-> I don't disagree at all with the points you are making.
-> Keep in mind I said that there is a LOOSE CORRELATION between
-> class size and success.
The only reason the correlation is loose IMHO is because it is
impossible to isolate and control for that factor alone. Because of the
very many other variables affecting student performance, it is extremely
difficult to know whether, in any study on class size, that is the
responsible culprit, or perhaps some other factor.
IMO (and I don't think there is any way to test this one out) _IF_ we
were able to test for class size alone, and eliminate all other factors,
I bet we would find a very STRONG correlation between class size and
student performance.
-> By this I mean there are many exceptions, at least this has been my
-> experience.
Again, I think you're confusing the class size issue with the "right
chemistry" issue. Certainly there are exceptions when a large class is
great and a small class is horrible. I've had the same experience as you
on that score. But I don't think that demonstrates that class size is
not that important.
-> I point this out because I think at times class size might be
-> over-emphasiZed AS A problem.
It probably is over-emphasized as a problem. I'm sure it depends on who
you're talking to, and what the teaching situation at their school is.
In a district with average class size of 20, I'd bet there'd be a lot
less discussion on this topic than a district with average class size of
30.
-> You mentioned troublemakers and problem students. I think as you
-> increase the class size, you also increase the probability of getting
-> some of these students in your class.
I'd tend to agree with that. Given that all students are equally likely
to be picked for a particular course, and truly random student
assignment, sure.
-> Then the class becomes a problem. Is it really the class size? Or is
-> it the lack of a good cohesive chemistry in the class as a result of
-> these problem students? I think the latter.
See, you keep talking about the "cohesive" aspect of the class. You seem
to imply that it is the way all personalities involved interact with and
relate to each other. While I don't deny that that is one aspect of the
situation, I tend to feel that more importantly it is the individual
aspect of the kids who are creating the problems and they should be
dealt with. Somehow they either need to be removed from the classroom to
another setting until they are ready to learn (they are consuming too
much of the teacher's time and attention and other class resources), or
somehow counseled to improve their attitude and willingness to work
towards a more productive class setting for all persons involved, both
teacher and students.
-> General math has really been a mixed bag. This year I ended up with a
-> delightful group -- but only after 3 problem students eliminated
-> themselves from my class.
I did have one kid in my Intermediate Algebra class this year, a senior,
who was a big problem motivation wise. Pleasant enough kid, but had no
intention of applying himself to the class. I didn't want to just ignore
him. So, he did consume class resources (instructional time and
teacher's time and attention) until, at the end of the first semester, I
finally talked him into dropping the class. The class was much more
enjoyable for everyone after that.
Now how does that have anything to do with "cohesiveness" or the class
"chemistry" or anything involving seeing the class as a single unit,
rather than having to do with just a single individual who was a problem
and was removed?
Sheila
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10
---------------