IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v19y2023i3ne1345.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of small class sizes on students' academic achievement, socioemotional development and well‐being in special education: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Anja Bondebjerg
  • Nina Thorup Dalgaard
  • Trine Filges
  • Bjørn Christian Arleth Viinholt

Abstract

Background Class size reductions in general education are some of the most researched educational interventions in social science, yet researchers have not reached any final conclusions regarding their effects. While research on the relationship between general education class size and student achievement is plentiful, research on class size in special education is scarce, even though class size issues must be considered particularly important to students with special educational needs. These students compose a highly diverse group in terms of diagnoses, functional levels, and support needs, but they share a common need for special educational accommodations, which often entails additional instructional support in smaller units than what is normally provided in general education. At this point, there is however a lack of clarity as to the effects of special education class sizes on student academic achievement and socioemotional development. Inevitably, such lack of clarity is an obstacle for special educators and policymakers trying to make informed decisions. This highlights the policy relevance of the current systematic review, in which we sought to examine the effects of small class sizes in special education on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well‐being of children with special educational needs. Objectives The objective of this systematic review was to uncover and synthesise data from studies to assess the impact of small class sizes on the academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well‐being of students with special educational needs. We also aimed to investigate the extent to which the effects differed among subgroups of students. Finally, we planned to perform a qualitative exploration of the experiences of children, teachers, and parents with class size issues in special education. Search Methods Relevant studies were identified through electronic searches in bibliographic databases, searches in grey literature resources, searches using Internet search engines, hand‐searches of specific targeted journals, and citation‐tracking. The following bibliographic databases were searched in April 2021: ERIC (EBSCO‐host), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO‐host), EconLit (EBSCO‐host), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO‐host), SocINDEX (EBSCO‐host), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), and Web of Science (Clarivate, Science Citation Index Expanded & Social Sciences Citation Index). EBSCO OPEN Dissertations was also searched in April 2021, while the remaining searches for grey literature, hand‐searches in key journals, and citation‐tracking took place between January and May 2022. Selection Criteria The intervention in this review was a small special education class size. Eligible quantitative study designs were studies that used a well‐defined control or comparison group, that is, studies where there was a comparison between students in smaller classes and students in larger classes. Children with special educational needs in grades K‐12 (or the equivalent in European countries) in special education were eligible. In addition to exploring the effects of small class sizes in special education from a quantitative perspective, we aimed to gain insight into the lived experiences of children, teachers, and parents with class size issues in special education contexts, as they are presented in the qualitative research literature. The review therefore also included all types of empirical qualitative studies that collected primary data and provided descriptions of main methodological issues such as selection of informants, data collection procedures, and type of data analysis. Eligible qualitative study designs included but were not limited to studies using ethnographic observation or field work formats, or qualitative interview techniques applied to individual or focus group conversations. Data Collection and Analysis The literature search yielded a total of 26,141 records which were screened for eligibility based on title and abstract. From these, 262 potentially relevant records were retrieved and screened in full text, resulting in seven studies being included: three quantitative and five qualitative studies (one study contained both eligible quantitative and qualitative data). Two of the quantitative studies could not be used in the data synthesis as they were judged to have a critical risk of bias and, in accordance with the protocol, were excluded from the meta‐analysis on the basis that they would be more likely to mislead than inform. The third quantitative study did not provide enough information enabling us to calculate an effect size and standard error. Meta‐analysis was therefore not possible. Following quality appraisal of the qualitative studies, three qualitative studies were judged to be of sufficient methodological quality. It was not possible to perform a qualitative thematic synthesis since in two of these studies, findings particular to special education class size were scarce. Therefore, only descriptive data extraction could be performed. Main Results Despite the comprehensive searches, the present review only included seven studies published between 1926 and 2020. Two studies were purely quantitative (Forness, 1985; Metzner, 1926) and from the U.S. Four studies used qualitative methodology (Gottlieb, 1997; Huang, 2020; Keith, 1993; Prunty, 2012) and were from the US (2), China (1), and Ireland (1). One study, MAGI Educational Services (1995), contained both eligible quantitative and qualitative data and was from the U.S. Authors' Conclusions The major finding of the present review was that there were virtually no contemporary quantitative studies exploring the effects of small class sizes in special education, thus making it impossible to perform a meta‐analysis. More research is therefore thoroughly needed. Findings from the summary of included qualitative studies reflected that to the special education students and staff members participating in these studies, smaller class sizes were the preferred option because they allowed for more individualised instruction time and increased teacher attention to students' diverse needs. It should be noted that these studies were few in number and took place in very diverse contexts and across a large time span. There is a need for more qualitative research into the views and experiences of teachers, parents, and school administrators with special education class sizes in different local contexts and across various provision models. But most importantly, future research should strive to represent the voices of children and young people with special needs since they are the experts when it comes to matters concerning their own lives.

