Suppr超能文献

小班教学对提高中小学学生成绩的影响:一项系统综述。

Small class sizes for improving student achievement in primary and secondary schools: a systematic review.

作者信息

Filges Trine, Sonne-Schmidt Christoffer Scavenius, Nielsen Bjørn Christian Viinholt

出版信息

Campbell Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 11;14(1):1-107. doi: 10.4073/csr.2018.10. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

This Campbell systematic review examines the impact of class size on academic achievement. The review summarises findings from 148 reports from 41 countries. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. Included studies concerned children in grades kindergarten to 12 (or the equivalent in European countries) in general education. The primary focus was on measures of academic achievement. All study designs that used a well-defined control group were eligible for inclusion. A total of 127 studies, consisting of 148 papers, met the inclusion criteria. These 127 studies analysed 55 different populations from 41 different countries. A large number of studies (45) analysed data from the Student Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) experiment which was for class size reduction in grade K-3 in the US in the eighties. However only ten studies, including four of the STAR programme, could be included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the evidence suggests at best a small effect on reading achievement. There is a negative, but statistically insignificant, effect on mathematics. For the non-STAR studies the primary study effect sizes for reading were close to zero but the weighted average was positive and statistically significant. There was some inconsistency in the direction of the primary study effect sizes for mathematics and the weighted average effect was negative and statistically non-significant. The STAR results are more positive, but do not change the overall finding. All reported results from the studies analysing STAR data indicated a positive effect of smaller class sizes for both reading and maths, but the average effects are small.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Reducing class size is seen as a way of improving student performance. But larger class sizes help control education budgets. The evidence suggests at best a small effect on reading achievement. There is a negative, but statistically insignificant, effect on mathematics, so it cannot be ruled out that some children may be adversely affected. Increasing class size is one of the key variables that policy makers can use to control spending on education.But the consensus among many in education research is that smaller classes are effective in improving student achievement which has led to a policy of class size reductions in a number of US states, the UK, and the Netherlands. This policy is disputed by those who argue that the effects of class size reduction are only modest and that there are other more cost-effective strategies for improving educational standards.Despite the important policy and practice implications of the topic, the research literature on the educational effects of class-size differences has not been clear.This review systematically reports findings from relevant studies that measure the effects of class size on academic achievement. Included studies concerned children in grades kindergarten to 12 (or the equivalent in European countries) in general education. The primary focus was on measures of academic achievement. All study designs that used a well-defined control group were eligible for inclusion.A total of 127 studies, consisting of 148 papers, met the inclusion criteria. These 127 studies analysed 55 different populations from 41 different countries. A large number of studies (45) analysed data from the Student Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) experiment which was for class size reduction in grade K-3 in the US in the eighties. However only ten studies, including four of the STAR programme, could be included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the evidence suggests at best a small effect on reading achievement. There is a negative, but statistically insignificant, effect on mathematics.For the non-STAR studies the primary study effect sizes for reading were close to zero but the weighted average was positive and statistically significant. There was some inconsistency in the direction of the primary study effect sizes for mathematics and the weighted average effect was negative and statistically non-significant.The STAR results are more positive, but do not change the overall finding. All reported results from the studies analysing STAR data indicated a positive effect of smaller class sizes for both reading and maths, but the average effects are small. There is some evidence to suggest that there is an effect of reducing class size on reading achievement, although the effect is very small. There is no significant effect on mathematics achievement, though the average is negative meaning a possible adverse impact on some students cannot be ruled out.The overall reading effect corresponds to a 53 per cent chance that a randomly selected score of a student from the treated population of small classes is greater than the score of a randomly selected student from the comparison population of larger classes. This is a very small effect.Class size reduction is costly. The available evidence points to no or only very small effect sizes of small classes in comparison to larger classes. Moreover, we cannot rule out the possibility that small classes may be counterproductive for some students. It is therefore crucial to know more about the relationship between class size and achievement in order to determine where money is best allocated. The review authors searched for studies published up to February 2017. This Campbell systematic review was published in 2018.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ABSTRACT: Increasing class size is one of the key variables that policy makers can use to control spending on education. Reducing class size to increase student achievement is an approach that has been tried, debated, and analysed for several decades. Despite the important policy and practice implications of the topic, the research literature on the educational effects of class-size differences has not been clear.The consensus among many in education research, that smaller classes are effective in improving student achievement has led to a policy of class size reductions in a number of U.S. states, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. This policy is disputed by those who argue that the effects of class size reduction are only modest and that there are other more cost-effective strategies for improving educational standards. The purpose of this review is to systematically uncover relevant studies in the literature that measure the effects of class size on academic achievement. We will synthesize the effects in a transparent manner and, where possible, we will investigate the extent to which the effects differ among different groups of students such as high/low performers, high/low income families, or members of minority/non-minority groups, and whether timing, intensity, and duration have an impact on the magnitude of the effect. Relevant studies were identified through electronic searches of bibliographic databases, internet search engines and hand searching of core journals. Searches were carried out to February 2017. We searched to identify both published and unpublished literature. The searches were international in scope. Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were also searched. The intervention of interest was a reduction in class size. We included children in grades kindergarten to 12 (or the equivalent in European countries) in general education. The primary focus was on measures of academic achievement. All study designs that used a well-defined control group were eligible for inclusion. Studies that utilized qualitative approaches were not included. The total number of potential relevant studies constituted 8,128 hits. A total of 127 studies, consisting of 148 papers, met the inclusion criteria and were critically appraised by the review authors. The 127 studies analysed 55 different populations from 41 different countries.A large number of studies (45) analysed data from the STAR experiment (class size reduction in grade K-3) and its follow up data.Of the 82 studies not analysing data from the STAR experiment, only six could be used in the data synthesis. Fifty eight studies could not be used in the data synthesis as they were judged to have too high risk of bias either due to confounding (51), other sources of bias (4) or selective reporting of results (3). Eighteen studies did not provide enough information enabling us to calculate an effects size and standard error or did not provide results in a form enabling us to use it in the data synthesis.Meta-analysis was used to examine the effects of class size on student achievement in reading and mathematics. Random effects models were used to pool data across the studies not analysing STAR data. Pooled estimates were weighted using inverse variance methods, and 95% confidence intervals were estimated. Effect sizes were measured as standardised mean differences (SMD). It was only possible to perform a meta-analysis by the end of the treatment year (end of the school year).Four of the studies analysing STAR data provided effect estimates that could be used in the data synthesis. The four studies differed in terms of both the chosen comparison condition and decision rules in selecting a sample for analysis. Which of these four studies' effect estimates should be included in the data synthesis was not obvious as the decision rule (concerning studies using the same data set) as described in the protocol could not be used. Contrary to usual practice we therefore report the results of all four studies and do not pool the results with the studies not analysing STAR data except in the sensitivity analysis. We took into consideration the ICC in the results reported for the STAR experiment and corrected the effect sizes and standard errors using ρ = 0.22. No adjustment due to clustering was necessary for the studies not analysing STAR data.Sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate whether the pooled effect sizes were robust across components of methodological quality, in relation to inclusion of a primary study result with an unclear sign, inclusion of effect sizes from the STAR experiment and to using a one-student reduction in class size in studies using class size as a continuous variable. All studies, not analysing STAR data, reported outcomes by the end of the treatment (end of the school year) only. The STAR experiment was a four year longitudinal study with outcomes reported by the end of each school year. The experiment was conducted to assess the effectiveness of small classes compared with regular-sized classes and of teachers' aides in regular-sized classes on improving cognitive achievement in kindergarten and in the first, second, and third grades. The goal of the STAR experiment was to have approximately 100 small classes with 13-17 students (S), 100 regular classes with 22-25 students (R), and 100 regular with aide classes with 22-25 students (RA).Of the six studies not analysing STAR, only five were used in the meta-analysis as the direction of the effect size in one study was unclear. The studies were from USA, the Netherlands and France, one was a RCT and five were NRS. The grades investigated spanned kindergarten to 3. Grade and one study investigated grade 10. The sample sizes varied; the smallest study investigated 104 students and the largest study investigated 11,567 students. The class size reductions varied from a minimum of one student in four studies, a minimum of seven students in another study to a minimum of 8 students in the last study.All outcomes were scaled such that a positive effect size favours the students in small classes, i.e. when an effect size is a class size reduction improves the students' achievement.Primary study effect sizes for reading lied in the range -0.08 to 0.14. Three of the study-level effects were statistically non-significant. The weighted average was positive and statistically significant. The random effects weighted standardised mean difference was 0.11 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.16) which may be characterised as small. There is some inconsistency in the direction of the effect sizes between the primary studies. Primary study effect sizes for mathematics lies in the range -0.41 to 0.11. Two of the study-level effects were statistically non-significant. The weighted average was negative and statistically non-significant. The random effects weighted standardised mean difference was -0.03 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.16). There is some inconsistency in the direction as well as the magnitude of the effect sizes between the primary studies.All reported results from the four studies analysing STAR data indicated a positive effect favouring the treated; all of the study-level effects were statistically significant. The study-level effect sizes for reading varied between 0.17 and 0.34 and the study-level effect sizes for mathematics varied between 0.15 and 0.33.There were no appreciable changes in the results when we included the extremes of the range of effect sizes from the STAR experiment. The reading outcome lost statistical significance when the effect size from the primary study reporting a result with an unclear direction was included with a negative sign and when the results from the studies using class size as a continuous variable were included with a one student reduction in class size instead of a standard deviation reduction in class size.Otherwise, there were no appreciable changes in the results. There is some evidence to suggest that there is an effect of reducing class size on reading achievement, although the effect is very small. We found a statistically significant positive effect of reducing the class size on reading. The effect on mathematics achievement was not statistically significant, thus it is uncertain if there may be a negative effect.The overall reading effect corresponds to a 53 per cent chance that a randomly selected score of a student from the treated population of small classes is greater than the score of a randomly selected student from the comparison population of larger classes. The overall effect on mathematics achievement corresponds to a 49 per cent chance that a randomly selected score of a student from the treated population of small classes is greater than the score of a randomly selected student from the comparison population of larger classes.Class size reduction is costly and the available evidence points to no or only very small effect sizes of small classes in comparison to larger classes. Taking the individual variation in effects into consideration, we cannot rule out the possibility that small classes may be counterproductive for some students. It is therefore crucial to know more about the relationship between class size and achievement and how it influences what teachers and students do in the classroom in order to determine where money is best allocated.

