学級の方が，授業中の質問に物怖じする，将来役に立たないという教科観，復習をしないなどの傾向がある [Dee and West, 2011]。

このような傾向と将来における学歴，就業，収入との関連。精神衛生との関連はなし [Jakobsson et al., 2013]。

スナップショットスタディではあるが。



前回検討した先行研究から導かれる論点

児童生徒に直接関わる部分が記述されていない児童生徒に直接影響を与えるのは教師による学習指導である。児童生徒の学力に与える影響を検討した論文の中には教師による学習指導に言及したもののあるが [Bosworth, 2014]，これを直接検討してはいない。

学級の小規模化により児童一人当たり指導時間が増える？学力の低い児童に補償的に働く？

下図の黒色の部分が不明である以上，学級規模が児童生徒に影響を与える過程を記述できない。

制度(学級の小規模化)

教室での指導

児童生徒の学力等


学級規模と学習の様子


教師の関わり [Folmer-Annevelink et al., 2010]

問題小規模学級ほど教師－児童生徒相互作用が多い[Blatchford et al., 2001]。児童生徒の個人差と教師－児童生徒相互作用との関連が不明。

目的学級規模と教師－児童相互作用との関係学級規模による教師－児童生徒相互作用の違いは児童の個人差によっても異なるか

対象オランダ 118校 212学級 (就学前 4歳，5歳，小 1)2000年度～ 2002年度までの 3年間の縦断調査




方法授業観察とコーディング各学級で，学力低，中，高，授業妨害，内向的の 5カテゴリ各1名の児童を抽出Socio-ethnic statusなどの変数を共変量としたマルチレベルモデル指標

Effect = CS×Bσ

CSは大規模学級 (24)と小規模学級 (15)の差であることから「大規模になったら」と解釈可能となるσで割っていることから分布のズレを標準偏差を単位として記述



参考：効果量

効果量標準化された平均値差特定の従属変数の単位に依存しない平均値差の指標

Cohen’s d

σpooled =√

n1s21+n2s22n1+n2−2

によって求められたプールされた標準偏差と各々の平均を用いて d = M1−M2

σpooledによって求められる。

２群の分布の正規性を仮定した場合，たとえば d = 0.50のときには，平均の差は標準偏差の 5

10。



参考：d-family効果量の解釈

20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(a) d = 0.10

20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(b) d = 0.50

20 30 40 50 60 70 80

(c) d = 1.00

Figure 1: 効果量 dの大きさと分布のずれ

偏差値を求める式は z = x−xSD

効果量 d = 0.10の場合 2群の集団の平均偏差値の差は 1




結果学級規模と教師－児童相互作用 (Table 2)

就学前，小 1ともに，授業に関する内容，授業規律の維持に関する内容のいずれの教師－児童相互作用も，学級規模が大きいほど少なくなる (Kの授業規律を除く)。

児童の個人差と教師－児童相互作用就学前・授業内容：学力低，中，高，妨害＞内向就学前・授業規律：学力中，妨害＞内向；妨害＞学力高小 1・授業内容：学力低＞中，高，妨害，内向小 1・授業規律：妨害＞学力中，内向；学力低＞中，高，内向

個人差と学級規模による教師－児童相互作用 (Table 4)個人差×学級規模の交互作用は見られず (リファレンスを学力低として検討)




Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 45.2 2010 34

Class Size Effects on The Number and Types Of Student-Teacher Interactions in Primary Classrooms

TABLE 2Effect 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

management

Kindergarten Students with withdrawn behavior had

fewer interactions than did students

with low, average, or high ability or

students with disruptive behavior.

Students of average ability and students

with disruptive behavior had more

interactions than did students with

withdrawn behavior.

Students with disruptive behavior had

more interactions than did high-ability

students.

Grade 1 Low-ability students had more

interactions than did students with

average and high ability, students with

disruptive behavior, or students with

withdrawn behavior.

Students with disruptive behavior had

more interactions than did students with

average or high ability, or students with

withdrawn behavior.

Low-ability students had more

interactions than did students of

average or high ability student or

students with withdrawn behavior.

