PSYCHOLOGY AT SCHOOLmotivation dissolves. Using material rewards also risks the morally
dubious situation whereby less capable kids miss out on rewards even
if they’ve worked hard.
Class size and streaming
Politicians and school leaders are often heard pledging to reduce class
sizes as if it’s a given that to do so is beneficial. A large-scale American
study published by psychologists in 2005, provided robust evidence
that class size really is important. Jeremy Finn at the University of
Buffalo followed 4,948 kindergarten pupils over time to see which of
them went on to graduate from high school 13 years later. He found
that of those children who spent their first four years of school in a
small class (between 13 and 17 pupils), 88 percent graduated from high
school, compared with 76 percent of children who were in a large class
(of between 22 and 26 students). The difference grew to 18 percent when
only children from lower-income families were considered. Deeper
analysis showed that it wasn’t purely academic performance that led the
pupils in smaller classes to be more likely to stay on – other factors such
as motivation played a role too.
Another contentious topic in schooling is the question of whether
or not to stream children according to ability – putting high achievers
all together in one class and underachievers all together in another.
A common criticism of streaming is that it stigmatizes and demoral-
izes children placed in lower-ability streams. However, this concern
may be misplaced. A Singaporean study published in 2005 followed
hundreds of pupils for three years after they were separated into a lower
and upper stream on the basis of public examinations taken before
starting secondary school. While at the start of the study the lower-
stream students had lower academic confidence than the upper-stream
students, this had actually reversed by the end of the study. Academic
self-esteem had dropped across the entire sample – no surprise given
that adolescence can be a difficult time – but after three years the lower-
stream students had more academic confidence than the upper-stream
students. Liu Woon Chia at the National Institute of Singapore, who
conducted the study, surmised that the lower-stream students enjoyed a
“big fish in a small pond” effect, whereas the upper-stream students had
faced stiffer competition and more pressure. The Singaporean system
also allows lower-stream children limited opportunities for jumping up
to the top stream, which may have had a motivating effect.