Dear TBLers:
Our university is embarking upon the building of
a new Teaching Complex. As part of the planning,
I have been asked to make a recommendation, based
on the literature, for the optimal size (or range
of sizes) for flat classroom space. Specifically
the Associate Dean writes "The range 80 - 120
students is one I've come across several times,
but is 120 the upper limit or is there evidence
it could be effective to go as high as 150?"
So far I have responded: (sorry for the length, I
cut and paste to save time but my question for
you TBLers is bolded at the bottom so feel free to skim/skip)
"I do not know of any research on optimal
classroom size in general. There is no evidence
of which I am aware that the educational
experience, however measured, deteriorates much
between 100 and 150 in any type of
classroom. There is lots of research on class
size, especial in the K-12 age group,
http://epa.sagepub.com/content/21/2/97.full.pdf+html
even in first year college/university but it is
usually not related to instructional strategy or
class layout/design. That is, it asks whether
number of students in a class is related to
student performance, student attitude, and/or
retention. The usual finding at the post
secondary level is that in a narrow range of
class sizes tested (varies in each study/review
40-120 or 100-150, etc.), there is a very small,
but reliable effect in that larger classes result
in slightly lower achievement and the effect
is worse for males and those of lower
incomes.
https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-bin/conference/download.cgi?db_name=pej2008&paper_id=41
http://www.stanford.edu/~degiorgi/ClassSize.pdf
This effect, however, may disappear in more
homogenous and higher-achieving first year
samples such as the one at Queen's or in Canadian universities in general.
At these lower levels (say up to 150), it does
not appear to be classroom size per se, but what
instructors do. The conclusion seems to be that
"Teachers’ behaviors do not vary much with the
size of classes. . .More accurately teachers do
change their behaviors in small classes, but the
changes are relatively subtle and unlikely to
make important differences in student
achievement." Robert Slavin, 1989 and
substantiated in 2001 in a large, very
comprehensive review of the literature
(experimental and survey) at
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/pdf/pspi2_1.pdf
One could imagine that lecturing to a group of 30
in a nicely appointed flat classroom might be
less effective than using TBL with a group of 120
in an old crumbling tiered lecture hall.
So, while I did not find it very helpful to
review the research on optimal classroom size
directly, instead I decided to consider the
research on optimal teaching methods, and then
ask "what type of classroom facilitates these
particular instructional methods?" Course design before classroom design.
So, my first question is "What types of teaching
methods result in better learning defined as long
term retention, conceptual understanding, student
retention, positive attitudes towards learning,
etc. and the answer is 'small group interactive
methods'/active learning which naturally leads me
to the classroom design question "What types of
classrooms lend themselves to proven methods
(such as Peer Instruction and Team Based
Learning) that promote small group interaction/active learning?
It seems to me that optimal classroom size varies
as a function of instructional strategy. For
example, two evidence-based teaching methods,
Peer Instruction (PI) and Team Based Learning
(TBL) differ because the former can more easily
work in a large tiered theatre with swivel seats,
while the latter seems to work best in a flat
space usually no bigger than 150 students seated at round tables seating 7.*
* Larry MIchaelson, the developer of TBL has
written about optimal seating as well as how to
cope in a large tiered theatre (Team Based
Learning in Large Classes Ch 11 in his TBL book
(2004)) as well as a chapter in Engaging large
classes: Strategies and techniques for college
faculty (2002), by Stanley & Porter. I think
that he has some consumer satisfaction
(and maybe achievement?) data not but I know of
no study directly comparing TBL using experienced
teachers in a lecture theatre vs flat room with
round tables, nor varying the size of room systematically.
However, for a more thorough check, I am going to
ask the TBL listserve for any research on optimal
classroom size/layout for TBL in
particular. Then, we could provide the Teaching Complex committee with
1) a list of those teaching methods that are
based upon proven instructional principles
(active learning, small group interaction, etc.)
for which we have already provided some good studies
2) provide the optimal class size/layout per
method though this will likely be based on best
practices and practical concerns (like getting to
each team in a room or the ability of students to
be able to talk to those around them face to
face) and not experimental data. But who knows,
maybe there are classroom size/design studies of which I am not aware.
For example - out of my head:
Peer Instruction - very flexible, has been found
to work effectively in a tiered theatre of up to
XXX students, but better if classes are capped at
XXX to allow ample time for discussion
Team Based Learning - guidelines suggest students
working in groups of 7 at round tables in a flat
room. Used in classes of XX-XXX, I've taught
classes of about 85-99 and this allows (just
enough) time for groups to report back to one another in a 90 minutes class
Inquiry Learning - availability of meeting and
presentation space important, students more
likely to work individually or in small organic
groups in different locations such as the
library, the field or the lab, but need space to
come together to talk (small rooms of 5-10) as
well as larger flat presentation space (X square
footage) to share findings whether through
performance or posters or public lecture.
