Post on 02-May-2023
Master Thesis
BA 399 MBA Research Project
Lincoln University, California Singidunum University, Belgrade
May 2009
The Significance of Class Size in Student Evaluations and
Motivation During Introductory Courses
Professor:
Pete Bogue
Author:
Ivan Paunovic
Significance of class size in student evaluations
2
Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Definitions of Terms ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Delimitations ................................................................................................................................. 4
2. Review of the Literature ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Importance of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises in Serbian Economy ................................... 5
2.2 SADSMEE and Entrepreneurship Development ............................................................................ 7
2.3 Class Size Reduction in Primary and Special Education ................................................................ 9
2.4 Class Size Effect in Higher Education .......................................................................................... 11
3. Research Design .................................................................................................................................. 15
4. Collection of the Data ......................................................................................................................... 17
5. Report of Findings ............................................................................................................................... 18
5.1 Testing hypothesis H1 ................................................................................................................. 18
5.2 Testing hypothesis H2 ................................................................................................................. 19
5.3 Testing hypothesis H3 ................................................................................................................. 20
5.4 Testing hypothesis H4 ................................................................................................................. 21
6. Analysis of findings.............................................................................................................................. 22
7. Conclusions (and recommendations) ................................................................................................. 23
8. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................ 24
9. Appendix ............................................................................................................................................. 25
9.1 Student evaluations of the course, material used, and professor .................................................... 25
9.2 Student motivation after successful completion of the course ........................................................ 27
Significance of class size in student evaluations
3
1. Introduction
1.1 Definitions of Terms
SME-Small and medium sized enterprises
SADSMEE- Serbian Agency for Development of Small and Medium sized Enterprises and
Entrepreneurship
RN-Republic network (that consists of regional agencies for SME development)
NBE-National bureau for employment
NBLM-National bureau for labor market
GFD-Government fund for development
EU-European Union
Privatization-The process of transforming the ownership over production assets from mainly
government to mainly private
GVA -Gross Value Added is a measure of the value of goods and services produced in an area or
sector of an economy
GDP-Gross domestic product
1.2 Purpose of the Study
During the early 2000s the unemployment rate in Serbia was growing year after year, because of the
rapid privatization, many people went to an early retirement or simply lost their jobs. The level of
unemployment is still one of the biggest problems of the contemporary economic policy in Serbia,
although it is in slow decline in recent years. The Survey rate of unemployment, according to the latest
disposable data, in Serbia in 2006 was 21,8% and is the largest in Europe. In EU 25 the average rate of
the survey of unemployment in 2006 was 8,7%, and in 2007 it was 7,1%. In Slovakia it was 11,3%, in
Poland 9,6%, in Croatia 9%, and in Hungary 7,2% (Serbian agency for development of small and medium
sized enterprises and entrepreneurship, 2007).
In 2002. the National bureau for labor market and Serbian agency for development of small and medium
sized enterprises and entrepreneurship, started conducting courses with the purpose of promoting
entrepreneurship as an alternative employment option to the growing number of unemployed people.
During the realization of the courses, one of the identified obstacles was that class size varied
significantly (from 3 to 89 students for the course “How to start a business?”). (Filipovid, 2005) The
question that emerged out of this situation was: Does class size affect the effectiveness of the courses?
Significance of class size in student evaluations
4
Since the basic course has a motivational component in promoting new life options to unemployed, the
question has a important implications to government agencies. Effectiveness of the course is important
in meeting one of the major goals of SADSMEE: Development of entrepreneurship. The following 4
hypothesis are tested in this research:
H1: Student evaluations of the course are lower in the large classes.
H2: Student evaluations of material used are lower in the large classes.
H3: Student evaluations of professor are lower in the large classes.
H4: Students are less motivated about the subject matter in the large classes.
1.3 Delimitations
The findings in this paper cannot be directly used to make conclusions about class size effects in
environments that, in any sense, differ from the ones examined in this study.
Potentially useful data, about the number of students that actually started their own businesses in the
years after the completion of the course, were not collected because of the scope of this work. This data
would give us means to measure the effectiveness of these courses more accurately.
Significance of class size in student evaluations
5
2. Review of the Literature
2.1 Importance of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises in the Serbian
Economy
The SME sector has become the most important part of the economy during the last 7 years, as
privatization started taking place rapidly. The SME sector has become dominant in almost all aspects of
business. In the year 2007 it created 65,5% of employment, realized 67,6% of the total turnover, and
58,3% of gross added value. In the period 2004-2006, the number of the employed in this sector has
increased by 15,7%, while in big companies it has decreased by 18,2%. While total employment has
decreased, entrepreneurial employment has increased by 2,2%. (Serbian agency for development of
small and medium sized enterprises and entrepreneurship, 2007)
(Serbian agency for development of small and medium sized enterprises and entrepreneurship, 2007)
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
2004. 2005. 2006. 2007.