TABLE 3Significant 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




Journal of Classroom Interaction Vol. 45.2 2010

35

Class Size Effects on The Number and Types Of Student-Teacher Interactions in Primary Classrooms

dent-teacher interactions. The second step was to estimate the differences among students with various characteristics in the number of interactions they have with their teachers. Finally, in the last step we examined whether the relation-ship between interactions and class size was different for students with various characteristics. Separate analyses were conducted for kindergarten and Grade 12.

To be able to establish comparisons with American STAR experiment, the effect size was calculated for a reduc-tion in class size from 24 to 15 students (see Boyd-Zaharias & Bain, 2000, among others).3

RESULTS

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?

The results that relate to this question are shown in Table 2. This table gives the effect sizes for the effect of reducing class size from 24 to 15 students on the number of student-teacher interactions in kindergarten and Grade 1.

In general, this relationship was significantly nega-tive (α < .05), meaning smaller class size related with more student-teacher interactions. There is one exception: the re-lationship between class size and the interactions related to classroom management in kindergarten was negative but not significant. Thus, against what could be expected, smaller classes did not result in decreased numbers of classroom management interactions.

2. Do different types of students differ in the amount 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 4Effect 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)

2Full tables can be obtained by the first author.3The 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.



学習・指導形態 [Galton and Pell, 2012]

問題学級規模と指導形態に違いが見られないのではないかという指摘。

参考：児童の個人差との関係 [Folmer-Annevelink et al., 2010]

香港での少人数学級の導入

目的学級規模と教師の指導形態の関係を検討学級規模と児童の学習形態との関係を検討

対象香港の小 1～ 3，37校2004年度～ 2007年度の 3年間に渡る調査




方法授業観察による教師・児童の記録

クラスター分析による教師・児童の分類学年別で大小規模学級の比較 (20～ 25人 vs. 38人)教科別で大小規模学級の比較

クラスター分析の結果教師

(1)個人に対して持続的に発問，(2)グループワークのモニター，(3)一斉指導，(4)一斉質問

児童(1)独り学習，(2)断続的学習，(3)積極的共同学習，(4)教師の注目をひく




結果学級規模と教師の指導形態 (Table 3, 4)

小 1：大規模学級で一斉指導が多くグループ学習が少ない小 2：大規模学級で一斉質問が多く個別発問が少ない小 3：大規模学級で個別発問と一斉指導が多くグループ学習や一斉質問が少ない教科別：大規模学級で一斉指導が多い

学級規模と児童の学習形態 (Table 6)学級規模にかかわらず独り学習が多い小規模学級の方が積極的共同学習が多い共同学習は 3年生で多い

教師の指導形態と児童の学習形態 (Table 7)一斉指導と独り学習との関係の強さ




devise their own strategies for finding solutions (in contrast to corrective feedback where answers were marked right orwrong and the correct solution demonstrated) was highly correlated with attainment. These teachers might therefore bedescribes 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 percentageof task direction statements, presumably to do with setting up the groups. They spend most time either listening to pupilsreport or explain or else monitoring the pupils’ activity. They might be described group task monitors. Both Type 3 and Type 4teachers favour whole class teaching. Whereas Type 4 teachers are distinguished by high levels of questioning across all fivecategories, Type 3 teachers have high levels of statement of fact and of correcting feedback. When listening to pupils it ismostly to hear them read rather than silently monitoring pupils while they work. We might thus describe Type 3 teachers asclass 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 shownseparately for the 3 year groups given the possibility that as pupils advance through primary school the teachingapproach changes. In general, there tends to be a mix of teaching approaches in the small classes, particularly in the P1year. In normal classes, however, one type tends to dominate in the different year groups. Thus 60% of teachers in P1normal classes are whole class instructors while in P2 nearly half (46%) are whole class questioners and 54% of P3 normalclasses use a mixture of individual and pair work to promote sustained enquiry. These findings suggest that whenteaching small classes many teachers were still experimenting with different approaches, even after three years, while innormal classes there seems to be a progression from direct instruction in P1 to more interactive class teaching in P2, whilein P3 pupils are given more responsibility for managing their learning so that the teacher’s support becomes moreindividualised. A further finding which is common to all clusters emerges from Table 2. Irrespective of whether a pupils isthe focus of the teacher’s attention individually, as part of a group or as part of a class, it is boys who in every case receivemore attention than girls.

