Abstract
The purpose of this research is to examine specific examples of how business communication courses are delivered in large, face-to-face university classes to discover implications of these large courses. This case study reviewed four classes from two different midsized universities whose classes range from 48 to 300 students. Findings suggest that, when faced with the possibility of teaching more students, it is important to understand that pedagogical strategies may need to be adjusted to maintain student learning. These strategies include modifying the course to the lecture/lab structure, limiting the amount of writing, or allowing the instructor to teach fewer courses.
Making decisions about class content, class size, and instructional methods is an ongoing challenge, and when the course is offered by multiple instructors, the decisions can be more complex. In a time of budget constraints, colleges and universities are always looking for ways to cut spending. There are numerous ways to approach cuts, and one of these is teaching more students in each class. TheTexas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2015)reported the average class sizes at Texas colleges and universities remained steady between 2007 and 2014. However, this may change as universities, not just in Texas, continue to look for ways to decrease costs. Not all universities can boast about small class sizes. If this is the case, it is important to be aware of ways to adapt the course to meet the needs of a larger class.Moshiri and Cardon (2014)discussed class sizes as part of their study on how business communication courses are delivered. One of the authors of the study was facing a large increase in class sizes, which inspired the national study. California was facing reduced financial support from the state, and its universities had to make some hard choices about their class sizes.
The larger the class size, the more likely the course will be offered in a lecture format. Instructors often feel that the larger classes require the traditional lecture style delivery with standardized test measures (Svinicki & McKeachie, 2014). In addition, one of the problems with the large section format is determining what types of courses are best suited for the larger section format. Each situation should be analyzed separately, asRice (1999)stated: “Rather than mandate across-the-board policies to reduce class size, it may be more productive to attempt to align class size with contextual factors (e.g., type of student, teacher attributes, subject area, grade level) shown to be relevant” (p. 227).
The purpose of this research is to examine specific examples of how business communication courses are delivered in large, face-to-face university classes to discover implications of these large courses for both universities and instructors. This topic may be quite relevant as discussion between instructors often includes class size and types of assignments. The author of this study found it an interesting topic because her university administration has discussed increasing class size, mirroring views reported byMoshiri and Cardon (2014)that instructors felt their classes were likely to increase in the future. For this study, large class sizes are defined by enrollments of 35 students or more in a writing-intensive course. TheMoshiri and Cardon (2014)study addressed class size, but it did not provide suggestions for how to teach the course if it were to be offered in a large section format. This study will make these suggestions.
Background
The ideal university class size is subjective and should consider several factors including student motivation, type of material to be covered, and learning objectives. Although opinions differ, many people believe that small classes are better. This is apparent as many universities promote their schools as offering smaller classes with personalized attention. For example,Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota (2016)boasts a student-to-teacher ratio of 13:1 to allow a better learning environment that encourages more class discussion. Parents think that a small class equates to more attention from the teachers; therefore, students garner more attention and become more engaged. Instructors like the smaller classes because they are perceived to be easier to manage and require less grading, and school administrators like them because they seem to create a better school climate and keep stakeholders happy (Rice, 1999).
As class sizes increase, teaching styles will need to adapt. With large classes,Tierney (2011)stated, “Distance learning begins in the fifth row” (para. 8), leading instructors to strive to make connections in these larger classes. Larger classes can deter establishing relationships between teacher and student and student and student, which is one component to building critical thinking skills (Tierney, 2011).Bligh (2000)believes that “if students are to learn to think, they must be placed in situations where they have to do so” (p. 10). He believes that lecture classes are less likely to allow students the chance to think and test their thoughts. If more classes are offered in the large lecture format, research needs to address the issues involved.
The class format should be conducive to allowing students the opportunities to build these critical thinking skills. A lecture format is not ideal for all learning situations and should not be used if the goal is a change in student attitudes or teaching behavioral skills (Bligh, 2000;Svinicki & McKeachie, 2014). Although most educators will admit that they prefer smaller classes,Lowman (1984)believes that “skillful lecturers can offer exciting and meaningful educational experiences and can compensate for the liabilities associated with large class size” (p. 153). Class size should be weighed against educational goals.
One of the challenges of larger classes is the increased amount of preparation time; for example, simply preparing a test is time consuming. Photocopying and physical distribution is more complex. Teaching assistants (TAs) are used frequently in a large class section to manage the workload (Lowman, 1984;Svinicki & McKeachie, 2014). Larger classes usually require more rigor in the course because material must be prepared sooner, allowing for spontaneity (Kryder, 2002;Svinicki & McKeachie, 2014).
Tierney (2011)observed that college classes were being taught with an online perspective, even when they were taught in a face-to-face format. Instructors often provided little to no feedback on assignments submitted. This caused a lack of engagement that is essential for effective learning.Tierney (2011)stated, “We know students learn more when expectations are high and when feedback on what they need to do to improve is constant. . . . [Students] would work harder if we expected it of them” (para. 10).
Business Communication in the Higher Education Curriculum
Business communication is often offered as a writing-intensive course. Writing-intensive courses are often smaller classes to allow for the increased amount of feedback required to allow for improvement in writing ability. However,Rieber (2004)has noted that “many universities are moving away from small (25–30) composition courses to larger (70–90) discipline-specific writing classes” (p. 176). One can ask if students are learning to effectively communicate in these larger writing courses.