54.70%59%
63.10% 65.50%
Employees working in SME
Significance of class size in student evaluations
6
(Serbian agency for development of small and medium sized enterprises and entrepreneurship, 2007)
(Serbian agency for development of small and medium sized enterprises and entrepreneurship,
2007)
The SME sector is the more efficient part of the Serbian economy. Profitability rate in 2006 was 38,9%,
while the total for the economy was 36%. However, the prevailing influence of SME sector on total
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
2004. 2005. 2007. 2008.
68.20%65.50% 67.50% 67.60%
Turnover
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
2004. 2005. 2006. 2007.
51.80%54.10%
56.90% 58.30%
Gross Added Value
Significance of class size in student evaluations
7
profit of Serbia was a result of quick growth of GDP, and not of a decrease in labor expenses. (Serbian
agency for development of small and medium sized enterprises and entrepreneurship, 2007)
Regional structure of SME is characterized by disproportions between the City of Belgrade and the South
Backa region on one side, and the rest of the Serbia on the other side. Regional disproportions are
confirmed by all indicators. The measures for more balanced regional development of Serbia are
therefore especially focused on helping the SME development in underdeveloped municipalities.
(Serbian agency for development of small and medium sized enterprises and entrepreneurship, 2007)
(Serbian agency for development of small and medium sized enterprises and entrepreneurship, 2007)
2.2 SADSMEE and Entrepreneurship Development
During the late 2000, the Government of Serbia recognized the need for coordination of development
programs for small and medium sized enterprises. Consequently, in 2001 government founded an
agency: SADSMEE (Serbian Agency for Development of Small and Medium sized Enterprises and
Entrepreneurship). The Focus of the agency is on supporting, helping, advising, representing and
protecting the development and interests of SME’s. Also, it is identifying problems of SME’s, initiating
City of Belgrade42%
South Backa county11%
Other municipalities together, 47%
Regional structure of SME
Significance of class size in student evaluations
8
solutions to problems of founding new enterprises and accelerating the development of the existing
SMEs. (Serbian agency for development of small and medium sized enterprises and entrepreneurship,
2007)
The agency manages objectives and tasks set by its board of directors. It creates and implements
national strategy and development policies of SME, and implements the European charter on small
business, various donations and programs for SME development.
The realization of SADSMEE activities relies on intensive cooperation between the Republic network
(RN) members (these are regional agencies with headquarters in Subotica, Novi Sad, Zrenjanin, Sombor,
Belgrade, Zajecar, Uzice, Kragujevac, Nis, Krusevac, Leskovac, Vranje, Novi Pazar, Sabac). Regional
agencies represent an essential infrastructure for participation of both domestic and foreign institutions
and organizations, local self government, donors, banks and others to support the development of
entrepreneurship in Serbia. The users of SADSME services are public institutions, Republic network,
donating organizations, potential and existing SME and other corporate clients.
From the very foundation of the agency, a number of obstacles were identified regarding
entrepreneurship development: finance, government regulation, level of competitiveness of the
economy, low level entrepreneurship culture, low educational levels, outdated technology, lack of
management skills, low awareness of quality standards, and no infrastructure for SME development.
(Serbian agency for development of small and medium sized enterprises and entrepreneurship, 2007)
One of the most important issues was lack of knowledge and skills for running a business successfully,
and unawareness of the need for continuous education during a lifetime.
Large population of unemployed people on the payroll of the National bureau for employment, with a
tendency of growing further, called for a motivational seminar that would present to people alternatives
they have, such as entrepreneurship. GFD (Government fund for development) finances start-ups with
very favorable repayment conditions, and SADSMEE gives consultancy services for free.
During February 2002. National bureau labor market and SADSMEE started a cooperation regarding
entrepreneurship development. Part of this cooperation was the realization of courses in different areas
of business. The foundation course, and the most popular one was “How to start a business?”
The Course “How to start a business?” consisted of four parts:
1. Motivational introduction to entrepreneurship
2. Generation and evaluation of idea
3. Legal foundations for doing business
4. Methodology of writing business plans
5. Analysis of sources of finance
There is much space in the Serbian economy for new entrepreneurs. According to the business
demography data, analyzed by Eurostat, “birth” rate of firms in Serbia, in 2006, was 11,5% and the rate
of mortality 10,5%. The percentage of active firms which have survived during the first two years of
Significance of class size in student evaluations
9
business in Serbia was high, about 85%. These indicators are higher than in EU 27. “Birth” rate of
companies in EU 27 is 9,9%, and mortality is 8,3%, whereas the share of firms that survived the initial
two years of business was 77%. These statistics call for more institutional work on developing
entrepreneurial values in Serbia, so people would hopefully have less fear of failure. (Serbian agency for
development of small and medium sized enterprises and entrepreneurship, 2007)
2.3 Class Size Reduction in Primary and Special Education
Policymakers frequently express an interest in whether class size significantly predicts student
achievement in all levels of education. However, the literature is very inconsistent when it comes to
assessing effects of class size on educational outcomes. There is also a variety of indicator variables
used: academic achievement, discipline, grade retention, and attendance. Some studies found strong
evidence that economically disadvantaged students and those representing ethnic minorities tend to
perform better academically in smaller classes and demonstrate increased aspiration to attend college.
