Class size and eighth-grade math achievement in the United States and abroad

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 251-273

  Pong, Suet Ling ^a   Pallas, Aaron ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035639367     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737023003251     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Akerhielm, K. (1995). Does class size matter? Economics of Education Review, 14(3), 229-241.
2. Angrist, J. D., & Lavy, V. (May 1999). Using Maimonides' rule to estimate the effect of class size on scholastic achievement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 533-575.
3. Arnold, C. L. (1995). Using HLM and NAEP data to explore school correlates of 1990 mathematics and geometry achievement in grades 4, 8, and 12: Methodology and results. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
4. Betts, J., & Shkolnik, J. L. (1999). The behavioral effects of variations in class size: The case of math teachers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 193-214.
5. Biggs, J. (1999). Learning from the Confucian heritage: So size doesn't matter? International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 723-738.
6. Blatchford, P., & Mortimore, P. (1994). The issue of class size for young children in schools: What can we learn from research? Oxford Review of Education, 20(4), 411-428.
7. 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, 691-710.
8. Boozer, M., & Rouse, C. (1995). lntraschool variation in class size: Patterns and implications. Working Paper No. 5144, National Bureau of Economic Research.
9. Bourke, S. (1986). How smaller is better: Some relationships between class size, teaching practices, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 558-571.
10. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
11. Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee's class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97-110.
12. Fuller, B., & Clark, P. (1994). Rising school effects while ignoring culture? Local conditions and the influence of classroom tools, rules, and pedagogy. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 119-157.
13. Gatlon, M. (1998). Guest editor. International Journal of Educational Research, 29.
14. Husen, T., & Postlethwaite, T. N. (Eds.). (1994). The international encyclopedia of education. New York: Pergamon.
15. Jin, L., & Cortazzi, M. (1999). Dimensions of dialogue: Large classes in China. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 739-761.
16. Korean Ministry of Education. (1999). Education in Korea 1997-1998. Republic of Korea: Ministry of Education.
17. Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68, 241-270.
18. Mitchell, D. E., & Mitchell, R. E. (in press). Class size. In American education annual (1998-1999): Trends and issues in the educational community. New York: Book Builders, Inc.
19. Molnar, A., Smith, P., & Zahorik, J. (1998). 1997-98 results of the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) program evaluation. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin, School of Education.
20. Molnar, A., Smith, P., Zahorik, J., Palmer, A., Halbach, A., & Ehrle, K. (2000). Wisconsin's student achievement guarantee in education (SAGE) class size reduction program: Achievement effects, teaching and classroom implementation. The CEIC Review, 9(2).
21. Nye, B., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (1999). The long-term effects of small classes: A five-year follow-up of the Tennessee class size experiments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 127-142.
22. Peak, L. (1996). Pursuing excellence, NCES 97-198. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
23. Rice, J. (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), 215-230.
24. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for non-response in surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
25. Schmidt, W., McKnight, C., & Raizen, S. (1997). A splintered vision. An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
26. Shapson, S. M., Wright, E. N., Eason, G., & Fitzgerald, J. (1980). An experimental study of the effects of class size. American Educational Research Journal, 17(2), 141-152.
27. Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. (1980). Meta-analysis of research on class size and its relationship to attitudes and instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 17(4), 419-433.
28. Stasz, C., &. Stecher, B. (2000). Teaching mathematics and language arts in reduced size and non-reduced size classrooms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 313-330.
29. Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1991). State control of the curriculum and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 64(January), 1-10.
30. TIMSS (1997). User's Guide for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and U.S. Augmented Files. Chestnut Hill. MA: Boston College.
31. Word, E., Johnston, J., Bain, H., Fulton, B., Zaharias, J., Achilles, C., Lintz, M., Folger, J., & Breda, C. (1990). The State of Tennessee's Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) Project final summary report 1985-1990. Memphis: Tennessee Department of Education.