Using the Class Group
Group size
Size does matter — at least as far as groups are concerned. In very small groups, the addition or loss of one member can of course make a radical difference to the group process. Larger groups need to be managed in quite different ways from smaller ones. So let's tackle this systematically: "Formal" features refer to necessary properties of the group, and are functions of the number of people: "Process" features are more empirically determined, and assume more importance as the size gets greater.
But what is a "group"? For present purposes, let us stipulate that it is:


1^{}  Can you have a group of
one? Not formally, but in process terms the question raises a number of issues which are
worth thinking about:
All these scenarios suggests that the group has emergent properties which go beyond the individuals who comprise it. 
2  Formally: potential for
unanimity or equal disagreement. Each person potentially has 50% of the
"airtime". Very vulnerable to loss and addition.
Process: the mating group, with potential for very strong feelings. The irreducible minimum for emergence of any group properties. Power becomes an issue. Polarisation and projection are possible. 
3  Formally: potential for
unanimity or majorityminority splits or fragmentation. Each person potentially has 33% of
the "airtime". Very vulnerable to loss and addition.
Process: now the group is getting more interesting. 
4  Formally: potential for
unanimity, equal splits or threeversusone splits. Each member could have 25% of
airtime. Slightly less vulnerable.
Process: Variety makes complete fragmentation less likely. This is probably the optimum size for small syndicate or "buzz" groups: there is sufficient variety in the group to reap the benefits of group working, but it is not large enough for anyone to hide. Subgroupings of any substantial duration are possible, but not very likely. 
56 
Formally: less change
this time, except that with five members you can only have equal splits if someone is not
counted or abstains. The possibility of four or fiveversusone splits makes group
pressure more potent. Airtime now down to 20%, which is low, considering the process
issues of participation levels.
Process: Can be used for exercises as above, but roles may be more discrete and are slightly more likely to get "fixed". Either bring in a formal — if lightweight — structure, such as suggesting a chairperson, or use when the group is to act as a team with predetermined roles. 
78 
The preferred size for
therapy groups.

12 
The next qualitative
shift comes with the upper limit of the "small group". Beyond twelve, the
avoidance of subgroupings is only possible with quite active structuring.
This is a reasonable size for a participative class, however. It is divisible by 2, 3, 4 and 6, offering useful combinations, and the role of the teacher as chairperson is sufficient to address its normal problems. 
18 
Allowing for resource
constraints, the next best size for a class. All the potential problems of 12 are
amplified, but still quite manageable, and you have almost the same factoring
possibilities for small group working, although you will have to settle for two fours and
two fives for syndicates: even so, there aren't too many groups to take reportingback.
However, there is a strange phenomenon I have noticed over many years: it is almost impossible to set up a short course with exactly 18 members attending. Either someone drops out if you recruit exactly the right number, or if you recruit over to be on the safe side, they all turn up. 17 and 19 are both prime numbers, and really foul up any pairbased work! 
30 
Let's get real. Class sizes in compulsory education are at this level or greater in the state sector, and in higher education it is not unknown to have socalled "seminar" or even "tutorial" groups of this size. That calls for another page. 
Atherton J S (2013) Learning and Teaching; [Online: UK] retrieved from
Original material by James Atherton: last updated overall 10 February 2013
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercialNo Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Search Learningandteaching.info and associated sites:
Save this on Delicious Tweet Click here to send to a friend
This site is independent and selffunded, although the contribution of the Higher Education Academy to its development via the award of a National Teaching Fellowship, in 2004 has been greatly appreciated. The site does not accept advertising or sponsorship (apart from what I am lumbered with on the reports from the site Search facility above), and invitations/proposals/demands will be ignored, as will SEO spam. I am of course not responsible for the content of any external links; any endorsement is on the basis only of my quixotic judgement. Suggestions for new pages and corrections of errors or reasonable disagreements are of course always welcome. I am not on FaceBook or LinkedIn.