Over the past 30 years, many studies have been conducted about how business communication is taught.Wardrope’s (2002)study of business department chairs across the United States found that 76% of business schools require a business communication course, and almost 50% of these are offered at the junior level in the college of business. His study also reported that written skills are included in four of the top five important skills for students to learn. More recently,Russ (2009)found that 60% of business communication courses are offered in the school of business, 53% of courses are given to students at the upper level, the most covered topic is written communication, and almost 58% of courses are offered with 21 to 30 students per course section. He noted that instructors of business communication courses preferred class sizes that are smaller than what they were actually assigned. Most instructors (70%) preferred less than 20 students in a course; 17.3% of instructors taught courses with more than 31 students, but only 2.4% preferred doing so (Russ, 2009). Although instructors prefer these smaller classes, they often must teach larger ones.
Sharp and Brumberger’s (2013)study found similar results. A review of course syllabi posted on university websites found 76% of courses were offered within the business school, 73% of courses were offered at the junior or senior level, 71% of schools required at least one business communication course, and 38% of courses focused on both written and oral skills. In the most recently published study about how business communication courses are taught in the United States,Moshiri and Cardon (2014)found that 70% of business communication classes were taught in the business school, and 98% of instructors believed the class size should be less than 30 students. They also reported that most classes were still being taught as writing intensive, as 55% of instructors required eight or more writing assignments in the course.
The findings of these studies show that business communication classes appear to be widely offered in undergraduate education, and their general format seems to have remained fairly constant over the past 10 years. Writing is still a major component of the course, which is why the course is usually a small class.
Examples of Large Classes in Business Communication Courses
Although research studies show that the majority of business communication courses are small, there are still some that are taught in large class sizes. To understand how an instructor may adapt to a larger class size, studies that address this are presented.
Rieber’s (2004)study reported that her department hired professional TAs to work one-on-one with teachers to help evaluate, grade, and comment on student papers. TAs also attended classes, held office hours, and provided individual tutoring. The advantages for faculty and students of hiring professional TAs included reduced grading for faculty, additional feedback provided to students, better marking than done by student assistants, and a more stable workforce.Rieber (2004)reported that the main disadvantage of this model was that faculty were less familiar with their students.
Similarly,Kryder’s (2002)institution faced a high demand for its business communication course one year, so it enrolled 100 students in its sections and hired two TAs for each section. The class time was also extended to add a 50-minute discussion class taught by a TA. Consequently, this additional discussion class only had 25 students per class, simulating the smaller class format.Kryder (2002)found that more than 90% of the students liked the model for their large lecture classes for business communication. However,Kryder (2002)cautioned, “I do not recommend this as a preferred format for teaching, nor does my program” (p. 89).
Cockburn-Wootten and Cockburn (2011)experimented with a large lecture class in management communication in New Zealand in which class sizes ranged from 75 to 300 students. In these courses, students were put into peer groups called “lecture learning groups” that allowed the larger class to be divided into smaller groups to encourage the sharing of ideas and assumptions during the course. The activities used during the semester allowed the students to apply communication skills taught in the course.
These studies show that there are some limited examples of the course that experienced an initial increase in class sizes. This study will present examples from universities that have been teaching the course in the large section format for several years.
The Study
The research sites included four classes from two different midsized universities that offer business communication courses in a large section format. These universities are considered peer institutions by theTexas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2013)and are also accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. The study was approved by the institutional review boards at the researcher’s university as well as both universities where the courses were studied.
A multicase study was used to compare and contrast within each university and across all four courses. This study followed the idea of a bounded study, as it studied four distinct situations of an undergraduate business communication course. The cases studied are unique because they offered the business communication course in the large section format, which was defined as having more than 35 students enrolled. Under the assumption that larger class sizes will cause the course to adapt to accommodate more students, these cases were considered innovative in their offerings.
Interview participants included two groups: instructors and students of the course. For each course studied, instructors were interviewed one or two times during the semester, and a different group of two to five students were interviewed as a focus group. Focus groups were conducted once or twice per course and did not contain the same students in both interviews. In addition, an actual classroom meeting was observed to assess instructors’ and students’ behaviors and the actual delivery of the course. To achieve triangulation, data were accessed online from university websites, by collecting documents from instructors and classroom observations, and by asking questions of participants to verify data. Repeated site visits were completed when possible and member checks of transcribed instructor interviews were completed to verify data. Although case studies do have limited transferability, the use of multiple cases, and comparing these with previously published cases, supports the transferability of the findings to other situations. To satisfy objectivity, participants’ exact words were used as much as possible. Furthermore, each university and research participant was identified by a pseudonym to maintain confidentiality.
Findings
University Facts: Tiger University
In the fall of 2012, Tiger University had a student-faculty ratio only slightly higher than the state’s average of 22:1. The average class size was higher than the statewide average. During this same semester, almost 19% of the classes had an enrollment of more than 50 students per section (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2013).