It is also possible to investigate the links between specific subjects and teaching types. This is done in Table 4. Herebecause of small numbers it is not possible to conduct the analysis across the three year groups so the results are anaggregate of P1–P3. For normal classes whole class instruction is a favoured teaching approach used across all subjectsalthough for English individual instruction and pair work also form strong elements of typical practice. In small classes,however, there is more variation. In Chinese there is evidence of the increasing use of group work and in mathematics aswitch to individual and pair work with an emphasis on challenging questions rather than factual statements. English showssome change although individual enquirers and class instructors appear to remain the dominant teaching approach. BothTables 3 and 4 suggest a willingness among practitioners to experiment in the use of different teaching methods when facedwith 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 observationswere 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 ofthe large number of categories only those discriminating between the clusters which help to identify the pupil types areshown in Table 5. As before, mean scores for each type were tested against the pooled mean for the other three using the

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

Table 4

% of teaching types in the three core subjects.

Teacher types Chinese English Mathematics







M. Galton, T. Pell / International Journal of Educational Research 53 (2012) 22–31 27




devise their own strategies for finding solutions (in contrast to corrective feedback where answers were marked right orwrong and the correct solution demonstrated) was highly correlated with attainment. These teachers might therefore bedescribes 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 percentageof task direction statements, presumably to do with setting up the groups. They spend most time either listening to pupilsreport or explain or else monitoring the pupils’ activity. They might be described group task monitors. Both Type 3 and Type 4teachers favour whole class teaching. Whereas Type 4 teachers are distinguished by high levels of questioning across all fivecategories, Type 3 teachers have high levels of statement of fact and of correcting feedback. When listening to pupils it ismostly to hear them read rather than silently monitoring pupils while they work. We might thus describe Type 3 teachers asclass 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 shownseparately for the 3 year groups given the possibility that as pupils advance through primary school the teachingapproach changes. In general, there tends to be a mix of teaching approaches in the small classes, particularly in the P1year. In normal classes, however, one type tends to dominate in the different year groups. Thus 60% of teachers in P1normal classes are whole class instructors while in P2 nearly half (46%) are whole class questioners and 54% of P3 normalclasses use a mixture of individual and pair work to promote sustained enquiry. These findings suggest that whenteaching small classes many teachers were still experimenting with different approaches, even after three years, while innormal classes there seems to be a progression from direct instruction in P1 to more interactive class teaching in P2, whilein P3 pupils are given more responsibility for managing their learning so that the teacher’s support becomes moreindividualised. A further finding which is common to all clusters emerges from Table 2. Irrespective of whether a pupils isthe focus of the teacher’s attention individually, as part of a group or as part of a class, it is boys who in every case receivemore attention than girls.

It is also possible to investigate the links between specific subjects and teaching types. This is done in Table 4. Herebecause of small numbers it is not possible to conduct the analysis across the three year groups so the results are anaggregate of P1–P3. For normal classes whole class instruction is a favoured teaching approach used across all subjectsalthough for English individual instruction and pair work also form strong elements of typical practice. In small classes,however, there is more variation. In Chinese there is evidence of the increasing use of group work and in mathematics aswitch to individual and pair work with an emphasis on challenging questions rather than factual statements. English showssome change although individual enquirers and class instructors appear to remain the dominant teaching approach. BothTables 3 and 4 suggest a willingness among practitioners to experiment in the use of different teaching methods when facedwith 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 observationswere 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 ofthe large number of categories only those discriminating between the clusters which help to identify the pupil types areshown in Table 5. As before, mean scores for each type were tested against the pooled mean for the other three using the

Table 3

% of teaching types in small and normal classes in P1–P3 years.

Teacher types P1 classes P2 classes P3 classes







Table 4

% of teaching types in the three core subjects.

Teacher types Chinese English Mathematics











non-parametric Mann-Whitney statistic. Overall significance for the breakdown by pupil type was tested by the Kruskal–Wallis statistic.

Among a range of independent variables likely to be associated with the pupil types, further analysis showed that the 36schools in the study had significantly different pupil-type profiles. By subjecting each of the selected observation categoriesin turn to multiple regression analysis with dummy variables, it was possible to apportion variance in the cluster means topupil type and to the schools. This allows a certain measure of discrimination between the observation categories with thosewhere the pupil-type variance is at a maximum becoming ‘marker’ items.