摘要

未加标注

本坎贝尔系统评价考察了班级规模对学业成绩的影响。该评价总结了来自41个国家的148份报告的研究结果。荟萃分析纳入了10项研究。纳入的研究涉及幼儿园至12年级(或欧洲国家的同等年级)接受普通教育的儿童。主要关注学业成绩的衡量指标。所有使用明确对照组的研究设计均符合纳入标准。共有127项研究(包含148篇论文)符合纳入标准。这127项研究分析了来自41个不同国家的55个不同人群。大量研究(45项)分析了学生教师成就比率(STAR)实验的数据,该实验是关于美国20世纪80年代幼儿园至三年级的班级规模缩减。然而,只有10项研究(包括4项STAR项目研究)可纳入荟萃分析。总体而言,证据表明班级规模对阅读成绩充其量只有微小影响。对数学成绩有负面但无统计学意义的影响。对于非STAR研究,阅读方面的主要研究效应量接近零,但加权平均值为正且具有统计学意义。数学方面的主要研究效应量方向存在一些不一致,加权平均效应为负且无统计学意义。STAR实验的结果更为积极,但并未改变总体结论。分析STAR数据的研究报告的所有结果均表明小班教学对阅读和数学都有积极影响,但平均效应较小。

通俗易懂的总结

缩小班级规模被视为提高学生成绩的一种方式。但较大的班级规模有助于控制教育预算。证据表明班级规模对阅读成绩充其量只有微小影响。对数学成绩有负面但无统计学意义的影响,因此不能排除一些儿童可能受到不利影响的可能性。增加班级规模是政策制定者可用于控制教育支出的关键变量之一。但许多教育研究人员的共识是小班教学能有效提高学生成绩,这导致美国一些州、英国和荷兰实施了缩小班级规模的政策。那些认为缩小班级规模的效果有限且有其他更具成本效益的提高教育标准策略的人对这一政策提出了质疑。尽管该主题具有重要的政策和实践意义,但关于班级规模差异对教育影响的研究文献并不明确。本评价系统地报告了相关研究的结果,这些研究衡量了班级规模对学业成绩的影响。纳入的研究涉及幼儿园至12年级(或欧洲国家的同等年级)接受普通教育的儿童。主要关注学业成绩的衡量指标。所有使用明确对照组的研究设计均符合纳入标准。共有127项研究(包含148篇论文)符合纳入标准。这127项研究分析了来自41个不同国家的55个不同人群。大量研究(45项)分析了学生教师成就比率(STAR)实验的数据,该实验是关于美国20世纪80年代幼儿园至三年级的班级规模缩减。然而只有10项研究(包括4项STAR项目研究)可纳入荟萃分析。总体而言,证据表明班级规模对阅读成绩充其量只有微小影响。对数学成绩有负面但无统计学意义的影响。对于非STAR研究,阅读方面的主要研究效应量接近零,但加权平均值为正且具有统计学意义。数学方面的主要研究效应量方向存在一些不一致,加权平均效应为负且无统计学意义。STAR实验的结果更为积极,但并未改变总体结论。分析STAR数据的研究报告的所有结果均表明小班教学对阅读和数学都有积极影响,但平均效应较小。有一些证据表明缩小班级规模对阅读成绩有影响,尽管影响非常小。对数学成绩没有显著影响,尽管平均值为负意味着不能排除对一些学生可能有不利影响。总体阅读效应相当于从小班教学受试群体中随机选择一名学生的分数大于从大班教学对照群体中随机选择一名学生分数的概率为53%。这是一个非常小的影响。缩小班级规模成本高昂。现有证据表明与大班相比,小班的效应量为零或非常小。此外,我们不能排除小班教学可能对一些学生产生适得其反效果的可能性。因此,为了确定资金的最佳分配方向,更深入了解班级规模与成绩之间的关系至关重要。评价作者检索了截至2017年2月发表的研究。本坎贝尔系统评价于2018年发表。