Substantial class size reduction rarely occurs on any significant scale because it is extremely expensive to
accomplish. (Zarghami & Schnellert, 2004)
There no better example of the trade-off between desire and fiscal reality than in California, where class
size reduction has been discussed and desired for years, but class size has inexorably increased
beginning in the 1970s. When school districts faced funding reductions, many found that incremental
increases in class size were more politically palatable than other possible cost-cutting measures. (The
California State University Institute for Education Reform, 1996)
No identifiable caseload size or administrative arrangement has consistently produced positive
outcomes for academic achievement of students with disabilities. However, smaller classes produced
fewer behavioral problems. Also, when caseloads were increased (from 3 to 35), a significant decrease
in student achievement was observed. (Zarghami & Schnellert, 2004)
There is not enough evidence to prove that class size reduction programs produce significant increments
in academic achievement of students with special needs, because other factors would also have to be
considered: methods of teaching, teacher’s qualifications and one-to-one tutoring. Teachers hired to
reduce class size must be certified and must demonstrate content-area competence before they are
brought on board merely to reduce class size.
Canadian research on grade 3 students’ achievement found that students’ sex, language and
socioeconomic background were all significantly associated with student achievement on the test. For
example, girls scored 3 points higher than boys. Grade 3 students whose second language was English
recorded performance 3 points lower than those whose mother tongue was English. Grade 3 students
whose parents were not involved with the school scored 1 point less than the rest. Students scored 1
Significance of class size in student evaluations
10
point higher when taught by teachers who had more than 10 years of teaching experience in the lower
elementary school grades. Smaller class size, proxied by the number of Grade 3 students in the class, can
positively influence achievement. By adding 8 more Grade 3 students to a class, students performed
almost 1 point lower than students in classes of average size. Student characteristics account for 67% of
variation, classroom environment accounts for 20% of variation, and school environment or
neighborhood accounts for 13% of variation. While factors that students “bring to the classroom”
(natural academic ability, motivation), can explain the majority of student achievement, a surprisingly
large amount of variation was attributable to types of classes and schools. The influences of schools and
neighborhoods on child performance are particularly important from a policy perspective because they
are amenable to change through policy intervention. (Tremblay, Ross, & Berthelot, 2001)
Based on the data, a reference group was created to assess the impact on test scores of changes in
student, class and school characteristics. The reference group embodies the most common
characteristics of Grade 3 students: It represents an English speaking girl in a public school, with a
reference score of 51 out of 100 who is not in a split-grade class and whose school is located in an urban
neighborhood with a median household income of $42,500. The model developed for this study shows
how test scores change when a student’s characteristics deviate from that of the reference group.
(Tremblay, Ross, & Berthelot, 2001)
Grade 3 students’ achievement
Base test score for reference group 51
Student-level characteristics Change in base test score Sex(male) -3
English is the student’s second language -3 French immersion 0
No computer at home -3 Less than 100 books at home -3
Language other than English spoken at home -1 Parents not actively or somewhat involved with
school -1
Class level characteristics Teacher characteristics
More than 10 years of teaching experience 1 Comfortable with curriculum 1
Teaching practice1. 1 Class environment
Average number of grade 3 students in class+ 8 more Grade 3 students2.
-1
Limited access to computer in class 0 No access to computer in class 0
School-level characteristics School environment
Significance of class size in student evaluations
11
Small school-less than 230 students 0 Large school-more than 471 students 0
School neighborhood Rural3. -2
%of population with less than high school4. -1 Less than 0.6% of population are recent
immigrants5. -1
More than 8.2% of population are recent immigrants5.
3
Median income6. 1 1. Change in student achievement when teachers followed the curriculum more closely by one
standard deviation. 2. Change in student achievement when eight more Grade 3 students are added. 3. Rural schools include those in towns, villages and other populated places with less than 1,000
population, and rural fringes of census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations that may contain estate lots and agricultural or underdeveloped land with a population density of less than 400 people per square kilometer.
4. Change in student achievement when the percentage of the population with less than high school graduation increases by 13 points.
5. Recent immigrants are those who entered Canada between 1991 and 1996. 6. Change in student achievement when median school neighborhood income is increased by $
10,000
(Tremblay, Ross, & Berthelot, 2001)
Great attention is paid to the Tennessee STAR project. A cohort of pupils and teachers at kindergarten
through to Grade 3 were assigned at random to three types of class within the same school: a small class
(around 17 pupils), a ‘regular’ class (around 23 students) and a regular class with a teacher- aide. In
brief, the researchers found that in both reading and math pupils in small classes performed significantly
better than pupils in regular classes, and children from minority ethnic group backgrounds benefited
most from small classes. In fourth grade the pupils returned to regular classes and the experiment
ended, but gains were still evident after a further three years, that is, grades 4-6. (Mosteller, 1995)
2.4 Class Size Effect in Higher Education
There is widely held belief in Canada today that small classes are better. It is assumed that the higher
amount and intensity of faculty-student contact results in better learning, especially higher order and
complex reasoning. Large classes, on the other hand, often involve lectures, little interaction, and
multiple choice examinations, and so, it is often felt, less learning.