Suggested Citation

  • Anja Bondebjerg & Nina Thorup Dalgaard & Trine Filges & Bjørn Christian Arleth Viinholt, 2023. "The effects of small class sizes on students' academic achievement, socioemotional development and well‐being in special education: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:19:y:2023:i:3:n:e1345
    DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1345
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1345
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/cl2.1345?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heckman, James J. & Urzúa, Sergio, 2010. "Comparing IV with structural models: What simple IV can and cannot identify," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 156(1), pages 27-37, May.
    2. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    3. James J. Heckman & Sergio Urzua & Edward Vytlacil, 2006. "Understanding Instrumental Variables in Models with Essential Heterogeneity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(3), pages 389-432, August.
    4. Konstantopoulos, Spyros, 2006. "Fixed and Mixed Effects Models in Meta-Analysis," IZA Discussion Papers 2198, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Melvin Borland & Roy Howsen & Michelle Trawick, 2005. "An investigation of the effect of class size on student academic achievement," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 73-83.
    6. Trine Filges & Christoffer Scavenius Sonne‐Schmidt & Bjørn Christian Viinholt Nielsen, 2018. "Small class sizes for improving student achievement in primary and secondary schools: a systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-107.
    7. Joshua D. Angrist & Victor Lavy, 1999. "Using Maimonides' Rule to Estimate the Effect of Class Size on Scholastic Achievement," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(2), pages 533-575.
    8. Maya B. Mathur & Tyler J. VanderWeele, 2020. "Sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta‐analyses," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 69(5), pages 1091-1119, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anja Bondebjerg & Nina T. Dalgaard & Trine Filges & Morten K. Thomsen & Bjørn C. A. Viinholt, 2021. "PROTOCOL: The effects of small class sizes on students’ academic achievement, socioemotional development, and well‐being in special education," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), June.
    2. Trine Filges & Geir Smedslund & Tine Eriksen & Kirsten Birkefoss, 2023. "PROTOCOL: The FRIENDS preventive programme for reducing anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), December.
    3. Nina T. Dalgaard & Anja Bondebjerg & Bjørn C. A. Viinholt & Trine Filges, 2022. "The effects of inclusion on academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special educational needs," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), December.
    4. Nina T. Dalgaard & Anja Bondebjerg & Bjørn C. A. Viinholt & Trine Filges, 2021. "PROTOCOL: The effects of inclusion on academic achievement, socioemotional development and wellbeing of children with special educational needs," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), June.
    5. Trine Filges & Mette Verner & Else Ladekjær & Elizabeth Bengtsen, 2023. "PROTOCOL: Participation in organised sport to improve and prevent adverse developmental trajectories of at‐risk youth: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), June.
    6. Trine Filges & Nina T. Dalgaard & Bjørn C. A. Viinholt, 2020. "PROTOCOL: Outreach programmes to improve life circumstances and prevent further adverse developmental trajectories of at‐risk youth in OECD countries: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), December.
    7. Breen, Richard & Ermisch, John, 2021. "Instrumental Variable Estimation in Demographic Studies: The LATE interpretation of the IV estimator with heterogenous effects," SocArXiv vx9m7, Center for Open Science.
    8. Patrick Kline & Christopher R. Walters, 2019. "On Heckits, LATE, and Numerical Equivalence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(2), pages 677-696, March.
    9. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2010. "The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    10. Peter Hull & Michal Kolesár & Christopher Walters, 2022. "Labor by design: contributions of David Card, Joshua Angrist, and Guido Imbens," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(3), pages 603-645, July.
    11. Cornelissen, Thomas & Dustmann, Christian & Raute, Anna & Schönberg, Uta, 2016. "From LATE to MTE: Alternative methods for the evaluation of policy interventions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 47-60.
    12. Trine Filges & Mette Verner & Else Ladekjær & Elizabeth Bengtsen, 2024. "Participation in organised sport to improve and prevent adverse developmental trajectories of at‐risk youth: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), March.
    13. Heckman, James J. & Humphries, John Eric & Veramendi, Gregory, 2016. "Dynamic treatment effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 191(2), pages 276-292.
    14. Matej Opatrny & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova & Milan Scasny, 2023. "Publication Bias and Model Uncertainty in Measuring the Effect of Class Size on Achievement," Working Papers IES 2023/19, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised May 2023.
    15. Angus Deaton, 2010. "Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(2), pages 424-455, June.
    16. Anja Bondebjerg & Trine Filges & Jan Hyld Pejtersen & Malene Wallach Kildemoes & Hermann Burr & Peter Hasle & Emile Tompa & Elizabeth Bengtsen, 2023. "Occupational health and safety regulatory interventions to improve the work environment: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), December.
    17. Black, Dan A. & Joo, Joonhwi & LaLonde, Robert & Smith, Jeffrey A. & Taylor, Evan J., 2022. "Simple Tests for Selection: Learning More from Instrumental Variables," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    18. Trine Filges & Nina T. Dalgaard & Bjørn C. A. Viinholt, 2022. "Outreach programs to improve life circumstances and prevent further adverse developmental trajectories of at‐risk youth in OECD countries: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), December.
    19. Guido W. Imbens, 2010. "Better LATE Than Nothing: Some Comments on Deaton (2009) and Heckman and Urzua (2009)," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(2), pages 399-423, June.
    20. Angus Deaton, 2009. "Instruments of development: Randomization in the tropics, and the search for the elusive keys to economic development," Working Papers 1128, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Health and Wellbeing..

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:19:y:2023:i:3:n:e1345. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.