执行摘要/摘要:增加班级规模是政策制定者可用于控制教育支出的关键变量之一。缩小班级规模以提高学生成绩是一种已经尝试、辩论和分析了几十年的方法。尽管该主题具有重要的政策和实践意义,但关于班级规模差异对教育影响的研究文献并不明确。许多教育研究人员的共识是小班教学能有效提高学生成绩,这导致美国一些州、英国和荷兰实施了缩小班级规模的政策。那些认为缩小班级规模的效果有限且有其他更具成本效益的提高教育标准策略的人对这一政策提出了质疑。本评价的目的是系统地在文献中发现衡量班级规模对学业成绩影响的相关研究。我们将以透明的方式综合这些效应,并在可能的情况下,研究不同学生群体(如成绩高/低者、高/低收入家庭或少数族裔/非少数族裔成员)之间效应的差异程度,以及时间、强度和持续时间是否对效应大小有影响。通过对书目数据库、互联网搜索引擎进行电子检索以及手工检索核心期刊来识别相关研究。检索截至2017年2月。我们进行检索以识别已发表和未发表的文献。检索范围是国际性的。还检索了纳入研究和相关综述的参考文献列表。感兴趣的干预措施是缩小班级规模。我们纳入了幼儿园至12年级(或欧洲国家的同等年级)接受普通教育的儿童。主要关注学业成绩的衡量指标。所有使用明确对照组的研究设计均符合纳入标准。采用定性方法的研究不包括在内。潜在相关研究总数为8128条记录。共有127项研究(包含148篇论文)符合纳入标准,并由评价作者进行了严格评估。这127项研究分析了来自41个不同国家的55个不同人群。大量研究(45项)分析了STAR实验(幼儿园至三年级班级规模缩减)及其后续数据。在82项未分析STAR实验数据的研究中,只有6项可用于数据综合。58项研究因被判定存在过高的偏倚风险而不能用于数据综合,原因包括混杂(51项)、其他偏倚来源(4项)或结果的选择性报告(3项)。18项研究没有提供足够信息使我们能够计算效应量和标准误差,或者没有以能让我们在数据综合中使用的形式提供结果。荟萃分析用于检验班级规模对学生阅读和数学成绩的影响。随机效应模型用于汇总未分析STAR数据的研究的数据。汇总估计采用逆方差法加权,并估计95%置信区间。效应量以标准化均值差(SMD)衡量。仅在治疗年结束(学年末)时才有可能进行荟萃分析。分析STAR数据的4项研究提供了可用于数据综合的效应估计值。这4项研究在选择比较条件和选择分析样本的决策规则方面都有所不同。由于无法使用方案中描述的决策规则(关于使用相同数据集的研究),所以不清楚这4项研究中的哪些效应估计值应纳入数据综合。因此,与通常做法相反,我们报告了所有4项研究的结果,并且除了敏感性分析外,不将这些结果与未分析STAR数据的研究结果汇总。我们在报告STAR实验结果时考虑了组内相关系数(ICC),并使用ρ = 0.22校正了效应量和标准误差。对于未分析STAR数据的研究,无需因聚类进行调整。敏感性分析用于评估汇总效应量在方法学质量的各个组成部分上是否稳健,这涉及纳入符号不明确的主要研究结果、纳入STAR实验的效应量以及在将班级规模作为连续变量的研究中使用班级规模减少一名学生的情况。所有未分析STAR数据的研究仅在治疗结束时(学年末)报告结果。STAR实验是一项为期四年的纵向研究,每年学年末报告结果。