Class sizes are used as an important indicator of an institution’s commitment to undergraduate
education or of the value system and priorities of the institution and the nature of the experience
Significance of class size in student evaluations
12
students will have. Some Canadian Universities have even developed policy guidelines that limit class
size in order to maintain consistent quality of education. Also, under public pressure, universities are
urged to develop performance indicators. Student/teacher ratios and class sizes are usual indicators of
instructional load or resources. (Gilbert, 1995)
Early research literature on class size showed a link between small classes and improved learning.
Although the literature suggests that class size alone has little or no impact on the acquisition of
substantive knowledge or academic skills, it also suggests that smaller classes are more effective than
large ones in motivating students, producing attitudinal changes and enhancing higher order thinking
and reasoning.
Class size research usually uses final course grades, standardized test scores or course evaluation data as
the outcome measures. In 1924, researchers compared the performance of students in a 100+ class
with a 40+ class in the same course. Students in the small class did slightly better on an essay and
midterm test, while students in the large class did slightly better on quizzes and the final examination.
Several other studies, however, have found that class size has little effect on common examination
results, especially when compared to instructor enthusiasm, organization and clarity. In the initial
research, when measures other than the standard academic achievement measures were used, class
size appeared to have some impact. Smaller classes were found to produce statistically significant
differences in problem solving, student attitudes to teaching and knowledge retention. The impact of
class size, it was suggested, depended in part upon the educational goal. If the acquisition of factual
knowledge was the primary objective, then size was not of great consequence. If higher level thinking,
application, motivation and attitudinal change were primary, then smaller classes were best. (Gilbert,
1995)
An examination of the relationship between class size and overall student evaluations for more than
4000 courses at 16 campuses in the United States has produced confusing results. The researcher found
that student evaluations became less favorable as class sizes approached 250, and then became more
favorable as class size went up from 250. A background variable that seemed to influence class size
effect was “year in university”. Researchers found that first-year college students prefer small classes
and upper division students prefer larger classes. Their conclusion was that experience in larger classes
resulted in stronger preference for larger classes. (Gilbert, 1995)
Despite a long-running debate over class size differences in the public school setting, very few studies
have assessed the impact of class size on the student learning experience in academic context.
University studies mainly focus on the relationship between class sizes and student’s performance as
means of predictor for effortful study behavior. These studies express pedagogical concerns about large
classes because students are more prone to distraction and feelings of anonymity, which can negatively
affect student achievement. Furthermore, small classroom community contexts often foster positive
teacher-student and student-student relationships that are more likely to enhance mutual
responsibilities for achieving learning objectives.
Significance of class size in student evaluations
13
It was measured that students in smaller groups spend significantly more time in spontaneous
interactive discussion.
(Laria & Hubball, 2008)
In large class size, three out of 150 students responded to the DQT by sharing their sense of direction.
The interaction between these students lasted 2 minutes and 30 seconds. None of the students
responded to interactive prompts QT 1, QT 2 and QT 3.
In the small class size, 11 out of 17 students responded to the DQT. Their interaction lasted 13 minutes
and 30 seconds. Students were actively involved in sharing their experience regarding their own
topographical orientation skills. At the QT 1, QT 2, and QT 3, 15 students interacted among each other
and with the instructor for a total of 37 minutes and 30 seconds. (Laria & Hubball, 2008)
These insights have important implications for curriculum design. Senior undergraduate students may
be better positioned to participate in large size classes, while enabling first and second year students to
strategically participate in small size class introductory courses, particularly when academic units are
facing decreasing budgets.
Wilson examined data on the first finance class in the university for the period of 6 years. It is a
foundation course required for all students. He discovered that there are good and bad times for the
course. Students who take sections that begin at 11:00am or 12:30 pm receive higher grades than their
colleagues, despite no differences in performance on the standardized exam. Further, students in night
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Large Size Class Direct Question
Time
Large Size Class Question Time 1,2,3
Small Size Class Direct Question
Time
Small Size Class Question Time 1,2,3
Tim
e (i
n m
inu
tes)
sp
ent
in a
ctiv
e d
iscu
ssio
n
Significance of class size in student evaluations
14
classes appear to outperform their daytime compatriots, but are not rewarded for it with higher grades.
Similarly, students in classes that are of longer duration but with fewer weekly meetings outperform and
are more satisfied than students in shorter, more frequent classes. Course grades, however, show
students are not rewarded for this superior performance. Increased class size is frequently seen as a
negative predictor for student performance, but this study shows that size does not matter in
performance, but is rewarded with higher grades. The status of the instructor is a significant variable,
but in a surprise result, adjunct lecturers outperform their full time tenured/tenure track colleagues in
imparting knowledge necessary for superior performance on the standardized exam. (Wilson, 2002)
(Wilson, 2002)
Significance of class size in student evaluations
15
3. Research Design
This research focuses on the effect class size has on student evaluations and motivation. This
phenomenon was evaluated through testing of four hypothesis. For the purpose of testing the null
hypothesis were created:
H10: Class evaluations of the course are not affected by the class size.