Community Service Learning - flat room with round
tables for groups so that the project mentors can
move around and work with each group on their
project. Ask Kim Woodhouse and Brian Frank. The
CSL engineering courses here and at U of T are
quite large, about 300. For a description of the
one at Queen's, see http://cden2007.eng.umanitoba.ca/resources/papers/36.pdf
I will forward you any info on TBL optimal class
size that I get in the next few days, but yes, in
my opinion and based on the TBL LISTSERVE info, a
room could go to 150 especially if we used TAs to
float as well as faculty mentors..
The question: Does anyone out there know of any
empirical research that would address the
question of optimal classroom size/layout or be
able to provide an opinion based upon their experience?
Your help is appreciated!
Jill
At 10:52 AM 6/27/2011, Sweet, Michael S wrote:
>Gail,
>
>Thanks for askingsorry I have not updated folks
>on how the dialogue is building between the Mazur group at Harvard and TBLers.
>
>So, in April I gave a presentation to the Mazur
>group’s post-docs about TBL, basically showed
>them the video and drew a grid laying out what I
>see as the relationships between various pieces
>of each practice and how they overlap. It was
>fun but brief, and Eric wasn’t there.
>
>A few weeks ago, Eric came here to UT to consult
>with various folks about our Course
>Transformation Project. At the end of the day,
>we had a meeting about TBL and Peer
>Instruction. It went well, though I have to
>admit everyone was dog tired and it was in kind of a strange room.
>
>We left the meeting in agreement that it’s best
>to think of TBL and Peer Instruction not as
>competing models of instruction, but instead as
>two different systems which might work better for different teachers.
>
>So, that raises for me an interesting question
>about what kinds of teachers might work better
>in PI and what kinds of teachers might work better in TBL?
>
>-M
>
>
>
>From: FEIGENBAUM, GAIL [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 7:48 AM
>To: Sweet, Michael S
>Subject: RE: TBL goes to Harvard
>
>Hi, Michael,
>
>I was wondering about the outcome of your presentation. How did it go?
>Gail
>
>Gail Feigenbaum, RN, PhD
>Nursing Assistant Instructor
>School of Health, Wellness, Public Safety
>Central New Mexico Community College
>Office - Main Campus, JS 309 "O"
>Office Phone - 505-224-4126
>Cell/Message Phone - 505-463-2010
>Campus Email Address - <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>----------
>From: Team-Based Learning
>[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Sweet, Michael S [[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:21 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: TBL goes to Harvard
>Friends,
>
>This week I will be meeting with Eric Mazur’s
>group at Harvard to talk about TBL and its
>relationship to Peer-Instruction, which is what he uses and is famous for.
>
>For those of you unfamiliar with Mazur’s work,
>he has been a ground-breaking leader in Physics
>education at Harvard for 15+ years. Getting TBL
>on his radar is a huge thing for me, personally.
>
>QUESTION: For those of you familiar with
>Mazur’s work and peer instruction, what do you
>see as crucial overlaps and contrasts between TBL and PI?
>
>I’d like to do my best to represent the TBL
>community in this discussion. . . .
>
>-M
>
>
>Michael Sweet, Ph.D.
>Director of Instructional Development, Center for Teaching and Learning
>The University of Texas at Austin
>(512)
>232-1775 |
><mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>| http://ctl.utexas.edu
>
>
>
>--
>This message has been scanned for viruses and
>dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/>MailScanner, and is
>believed to be clean.
>
>--
>This message has been scanned for viruses and
>dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/>MailScanner, and is
>believed to be clean.
<http://psyc.queensu.ca/psyc_people_06/faculty_pages06/atkinson.html>Jill
L. Atkinson, PhD.
Associate Professor and
Chair of Undergraduate Studies
<http://psyc.queensu.ca/>Dept. of Psychology
<http://www.queensu.ca/homepage/>Queen's University
Kingston, ON K7L 3N6
Office: <http://www.queensu.ca/pps/access/humph.html>Humphrey Hall, Room 224
( : (613) 533-6018
Fax: (613) 533-2499
Email:
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>jill<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
----------
This email message is intended only for the
addressee(s) and contains information that may be
confidential and/or copyrighted. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender
by reply e-mail and delete this e-mail
immediately. Use, disclosure or reproduction of
this e-mail by anyone other than the intended
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited.
|