The clusters bear a remarkable similarity to pupils in English primary classrooms who were first identified in the ORACLE(Observational Learning and Classroom Learning Evaluation) study and subsequently replicated in a repeat of the originalresearch two decades later (Galton et al., 1980, 1999). Type I were described as solitary workers because they are on task foralmost the entire lesson even when the teacher is engaged with other pupils elsewhere in the classroom. Although they sit ingroups for nearly 70% of the time they work on their own. Their contact with the teacher mainly involves being part of his/heraudience when nobody in the class is in focus. Such pupils were first identified by McClelland (1963) in science classes andwere described at the time as ‘undeflected workers’. McClelland likened these students to human cannonballs because theyremained on course, despite the vagaries of the teaching. In the SCT study they form 43.8% of the observed sample.

Type 2 pupils (22.4% of the sample) were labelled intermittent workers in the ORACLE study. These pupils have the highestlevels of distraction. There is a slight emphasis on sitting in pairs and the data suggests that while these pupil work when theteacher is present they can easily be distracted when s/he is either elsewhere, monitoring class activity or when as part of theteacher’s audience these pupils are required to sit in a circle at the front of the room near the teachers desk, a commonpractice in Hong Kong.

Pupils belonging to the third type were called active collaborators in the ORACLE study. They make up 23.4% of theobserved sample and were working on their task for over 90% of the lesson, even when the teacher was engaged elsewhere inthe classroom. They generally sit and work in groups where they both initiate and respond to other pupils working on thesame task. In many ways these pupils are similar to the solitary workers but they operate in collaborative settings rather thanalone. Finally the fourth type of pupil, originally labelled attention seekers, in the ORACLE study are perhaps more aptlydescribed as attention grabbers because they not only seek but also more often succeed in obtaining the teacher’s undividedattention. They have the lowest levels of on-task behaviour and tend to be frequently out of their base area, either becausethey are required to sit at the front of the class or they are perhaps seeking assistance or, more likely, given the relatively highlevels of distraction chatting to another group. Such conversations tend to be sustained. These pupils more often attempt toseek the teacher’s presence or else succeed in gaining his/her attention. We might hypothesise that some of these pupils areperhaps in need of reassurance since the teacher’s feedback often consists of praise. These attention grabbers form 10.5% ofthe sample.

There are no significant ability variations across the four types of pupil and neither do the proportions vary between thethree subject domains. There are however gender differences. Of the 690 solitary workers 378 or 54.8% were girls whereasamong the attention grabbers 98 of the 165 of this type of pupil (59.4%) were boys. Table 6 looks at the distribution of thevarious pupil types between small and normal classes and between year groups.

The main difference between the small and normal classes lies in the increase in number of active collaborators in theformer. As pupils move from P1 to P3 the percentage of this type of pupil also increases (significant at the 1% level) while thenumber of attention grabbers decreases (significant at the 5% level). Most of the changes occur in P3. When the percentagesin the P3 year are broken down by class size it emerges that the increase in active collaborators comes about because of adecrease in both the intermittent workers (down from 28.2% to 13.2%) and the attention grabbers (down from 11.5% to 4.6%).These are the groups with the highest levels of off task behaviour. In both cases the level of significance reaches 1% and resultin medium effect sizes.

It is also possible to examine the relationship between teaching and pupil types and this is shown in Table 7. Only theprofile of the whole class instructors differs from the overall distribution giving rise to a small effect size at the1% significancelevel. The fact that these class instructors have a higher proportion of pupils ‘on task’ may, however, be no guarantee that itnecessarily results in increased understanding, since when the teacher is addressing the class and these pupils are listeningthere 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 maypartly be a function of their personality. It might, for example be that the attention grabbers consist mainly of pupils who areshy, anxious introverts who need to seek constant reassurance.

4. Implications from the SCT study’s findings and suggestions for the future

Three years observation has confirmed the fact that Hong Kong pupils in small classes do not get more of the teacher’sundivided attention, than pupils in normal classes. The main reason for this finding is the switch towards the use of groupand pair-work in the smaller classes. Pupils in smaller classes now get more attention when they act as spokesperson for agroup. In normal size classes they get this attention as part of a class. However, most of these class teacher–pupil interactionsare extremely brief whereas in smaller classes they are more likely to be sustained. Thus it is not merely a question ofnumbers. A teacher in a large class by means of a rapid question and answer session could have contact with every child. In asmaller class there might even be fewer teacher–pupil contacts but these would last longer because a pupil’s initial answerwould be followed up. Evidence for this comes from the finding that one of the few classroom variables which is stronglycorrelated with class size is the amount of time that teachers now spend listening to children reporting back about theirwork.