H11: Class evaluations of the course are negatively related to the class size.
H20: Class evaluations of material used are not affected by the class size.
H21: Class evaluations of material used are negatively related to class size.
H30: Class evaluations of professor are not affected by the class size.
H31: Class evaluations of professor are negatively related to class size.
H40: Class motivation is not affected by the size of the class.
H41: Class motivation is lower in larger classes.
The first three hypothesis were posed in order to prove whether class size affects student evaluations.
On the other hand, the fourth hypothesis was posed in order to prove whether class size affects student
motivation after the completion of the course. Student (potential entrepreneur) satisfaction and
motivation are essential to meet the goals of the education department. Two sample tests of hypothesis
were used to test these four hypotheses, along with a five-step hypothesis testing procedure.
(Douglas A. Lind, 2003)
Step 1: Posing null
and alternate hypotheses
Step2: Selecting a
level of significance
Step 3: Identifying
the test statistic
Step 4: Formulate a decision rule
Step 5: Take a sample, arrive at decision
Significance of class size in student evaluations
16
For the purpose of two sample analysis, two groups of samples were created:
Class size from 3 to 24, and
Class size from 28 to 48
Both groups had 30 or more samples which is a necessary requirement for the distribution to be normal.
These two groups were then used to compare whether evaluation and motivation differ in class size 3-
24 and 28-48.
Significance of class size in student evaluations
17
4. Collection of the Data
The data was collected during the regular activities of the education department of SADSME. It was
collected during the period of three years: from 2002 to 2005. Classes were held in various towns in
Serbia. Data for evaluations of the course, material and professor are in the table in Appendix 9.1. Data
for motivation of students after the course are in the table in Appendix 9.2. Since there was very low
response rate in some cases, only classes with response rate over 60% were considered as valid, and
included in the table.
Significance of class size in student evaluations
18
5. Report of Findings
5.1 Testing hypothesis H1
Class size Sample mean Sample standard deviation Sample size
3 to 24 4.06 0.34 30
28 to 48 4.05 0.31 32
The null hypothesis was that class evaluations of the course are not affected by the class size. In other
words, the difference of 0.01 in the mean grade between large and small classes was due to chance. The
alternate hypothesis was that class evaluations of the course are negatively related to the class size. We
let µL refer to the mean grade given by the large classes, and µ0 the mean grade given by the small
classes. The null and alternate hypothesis were:
H0: µL≥µ0
H1:µL<µ0
The significance level selected was .01. Z distribution was used as the test statistic. The alternate
hypothesis was set to indicate that the mean grade was lower when given by the large groups then by
the small ones. Hence the rejection region was in the upper tail of the standard normal distribution. To
find the critical value we placed 0.01 of the total area in the upper tail. This meant that .4900 (.5000-
.0100) of the area is located between the Z value of 0 and the critical value. Value located near .4900 is
2.33, so our decision was to reject H0 if the value computed from the test statistic exceeds 2.33. We
used the following formula to compute the value of the test statistic.
𝑍 =0 − 𝐿
𝑆02
𝑛0+𝑆𝐿2
𝑛𝐿
=4.06− 4.05
0.342
30 +0.312
32
=0.01
0.08= 0.125
The computed value of 0.125 was lower than the critical value of 2.33. Our decision was to accept the
null hypothesis. The difference of 0.01 in the mean grades given by the large and small groups was too
small, and has occurred by chance. The p-value for the test statistics was 0.4013, found by .5000-.0987.
The conclusion was that there is very high likelihood that the null hypothesis is true.
Significance of class size in student evaluations
19
5.2 Testing hypothesis H2
Class size Sample mean Sample standard deviation Sample size
3 to 24 4.33 0.39 30
28 to 48 4.29 0.27 32
The null hypothesis was that class evaluations of material used are not affected by the class size. In
other words, the difference of 0.04 in the mean grade between large and small classes was due to
chance. The alternate hypothesis was that class evaluations of material used are negatively related to
class size. We let µL refer to the mean grade given by the large classes, and µ0 the mean grade given by
the small classes. The null and alternate hypothesis were:
H0: µL≥µ0
H1:µL<µ0
The significance level selected was .01. Z distribution was used as the test statistic. The alternate
hypothesis was set to indicate that the mean grade was lower when given by the large classes then by
the small ones. Hence, the rejection region was in the upper tail of the standard normal distribution. To
find the critical value we placed 0.01 of the total area in the upper tail. This meant that .4900 (.5000-
.0100) of the area was located between the Z value of 0 and the critical value. Value located near .4900
is 2.33, so our decision was to reject H0 if the value computed from the test statistic exceeds 2.33. We
used the following formula to compute the value of the test statistic.
𝑍 =0 − 𝐿
𝑆02
𝑛0+𝑆𝐿2
𝑛𝐿
=4.33− 4.29
0.392
30 +0.272
32
=0.04
0.09= 0.44
The computed value of 0.44 was lower than the critical value of 2.33. Our decision was to accept the null
hypothesis. The difference of 0.04 in the mean grades given by the large and small classes was too small,
and has occurred by chance. The p-value for the test statistics was 0.33, found by .5000-0.1700. The
conclusion was that there is very high likelihood that the null hypothesis is true.
