stronger effects. A main feature of our study was, therefore, a longitudinal follow up
study of a large sample of pupils from school entry, and the use of sophisticated
statistical analyses able to analyse connections between class size and attainment.
It is now appreciated that perhaps the main gap in understanding of class size effects is
in terms of classroom processes that might be involved (Anderson, 2000). The second
aim, and main feature of the study, was to research in a systematic way the relationships
between class size and classroom processes. We need research evidence on classroom
processes that allows us to understand the possible negative effects of larger classes and
the possible advantages of smaller classes. It is important to consider what advice can be
given to teachers to help them maximise opportunities of small classes and ways of
minimising problems in large classes. So as well as the relevance of research to
decisions about educational resourcing there are important implications for educational
practice.
There is not space here to give a full background to the types of classroom processes
included (see Blatchford, in press, a). Each type of process has been dealt with
separately in papers that are referred to below. Here we note that there were five main
areas:
1.Within class groupings (e.g., the size and number of within class groups)
Two processes connected to the teacher:
2.Teaching (e.g., amount of individual teaching, procedural, social and disciplinary
interactions)
3.Individual support for reading
And two processes connected to the children:
4.Pupil inattentiveness
5.Peer relations
Our reviews indicated difficulties associated with methods of data collection used in
much previous research. Different studies have used various research techniques
including teacher report and interviews, questionnaires completed by teachers, teacher
accounts of time spent, and observation studies, and it is not always clear they are
covering the same phenomena. Integration of findings across studies is therefore made
difficult. A more serious problem is that methods used are not always clearly
described or adequate. Much is relatively anecdotal and based on the reported
experience of individual teachers. Though valuable, there are questions about the
validity and generalisability of such views, especially given the fact that previous
research has found discrepancies between teacher reports and classroom observation
data (Shapson et al, 1980). Large-scale secondary analyses, such as those in Betts and
Shkolnik, Rice, and Rice, 1999) are, in a technical sense, more reliable but have
involved relatively crude, easily quantified, retrospective judgements of time
allocation.
It seemed to us that one way to advance understanding of the connections between
class size and teaching would be to use a multi-method approach. We felt it would
help reconcile inconsistencies in previous research. We collected quantitative
information that would enable us to address basic questions on relationships between
class size and pupil adult ratios, on the one hand, and teacher time allocation, teacher
and pupil behaviour in class and children’s school attainments, on the other hand. But
we also wanted a more qualitative assessment of relationships between class size and