It might be argued that these findings arise, in part, because of the decision not to treat individual teachers and pupils asthe unit of analysis. But the patterns established for the different year groups (Tables 3 and 6) and different subjects (Table 4)suggest that these two factors are the main determinants of classroom behaviour. The same teacher operates differentlywhen teaching P1 and P3 classes or teaching Chinese and mathematics. The same pupil responds differently depending onthe teaching approach used in the particular lesson.

Informal observations of these classrooms by one of the authors suggest that it is possible to build on these improvingtrends. Initially, much group work was often badly focused, in that while it might develop pupils’ social skills it often lackedsufficient academic purpose. Nevertheless, there are signs here of a gradual shift in the kinds of pedagogy being employed inthe smaller classes in contrast to recent attempts to change classroom practice in English primary schools (Alexander, 2004;Cordingley & Bell, 2007).

At the start of the study teachers were concerned to have the Hong Kong Education Department inform them about theexact form that small class teaching should take. By the end of the study, as their responses to a questionnaire and ininterviews indicated, they had accepted that there was no definitive, unique small class approach. Instead, it was recognisedthat effective practice was the same for all classes whatever their size, although it was obviously easier to implement certainteaching strategies when the number of pupils was reduced. At the same time, the majority of teachers also came to realisethat while strategies such as less instruction, more exploration of pupils’ ideas, increased pupils participation throughgreater use of group and pair work and dialogic discourse during whole class discussion, provided a framework, each teacherhad to adapt this approach to suit the conditions pertaining in their classroom. This transformation in teachers’ thinkingtended to take place in what were termed Learning Circles, where groups of teachers met to review and discuss each other’slesson plans, followed by a critical appraisal of a video recording of the subsequent lesson. This approach, based on theJapanese tradition of lesson study and supported by the ideas of Marton and Booth (1997) was initially introduced into HongKong as a way of helping teachers cater more effectively for individual pupils’ learning needs (Ling, Yan, & Man, 2005). In thelesson study version each teacher takes a turn at adapting and then teaching a lesson or sequence of lessons followingreflection of what has been previously been observed in a colleague’s class. Learning Circles did not have such a rigid, formalstructure but embrace the crucial ideas of joint planning, peer observation and then reflection on each other’s practice.

Hong Kong is now in the process of ‘going to scale’ with all the problems this involves (Coburn, 2003). Beginning with P1in 2009–2010, all classes in its primary schools will be reduced to below 25 pupils. One lesson of the research described hereis that by establishing local communities of practice such as those advocated by Louis and Marks (1998) in the United Statesand Stoll and Louis (2007) here in the UK real changes in pedagogy can come about. In Hong Kong the most successfulchanging schools in the present research are taking a coordinating role in establishing new Learning Circles which in turnwill expand to create new circles in the following years. Given the number of schools and teachers involved in Hong Kong thisapproach will require a ten year programme at a minimum. For many this may appear to be an unacceptable time scale and

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



学級の質 [Graue et al., 2009]

Student Achievement Guarantee in Education(SAGE)

ウィスコンシン州で実施された児童－教師比縮小政策。低所得者層出身の児童の割合が半数以上である学校を 1校以上含む学区に所在する学校のうち，低所得者層出身の児童の割合が 3割以上の学校において，1996年に幼稚園と小学校 1年生，1997年に 2年生，1998年に３年生で教師１人当たりの児童数の上限を 15人とする。厳密にカリキュラムを設定するとともに，教員研修の充実にも並行的に取り組み。




Student Achievement Guarantee inEducation(SAGE)[Molnar et al., 1999]

児童－教師比率減少の方法 (各校が選択)学級規模そのものを 15人以下にする15人以上の学級をさらに 2つのグループに分割しそれぞれのグループに 1人の教師を配置する15人以上の学級に 2人の教師を配置し教師どうしが協同的に指導に当たる読解や算数といった特定の教科においてのみ 1人の教師が追加