Significance of class size in student evaluations
20
5.3 Testing hypothesis H3
Class size Sample mean Sample standard deviation Sample size
3 to 24 4.72 0.24 30
28 to 48 4.69 0.19 32
The null hypothesis was that class evaluations of professor are not affected by the class size. In other
words the difference of 0.03 in the mean grade between large and small classes was due to chance. The
alternate hypothesis was that class evaluations of professor are negatively related to class size. We let µL
refer to the mean grade given by the large classes, and µ0 the mean grade given by the small classes. The
null and alternate hypothesis were:
H0: µL≥µ0
H1:µL<µ0
The significance level selected was .01. Z distribution was used as the test statistic. The alternate
hypothesis was set to indicate that the mean grade is lower when given by the large groups then by the
small ones. Hence the rejection region was in the upper tail of the standard normal distribution. To find
the critical value we placed 0.01 of the total area in the upper tail. This meant that .4900 (.5000-.0100)
of the area was located between the Z value of 0 and the critical value. Value located near .4900 is 2.33,
so our decision was to reject H0 if the value computed from the test statistic exceeds 2.33. We used the
following formula to compute the value of the test statistic.
𝑍 =0 − 𝐿
𝑆02
𝑛0+𝑆𝐿2
𝑛𝐿
=4.72− 4.69
0.242
30 +0.192
32
=0.03
0.06= 0.5
The computed value of 0.5 was lower than the critical value of 2.33. Our decision was to accept the null
hypothesis. The difference of 0.03 in the mean grades given by the large and small groups was too small,
and has occurred by chance. The p-value for the test statistics was 0.3085, found by .5000-0.1915. The
conclusion was that there is very high likelihood that the null hypothesis is true.
Significance of class size in student evaluations
21
5.4 Testing hypothesis H4
Class size Sample mean Sample standard deviation Sample size
3 to 24 72.37% 15.31% 30
28 to 48 65.87% 9.46% 32
The null hypothesis was that class motivation was not affected by the size of the class. In other words
the difference of 6.5 % between large and small classes was due to chance. The alternate hypothesis
was that class motivation was lower in larger classes. We let µL refer to the mean motivation in large
classes, and µ0 to the mean motivation in small classes. The null and alternate hypothesis were:
H0: µL≥µ0
H1:µL<µ0
The significance level selected was .01. Z distribution was used as the test statistic. The alternate
hypothesis was set to indicate that the motivation in large groups was lower then in smaller ones. Hence
the rejection region was in the upper tail of the standard normal distribution. To find the critical value
we placed .01 of the total area in the upper tail. This meant that .4900 (.5000-.0100) of the area was
located between the Z value of 0 and the critical value. Value located near .4900 is 2.33, so our decision
was to reject H0 if the value computed from the test statistic exceeds 2.33. We used the following
formula to compute the value of the test statistic.
𝑍 =0 − 𝐿
𝑆02
𝑛0+𝑆𝐿2
𝑛𝐿
=0.72− 0.66
0.152
30+0.12
32
=0.06
0.02= 3
The computed value of 3 was higher than the critical value of 2.33. Our decision was to accept the
alternate hypothesis. The difference of 6.5% between large and small classes was too large to have
occurred by chance. The p-value for the test statistics was 0.0013, found by .5000-0.4987. The
conclusion was that there is very little likelihood that the null hypothesis is true.
Significance of class size in student evaluations
22
6. Analysis of findings
The first hypothesis (H1) was addressing the question whether evaluations of the course, done by
students change in large classes compared to small ones. This hypothesis was not proved, because the
difference between the mean grades in large and small classes was not statisticaly significant. That is,
the null hypothesis was accepted for hypothesis H1. Thus, it cannot be stated that class size affects
student evaluations of the course. In other words, class size does not affect student evaluations of the
course.
The second hypothesis (H2) was addressing the question whether evaluations of the material, done by
students, change in large classes compared to small ones. This hypothesis was not proved, because the
difference between the mean grades in large and small classes was not statisticaly significant. That is,
the null hypothesis was accepted for hypothesis H2. Thus, it cannot be stated that class size affects
student evaluations of the material. In other words, class size does not affect student evaluations of
material.
The third hypothesis (H3) was addressing the question whether evaluations of the professor, done by
students, change in large classes compared to small ones. This hypothesis was not proved, because the
difference between the mean grades in large and small classes was not statisticaly significant. That is,
the null hypothesis was accepted for hypothesis H3. Thus, it cannot be stated that class size affects
student evaluations of professor. In other words, class size does not affect student evaluations of
professor.
The fourth hypothesis (H4) was addressing the question whether motivation of students after the course
about the subject matter is lower in large classes than in small ones. The fourth hypothesis was proved,
because the difference between the mean motivation of large and small classes was statistically
significant. That is, the null hypothesis was rejected for hypothesis H4. Thus, it can be stated that class
size affects student motivation about the subject matter.
