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 - [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  |  [log in to unmask]   |  http://ctl.utexas.edu
 
 

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Jill L. Atkinson, PhD.
Associate Professor and
Chair of Undergraduate Studies
Dept. of Psychology
Queen's University
Kingston, ON  K7L 3N6

Office: Humphrey Hall, Room 224
( :   (613) 533-6018
Fax: (613) 533-2499
Email:  jill [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.