1996年及び 1997年の１年生（4500人以上）を対象に実施した基礎学力テストの得点を従属変数とした階層線形モデルによる分析を行ったところ，学級規模が小さいほど得点が有意に高いことが示された [Molnar et al., 1999]。




問題学級規模による指導の違いは起こりにくい (先に扱った Galton &Pell(2011)なども同じ問題意識)。学級の小規模化と教師の質の向上の両方を図ると効果があるのではないか。

目的長期的な観察を行い小規模化された学校の状況をCLASSという学級の様子の指標で記述し，別データと組み合わせて比較

対象SAGEの対象となった学校のうち小規模学級を実施した 27学級とCLASSのデータのある学校




interviews were semistructured and focusedon the school and classroom practices relatedto SAGE’s four pillars of practice. They alsoworked to link contextual issues in the districtand the school to the specific practice in class-rooms. These interviews ranged in length from40 to 120 minutes and were audiotaped andtranscribed for analysis. We collected relevantdocuments and artifacts, including worksheets,curriculum guides, and school and district re-ports. We also collected school-level test scoreand demographic data from Wisconsin’s Infor-mation Network for Successful Schools(WINSS), a publicly available database.

A member of our team conducted stan-dardized observations to rate classroomquality using the Classroom AssessmentScoring System (CLASS). Each classroomwas observed for a minimum of four cyclesamounting to at least 2 hours of documen-tation. The instrument is described morefully below.

We also collected limited data at the re-maining six schools from the initial nine-school sample. Visiting three classrooms (onekindergarten classroom, one first-grade class-room, and either a second- or a third-grade

classroom), we (a) conducted one interviewwith each school’s principal and each teacherobserved, (b) observed using CLASS, and (c)collected school-level test score and demo-graphic data from WINSS.

Classroom Assessment Scoring SystemCLASS (see Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre,

2008) provides a common metric for under-standing classroom quality, but moves be-yond other rating systems by providing adistinct lens on how classroom interactionsfunction alongside educational resources. Wechose CLASS because of its (a) strong em-pirical record, with use in over 3,000 class-rooms pre-K through grade 3, (b) its focus ondomains identified as important within theliterature on class size reduction, and (c) itsstrong psychometric properties. The do-mains, dimensions, and behavioral markersemployed by CLASS are described in Fig-ure 1.

The CLASS manual (Pianta et al., 2008)provides a variety of evidence of its reli-ability and validity. We summarize a sam-ple of the evidence here. Table 2 presents

FIG. 1.—CLASS domains, dimensions, and behavioral markers

184 THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL

DECEMBER 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)，Behaviormanagement(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」




descriptive information of CLASS use in anumber of major studies and with theSAGE sample. The ratings of CLASS di-mensions and domains are higher in SAGEclassrooms than in the empirical sample,with few classrooms rated in the low range.Given our research design, we cannot di-rectly link CLASS ratings to SAGE’s influ-ence because we do not have data fromcomparable non-SAGE classrooms.

Confirmatory factor analyses exploredthe internal consistency of the three maindomains measured by CLASS. Reportedseparately for five large studies, alphaswere in the moderate to high range (.76–.95) across three domains. Reliability wasassessed across cycles, with ratings in themoderate to high range (r � .68–.97) com-paring first cycle to the total score. Withtwo cycles, correlations with the final scorerose to above .90. Measures of stability in-dicated that CLASS scores were highly sta-

ble across days, with correlations rangingfrom .73 to .85. Instructional Support rat-ings predicted child language, prereadingconcepts, and applied math skills, whileEmotional Support ratings were associatedwith language skills and teacher-reportedbehavior problems (Pianta et al., 2008).