Significance of class size in student evaluations
23
7. Conclusions (and recommendations)
Class size is not statisticaly significant factor in student evaluations. On the other hand, class size is
statistically significant factor in student motivation. Student motivation is lower in large classes. This has
implications for the conduct of all the courses by the education department of SADSMEE (Serbian
Agency for Development of Small and Medium sized Enterprises and Entrepreneurship). It means that
effectivenes of these courses is lower when the group is large (28-48 students). Especially, the
implications are strong for the conduct of the course “How to start a business?”, which was used to
collect the data. One of the main goals of this course is to motivate the unemployed citizens to consider
new employment options. Motivational component is very important in this course. Thus, a new policy
should be considered, that would keep the classes small (e.g. down to 24 students).
Potentially useful data, about the number of students that actually started their own business in years
after the completion of the course, were not collected because of the scope of this work. This data
would give us means to measure effectiveness of these courses more accurately.
Significance of class size in student evaluations
24
8. Bibliography
Douglas A. Lind, W. G. (2003). Statistical techniques in business and economics. Singapore: McGraw-Hill
Education.
Filipovid, S. (2005). Едукација у републичкој агенцији ѕа МСПП-три године рада. Београд:
Републичка агенција ѕа раѕвој МСПП.
Gilbert, S. (1995). Quality Education: Does Class Size Matter? Research File .
Laria, G., & Hubball, H. (2008). Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal .
Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades. The Future of Children
.
Serbian agency for development of small and medium sized enterprises and entrepreneurship. (2007).
Annual report. Belgrade: FRAME art.
The California State University Institute for Education Reform. (1996). Is Less More? Exploring
California's New Class Size Reduction Initiative. The California Education Policy Seminar.
Tremblay, S., Ross, N., & Berthelot, J.-M. (2001). Factors affecting Grade 3 Student Performance in
Ontario: A Multilevel Analysis. Education Quarterly Review .
Wikipedia. (2009, April 13). Correlation. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from Wikipedia The free Encyclopedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
Wilson, A. (2002). Exogenous Determinants of Student Performance In First Finance Classes. Financial
Decisions .
Zarghami, F., & Schnellert, G. (2004). Class size reduction: No silver bullet for special education students'
achievement. 19.
Significance of class size in student evaluations
25
9. Appendix
9.1 Student evaluations of the course, material used, and professor
Sam
ple
C
lass
siz
e
Res
po
nse
rat
e (%
)
A
vera
ge g
rad
e
for
the
cou
rse
A
vera
ge g
rad
e
for
the
mat
eri
al
Ave
rage
gra
de
for
the
pro
fess
or
1 18 72.22% 3.69 4.38 4.92
2 3 100.00% 5 5 5
3 5 100.00% 4.4 4.8 4.7
4 9 77.78% 4.2 3.71 4.81
5 48 75.00% 3.86 4.23 4.37
6 12 75.00% 3.78 4.44 4.56
7 35 80.00% 3.82 4.04 4.68
8 36 72.22% 3.84 3.8 4.45
9 36 63.89% 4.09 4.39 4.54
10 36 69.44% 4.08 4.26 4.84
11 20 80.00% 3.69 3.81 4.81
12 26 84.62% 3.55 4.05 4.47
13 12 91.67% 4.45 4.36 4.85
14 25 64.00% 4.13 4.53 4.93
15 15 80.00% 4 4.29 4.86
16 33 66.67% 3.48 3.75 4.48
17 27 70.37% 4.26 4.53 4.87
18 27 62.96% 3.76 4.14 4.71
19 29 100.00% 4.14 4.21 4.67
20 22 72.73% 3.86 4.53 4.96
21 16 100.00% 4.19 4.44 4.81
22 36 77.78% 4.04 4.62 4.8
23 26 80.77% 4.05 4 4.72