该实验旨在评估小班教学与常规规模班级以及常规规模班级配备教师助手相比,对提高幼儿园及一、二、三年级学生认知成绩的有效性。STAR实验的目标是设置约100个小班,每班13 - 17名学生(S),100个常规班级,每班22 - 25名学生(R),以及100个配备助手的常规班级,每班22 - 25名学生(RA)。在未分析STAR实验的6项研究中,只有5项用于荟萃分析,因为其中一项研究的效应量方向不明确。这些研究来自美国、荷兰和法国,一项是随机对照试验(RCT),五项是非随机研究(NRS)。研究的年级跨度从幼儿园到三年级,一项研究调查了十年级。样本量各不相同;最小的研究调查了104名学生,最大的研究调查了11567名学生。班级规模的减少量各不相同,四项研究中最小减少量为一名学生,另一项研究中最小减少量为七名学生,最后一项研究中最小减少量为八名学生。所有结果都进行了标准化处理,使得正的效应量有利于小班学生,即当效应量为正时,班级规模的减小提高了学生的成绩。阅读方面的主要研究效应量在 - 0.08至0.14之间。三项研究水平的效应无统计学意义。加权平均值为正且具有统计学意义。随机效应加权标准化均值差为0.11(95%置信区间为0.05至0.16),可描述为较小。主要研究之间的效应量方向存在一些不一致。数学方面的主要研究效应量在 - 0.41至0.11之间。两项研究水平的效应无统计学意义。加权平均值为负且无统计学意义。随机效应加权标准化均值差为 - 0.03(95%置信区间为 - 0.22至0.16)。主要研究之间的效应量方向和大小都存在一些不一致。分析STAR数据的四项研究报告的所有结果均表明有利于受试组的积极效应;所有研究水平的效应均具有统计学意义。阅读方面的研究水平效应量在0.17至0.34之间,数学方面的研究水平效应量在0.15至0.33之间。当我们纳入STAR实验效应量范围的极值时,结果没有明显变化。当纳入方向不明确且带有负号的主要研究结果的效应量以及将班级规模作为连续变量的研究中班级规模减少一名学生而非标准差减少的结果时,阅读结果失去了统计学意义。否则,结果没有明显变化。有一些证据表明缩小班级规模对阅读成绩有影响,尽管影响非常小。我们发现缩小班级规模对阅读有统计学意义的积极影响。对数学成绩的影响无统计学意义,因此不确定是否可能有负面影响。总体阅读效应相当于从小班教学受试群体中随机选择一名学生的分数大于从大班教学对照群体中随机选择一名学生分数的概率为53%。对数学成绩的总体效应相当于从小班教学受试群体中随机选择一名学生的分数大于从大班教学对照群体中随机选择一名学生分数的概率为49%。缩小班级规模成本高昂,现有证据表明与大班相比,小班的效应量为零或非常小。考虑到个体效应的差异,我们不能排除小班教学可能对一些学生产生适得其反效果的可能性。因此,为了确定资金的最佳分配方向,更深入了解班级规模与成绩之间的关系以及它如何影响教师和学生在课堂上的行为至关重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/04ba/8428040/82e579f8c15a/CL2-14--g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验