While all research team members com-pleted in-depth training and were certifiedCLASS coders,2 one team member com-pleted all CLASS observations in this dataset. Her classroom visits were scheduled tocoincide with typical instructional practicewith minimal interruptions for other activ-ities (e.g., recess, school programs, music/art/physical education classes, lunch). Ineach classroom, the rater observed andcoded classroom quality across four 30-minute cycles of instruction with CLASS.3

These observations generated brief fieldnotes that the observer used to assign rat-ings of 1–7 on each of the CLASS dimen-

TABLE 2. Mean Class/Domain Scores for Sample SAGE Schools and CLASS Empirical Samplea

SAGE Sample(n � 27)

CLASS K(n � 730)

CLASS 1–5(ResponsiveClassroom;

n � 88)CLASS Grade

3 (n � 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 1.17Negative climate 1.48 .56 1.55 .65 1.35 .65 2.22 1.16Teacher sensitivity 5.03 1.34 4.64 .86 4.74 1.01 4.60 1.10Regard for student

perspectives 4.67 1.22 NR NR 4.28 1.08Behavior management 5.36 1.17 5.18 .79 5.14 .95 4.98 1.29Productivity 5.65 1.09 4.67 .73 4.98 1.00 4.69 1.14Instructional learning

formats 4.95 1.12 4.11 .84 4.23 .73 4.21 1.22Concept development 4.35 1.13 2.11 .74 3.82 1.01 3.84 1.32Quality of feedback 4.35 1.12 1.84 .64 4.77 1.03 3.54 1.31Language modeling 4.32 1.04 NRc NR

CLASS domain:Emotional support 5.43 5.41d 5.92 4.78Classroom organization 5.32 4.65 5.06 4.63Instructional support 4.34 1.98 3.26 3.69

Average CLASS score 5.10 4.27 4.74 4.50

aAs reported in the technical appendix of the CLASS manual, Table A.1 (Pianta et al., 2008, p. 97).bMaximum score in each category � 7, minimum score � 1, in all categories, except “Negative climate,”

where a high rating would be undesirable.cNR � not rated.dDomain and averages calculated from dimension results.

SYNERGY OF CLASS SIZE REDUCTION 185


文献レビューの作成


論文の「問題」を設定する課題

学級規模が児童生徒に与える影響とその過程について，どのようなことが明らかとなっているか，この 2回の講義で講読した欧文文献と，レクチャーパケットに収録した和文論文の内容を用いながらまとめる。

取り組み方近くの塾生どうしで 3～ 4人の班を作る。

欧文文献のグループとは異なるメンバーになるように。適当なグループ名をつける (日本語 8文字まで)。今回と次回の講義の時間をグループワークにあてる。5,000字程度でまとめたレビューを班で 1つ書く。授業支援システムに今月中 (5月 31日中)に提出する。



論文の「問題」を設定する文献レビューを書く上で参考となるもの

図書館にある「教育心理学研究」掲載の論文のほとんどに「問題」というセクションがある。

文献レビューを書く上での注意箇条書きではなく文章で書く。どこからどこまでが，誰による知見なのかを分かるようにしておく (具体的な引用方法は補講 (ライブラリーセミナー)で学びます)。単なる先行研究の列挙ではなく，お互いに関連づけながらまとめ，「学級規模が児童生徒に与える影響とその過程について，どのようなことが明らかとなっているか」が分かるように書く。



補講 (ライブラリーセミナー)

6月 10日 (水) 5限新図書館 1階オリエンテーションエリア (レファレンス横)集合内容

レファレンスブックの紹介文献探索と管理の方法文献引用の方法教育心理学関係書架のツアー

この先卒業まで (人によっては卒業後も)必ず役に立つ内容です。上記補講日に出席できない塾生のために 6月 11日 (木)2限にも同じ内容を設定しています。どちらか都合のいい方に参加してください。



出席とグループの登録

本日の出席

https://questant.jp/q/150520


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 andwithin class grouping.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71:283–302.

[Bosworth, 2014] Bosworth, R. (2014).Class size, class composition, and the distribution of studentachievement.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.


引用文献

引用文献 II

[Folmer-Annevelink et al., 2010] Folmer-Annevelink, E.,Doolaard, S., Mascareno, M., and Bosker, R. J. (2010).Class size effects on the number and types of student-teacherinteractions 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 classroompractice? The case of hong kong primary schools.International Journal of Educational Research, 53:22–31.


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., andSvensson, M. (2013).Class-size effects on adolescents’ mental health andwell-being in Swedish schools.Education Economics, 21(3):248–263.


引用文献

引用文献 IV

[Konstantopoulos and Traynor, 2014] Konstantopoulos, S. andTraynor, 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.


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 targetedpupil-teacher reduction in wisconsin.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21:165–177.


150520 教育学特殊XIV 第5講

Education

Transcript of 150520 教育学特殊XIV 第5講