An intervention study of instructional methods and student engagement in large classes in Thailand

International Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 53, Issue , 2012, Pages 381-393

  Tolley, Leigh M ^a   Johnson, Laurene ^a   Koszalka, Tiffany A ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Instructional strategies; Large class size; Student engagement; Teacher professional development

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863868041     PISSN: 08830355     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.05.003     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Akerhielm K. Does class size matter?. Economics of Education Review 1995, 14(3):229-241.
2. Arias J.J., Walker D.M. Additional evidence on the relationship between class size and student performance. Journal of Economic Education 2004, 35(4):311-329.
3. Blatchford P., Edmonds S., Martin C. Class size, pupil attentiveness and peer relations. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2003, 73:15-36.
4. Blatchford P., Goldstein H., Mortimore P. Research on class size effects: A critique of methods and a way forward. International Journal of Educational Research 1998, 29:691-710.
5. Bolander S.F. Class size and levels of student motivation. The Journal of Experimental Education 1973, 42(2):12-17.
6. Bourke S. How smaller is better: Some relationships between class size, teaching practices, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal 1986, 23(4):558-571.
7. Brandt R. On teachers coaching teachers: A conversation with Bruce Joyce. Educational Leadership 1987, 44(5):12-17.
8. Çakmak M. The perceptions of student teachers about the effects of class size with regard to effective teaching process. The Qualitative Report 2009, 14(3):395-408.
9. Carless D.R. A case study of curriculum innovation in Hong Kong. System 1998, 26(3):353-368.
10. Creswell J.W. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches 2009, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA.
11. Deveney B. An investigation into aspects of Thai culture and its impact on Thai students in an international school in Thailand. Journal of Research in International Education 2005, 4(2):153-171.
12. Duncan C.R., Noonan B. Factors affecting teachers' grading and assessment practices. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research 2007, 53(1):1-21.
13. Ehrenberg R.G., Brewer D.J., Gamoran A., Willms J.D. Class size and student achievement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2001, 2(1):1-30.
14. Englehart J.M. The centrality of context in learning from further class size research. Educational Psychology Review 2007, 19(4):455-467.
15. Finn J.D., Achilles C.M. Answers and questions about class size: A statewide experiment. American Educational Research Journal 1990, 27(3):557-577.
16. Finn J.D., Achilles C.M. Tennessee's class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1999, 21(2):97-109.
17. Fischer H.E., Klemm K., Leutner D., Sumfleth E., Tiemann R., Wirth J. Framework for empirical research on science teaching and learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education 2005, 16(4):309-349.
18. Gagné R.M. The conditions of learning 1985, Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY. 4th ed.
19. Grabowski B.L. Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology 2004, 719-743. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. 2nd ed. D.H. Jonassen, Association for Educational Communications and Technology (Eds.).
20. Hanushek E.A. Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other investigations of class size effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1999, 21(2):143-163.
21. Hargreaves L., Galton M., Pell A. The effects of changes in class size on teacher-pupil interaction. International Journal of Educational Research 1998, 29:779-795.
22. Hattie J. The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research 2005, 43(6):387-425.
23. Henry, T. (2010, August). Class sizes are increasing, but does it really matter? The Hechinger report. Retrieved from http://hechingerreport.org/content/class-sizes-are-increasing-but-does-it-really-matter_4154/.
24. Hoffman B., Nadelson L. Motivational engagement and video gaming: A mixed methods study. Educational Technology and Research Development 2010, 58(3):245-270.
25. Holloway J.H. Do smaller classes change instruction?. Educational Leadership 2002, 59:91-92.
26. Hughes J. The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 2005, 13(2):277-302.
27. Jensen E. Teaching with the brain in mind 2005, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.
28. Jin L., Cortazzi M. Dimensions of dialogue: Large classes in China. International Journal of Educational Research 1998, 29(8):739-761.
29. Jonassen D.H. Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change 2006, Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
30. Joyce B., Showers B. Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school renewal 1995, Longman, White Plains, NY. 2nd ed.
31. Joyce B., Showers B. Student achievement through staff development 2002, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. 3rd ed.
32. Khemmani T. Whole-school learning reform: Effective strategies from Thai schools. Theory into Practice 2006, 45(2):117-124.
33. Kirkgöz Y. Curriculum innovation in Turkish primary education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 2008, 36(4):309-322.
34. Lan X., Ponitz C.C., Miller K.F., Li S., Cortina K., Perry M., et al. Keeping their attention: Classroom practices associated with behavioral engagement in first grade mathematics classes in China and the United States. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2009, 24(2):198-211.