24 21 76.19% 4.19 4.31 4.85
25 36 80.56% 4.45 4.5 4.81
26 24 75.00% 3.47 3.47 4.56
27 23 82.61% 4.12 4.56 4.96
28 28 78.57% 3.71 4.27 4.42
Significance of class size in student evaluations
26
29 21 80.95% 4.13 4.53 4.79
30 22 63.64% 3.71 4.62 4.95
31 30 70.00% 4.32 4.5 4.8
32 28 60.71% 4.25 4.19 4.44
33 35 77.14% 4.26 4.41 4.78
34 14 100.00% 4.82 4.54 4.79
35 29 86.21% 3.8 4.2 4.82
36 20 60.00% 4.42 4.67 4.92
37 28 75.00% 3.86 4.43 4.74
38 31 64.52% 3.7 4 4.34
39 31 67.74% 4.1 4.48 4.83
40 35 60.00% 3.95 4.11 4.86
41 30 66.67% 4.29 4.05 4.69
42 31 74.19% 4 4.48 4.5
43 35 60.00% 4.19 4.33 4.85
44 10 100.00% 4.1 3.8 4.65
45 19 68.42% 4.23 4.25 4.54
46 18 72.22% 3.85 4.54 4.85
47 27 70.37% 3.89 4.58 4.95
48 24 66.67% 4 4.38 4.81
49 30 70.00% 4.5 4.9 4.93
50 18 83.33% 3.73 4.2 3.89
51 27 100.00% 4.25 4.3 4.74
52 17 76.47% 4.15 4.92 4.92
53 30 60.00% 4.61 4.67 4.89
54 30 63.33% 3.71 4.16 4.68
55 22 90.91% 4.2 4.7 4.48
56 26 80.77% 4.29 4.43 4.76
57 17 88.24% 3.71 3.4 4.7
58 32 68.75% 4 4.27 4.88
59 43 76.74% 3.64 4.06 4.9
60 25 68.00% 4.31 4.38 4.76
61 20 60.00% 4.25 4.08 4.44
62 19 68.42% 3.82 4.75 4.47
63 20 70.00% 4.21 4.36 4.96
64 15 73.33% 3.82 4.22 4.45
65 8 62.50% 4 4.4 4.56
66 30 60.00% 4.41 4.94 4.87
67 26 61.54% 3.88 4.44 4.8
68 28 71.43% 3.95 4.3 4.77
Significance of class size in student evaluations
27
69 36 83.33% 4.6 4.37 4.35
70 32 81.25% 3.6 3.88 4.48
71 28 60.71% 4.47 4.4 4.89
72 25 60.00% 4.07 4.27 4.76
73 31 61.29% 4.28 4.37 4.74
74 25 76.00% 4.21 4.47 4.75
9.2 Student motivation after successful completion of the course
After the course, my plans about future business are:
Sa
mp
le
C
lass
siz
e
I am
th
inki
ng
abo
ut
givi
ng
up
o
n m
y id
ea.
I am
dec
isiv
e ab
ou
t m
y p
lan
s.
I'm e
nco
ura
ged
eve
n f
urt
her
.
N
o r
esp
on
se.
D
ecis
ive+
en
cou
rage
d
(mo
tiva
ted
)
P
erce
nta
ge o
f
dec
isiv
e+en
cou
rage
d
(mo
tiva
ted
) st
ud
ents
1 18 1 5 7 12 66.67%
2 3 1 2 3 100.00%
3 5 1 4 5 100.00%
4 9 3 4 7 77.78%
5 48 18 16 2 34 70.83%
6 12 4 5 9 75.00%
7 35 1 12 15 27 77.14%
8 36 1 14 9 2 23 63.89%
9 36 7 14 2 21 58.33%
10 36 2 10 10 3 20 55.56%
11 20 10 4 2 14 70.00%
12 26 1 11 10 21 80.77%
13 12 4 7 11 91.67%
14 25 10 6 16 64.00%
15 15 1 6 4 1 10 66.67%
Significance of class size in student evaluations
28
16 33 2 13 7 20 60.61%
17 27 1 5 13 18 66.67%
18 27 10 7 17 62.96%
19 29 1 12 15 1 27 93.10%
20 22 1 7 8 15 68.18%
21 16 8 8 16 100.00%
22 36 16 11 1 27 75.00%
23 26 14 7 21 80.77%
24 21 7 9 16 76.19%
25 36 9 19 1 28 77.78%
26 24 3 9 6 15 62.50%
27 23 8 9 2 17 73.91%
28 28 1 13 7 1 20 71.43%
29 21 1 8 8 16 76.19%
30 22 7 5 2 12 54.55%
31 30 7 13 1 20 66.67%
32 28 8 7 2 15 53.57%
33 35 8 18 1 26 74.29%
34 14 1 5 8 13 92.86%
35 29 12 11 2 23 79.31%
36 20 4 8 12 60.00%
37 28 1 9 7 4 16 57.14%
38 31 1 11 8 19 61.29%
39 31 2 9 10 19 61.29%
40 35 12 9 21 60.00%
41 30 12 8 20 66.67%
42 31 1 13 9 22 70.97%
43 35 11 10 21 60.00%
44 10 5 5 10 100.00%
45 19 1 8 3 1 11 57.89%
46 18 5 8 13 72.22%
47 27 6 13 19 70.37%
48 24 8 6 2 14 58.33%
49 30 9 10 2 19 63.33%
50 18 9 6 15 83.33%
51 27 8 19 27 100.00%
52 17 9 4 13 76.47%
53 30 11 7 18 60.00%
54 30 1 14 4 15 50.00%
55 22 18 2 18 81.82%
56 26 10 11 21 80.77%
57 17 8 7 15 88.24%
Significance of class size in student evaluations
29
58 32 17 5 22 68.75%
59 43 15 17 1 32 74.42%
60 25 7 10 17 68.00%
61 20 4 8 12 60.00%
62 19 2 7 3 1 10 52.63%
63 20 4 10 14 70.00%
64 15 3 8 8 53.33%
65 8 1 3 1 4 50.00%
66 30 5 13 18 60.00%
67 26 1 8 6 1 14 53.85%
68 28 1 12 7 19 67.86%
69 36 3 16 10 1 26 72.22%
70 32 9 17 26 81.25%
71 28 5 11 1 16 57.14%
72 25 5 9 1 14 56.00%
73 31 7 11 1 18 58.06%
74 25 5 14 19 76.00%