35. Lau P.N.-K., Singh P., Hwa T.-Y. Constructing mathematics in an interactive classroom context. Educational Studies in Mathematics 2009, 72(3):307-324.
36. Lee H.W., Lim K.Y., Grabowski B.L. Generative learning: Principles and implications for making meaning. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology 2008, 111-124. Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY. 3rd ed. M. Specter, M.D. Merrill, J.J.G. van Merrienboer, M.P. Driscoll (Eds.).
37. Marzano R., Pickering D., Pollock J. Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement 2001, Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
38. McGiverin J., Gilman D., Tillitski C. A meta-analysis of the relation between class size and achievement. Elementary School Journal 1989, 90:47-56.
39. Merrill M.D. First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development 2002, 50(3):43-59.
40. Molnar A., Smith P., Zahorik J., Palmer P., Halbach A., Ehrle K. Evaluating the SAGE program: A pilot program in targeted pupil-teacher reduction in Wisconsin. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1999, 21(2):165-177.
41. Murray G. Class size: Major implications for school leaders. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin 2000, 84(615):108-113.
42. Nye B., Hedges L.V., Konstantopoulos S. The long-term effects of small classes: A five-year follow-up of the Tennessee class size experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1999, 21(2):127-142.
43. O-saki K.M., Agu A.O. A study of classroom interaction in primary schools in the United Republic of Tanzania. Prospects 2002, XXXII:103-116.
44. O'Sullivan M.C. Teaching large classes: The international evidence and a discussion of some good practice in Ugandan primary schools. International Journal of Educational Development 2006, 26:24-37.
45. Park S.-Y. Student engagement and classroom variables in improving mathematics achievement. Asia Pacific Education Review 2005, 6(1):87-97.
46. Pong S.-L., Pallas A. Class size and eighth-grade math achievement in the United States and abroad. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 2001, 23(3):251-273.
47. Reigeluth C.M. The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. Instructional-design theories and models, volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory 1999, 425-454. Routledge, New York, NY. C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.).
48. Reynolds A., Reagin M., Reinshuttle K. Less is more: What teachers say about decreasing class size and increasing learning. American School Board Journal 2001, 199(9):30-32.
49. Robinson G.E. Synthesis of research on the effects of class size. Educational Leadership 1990, 47(7):80-90.
50. Shapson S.M., Wright E.N., Easons G., Fitzgerald J. An experimental study of the effects of class size. American Educational Research Journal 1980, 17(2):141-152.
51. Shulman L.S. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 1986, 15(2):4-14.
52. Silverthorn D.U. Teaching and learning in the interactive classroom. Advances in Physiology Education 2006, 30:135-140.
53. Slavin R.E. Class size and student achievement: Small effects of small classes. Educational Psychologist 1989, 24(1):99-110.
54. Smith M.L., Glass G.V. Meta-analysis of research on class size and its relationship to attitudes and instruction. American Educational Research Journal 1980, 17(4):419-433.
55. Smith P.L., Ragan T.J. Instructional design 2005, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ. 3rd ed.
56. Stasz C., Stecher B.M. Teaching mathematics and language arts in reduced size and non-reduced size classrooms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 2000, 22(4):313-329.
57. Stevenson H.W., Lee S. The East Asian version of whole-class teaching. Educational Policy 1995, 9(2):152-168.
58. Sylwester R. A celebration of neurons: An educator's guide to the human brain 1995, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.
59. Tanahoung C., Chitaree R., Soankwan C., Sharma M.D., Johnston I.D. The effect of Interactive Lecture Demonstrations on students' understanding of heat and temperature: A study from Thailand. Research in Science and Technological Education 2009, 27(1):61-74.
60. Uekawa K., Borman K., Lee R. Student engagement in U.S. urban high school mathematics and science classrooms: Findings on social organization, race, and ethnicity. The Urban Review 2007, 39(1):1-43.
61. U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Reducing class size: What do we know? Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/ReducingClass/Class_size.html.
62. Vaiyavutjamai P., Clements M.A. Effects of classroom instruction on students' understanding of quadratic equations. Mathematics Education Research Journal 2006, 18(1):47-77.
63. Valérien J. Innovations for large classes: A guide for teachers and administrators 1991, Unesco: Educational Studies and Documents, No. 56, Paris.
64. Van Beek, M. (2010, August). The class size myth. Makinac Center for Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.makinac.org/article.aspx%3FID=13269%26print=yes.
65. Wittrock M.C. Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist 1974, 11(2):87-95.
66. Wittrock M.C. Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist 1992, 27(4):531-541.
67. Woessmann, L., & West, M. R. (2002). Class-size effects in school systems around the world: Evidence from between-grade variation in TIMSS. Retrieved from ftp://repec.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp485.pdf.
68. Wolfe P. Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice 2001, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.
69. Word E.R., Johnston J., Bain H.P., Fulton B.D., Zaharias J.B., Achilles C.M., et al. The State of Tennessee's student/teacher achievement ratio (STAR) Project, Technical Report 1985-90 1990, Tennessee State University, Nashville, TN.