Course 1: Barbara Jones
This course was a once-a-week night course offered in a traditional face-to-face format with an enrollment of 48 students. The course requirements included two objective exams, a written research report, an oral presentation, and classroom exercises. The researcher visited the site twice, interviewing the instructor, observing the classroom, and interviewing a focus group of students each time.
Jones, employed at the university for 15 years, was adamant that she did not believe her course, with 48 students, was large. She explained, The way I handle the class I don’t tend to consider 48 being large. . . . It is still a number that I can manage where I can do all of the grading, all of the proofreading, all of the editing of the writing components.
She did not have administrative support for this course, although it was provided for a larger online course that she taught.
Jones believed in being readily available for student questions, and she was a strong supporter of providing feedback on assignments. She provided extensive feedback on formatting and content. Jones had the class complete a large formal report. However, she allowed the students to complete smaller assignments that built into the larger report. Jones also allowed students to turn in their report drafts as often as needed, and she would mark them as a copyeditor. She estimated approximately 25% of students took advantage of this opportunity. One student, Charlie, said, “I like the smaller assignments. It helps keep you on track.” He added, “If you have a bigger assignment, you kind of put it off a little bit building up to a bigger one, and it keeps you organized.” He said he also learned how Jones grades, so he could adjust his work accordingly.
Jones provided very detailed instructions for all of her assignments. Students were informed in advance exactly how she graded and where points would be deducted. When Jones read student papers, she provided very detailed feedback. Charlie agreed. He stated that Jones’s feedback was “pretty detailed. I mean she gave us guidelines for a report, so pretty much everything that she corrects us on.” Ronald also agreed: “She provides specific comments, both on formatting and on content on my business report.” As expected, Jones said that students who asked for her help on the report had better overall grades, whereas the others had poorer reports that could take Jones two to four times longer to grade.
Some students visited with Jones during her office hours. She also provided some help in her online tools for the course and directed students to other sources including the Purdue OWL website and the university’s website. Ronald said Jones was very helpful when he asked for help: “I had a meeting with her last week, and there were just some things I needed clarified, and she was very good with that.”
The students in the focus group liked to see examples of work. They said that was how they learned writing best. Ronald said, “She has posted, like, examples of good reports and bad reports, and I have looked at those and that’s helped a lot.” He added, “So far it has been most helpful for me just writing a draft and then she just marks everything that is wrong with it and I just go and fix that.” Jones’s class had only minimal group work; group work was limited to activities in class.
When asked about changes she would like to make in the course, Jones believed she had a good balance, but added that “one thing that could be very useful to them, and I do too late in the semester for them to spend time on it, is the résumé.” Significant time in the class was spent on writing the long formal report, “which means that employment communication, résumés, interviews is much later in the semester and by that time we don’t have time for them to produce a résumé.” Ronald commented that the class might be a little grammar heavy at the beginning. . . . But this is a junior level course, so there has to be some kind of level of expectations and maybe perhaps just less weighted on mechanics and grammar.
In summary, Jones’s class was a very structured course. At an enrollment of 48 students, this class was relatively small, so it operated more like a smaller class setting. Because of its smaller size, in comparison with the other cases presented, it was more manageable. There was a significant focus on writing and grammar, with the formal report being worth 29% of the course grade. Considerable time was spent in class and on assignments helping prepare students to complete this report. This project was not a group-based project, and there were limited interactions in class that were group oriented.
Course 2: Graham Brown
This course was offered in a hybrid format on the main campus with an enrollment of 187 students. The course requirements included three objective exams, a written research report, and classroom exercises. There was no oral presentation requirement. The hybrid format course was scheduled to meet three times a week for a 50-minute session; however, the class did not meet each scheduled class meeting.
Brown had two TAs who helped him with all of his classes. The distribution of labor was very structured, and the students were informed in the syllabus who to contact when they had a specific question. The clear division of labor was designed to help eliminate confusion.
This class had only one major writing assignment, which was a group-based formal research report. There were several smaller writings as part of classroom activities, but these were not related to the report. Brown did not view the class as writing intensive and justified this as follows: “I am in a college business, and I am proud when people are up for an environment that’s not just writing.” However, he stated that if the course were taught in the English department, he would expect it to be writing intensive.
Brown allowed some class time for students to work on their team projects, which students appreciated. As one student, Dan, commented, He definitely gave us enough time to get it done. I personally like group projects over doing a project by myself. . . . I only had to do one and a half pages of quality than do seven pages by myself.
Dan appreciated that the one writing assignment for the class was a group project, which allowed him to only write a small amount.
Brown taught writing by showing both good and bad examples to the class. He would display a letter on the overhead for the class and talk about it in parts. Students were never required to actually write a letter. However, the students felt that more instruction was needed on writing. Adam, a student, commented, “I think he expects us to come in already with the knowledge about how to have proper grammar, instruction, and all sorts of things like that.” Dan felt that Brown relied too heavily on students learning material on their own. He said, “I feel that takes away from the experience of being in class. I might as well not show up if you are just going to give me basic outlines and tell me to read the book.”
Both students in the focus group agreed that the instructions they were given for their major writing assignment could have been more precise. One student commented that only one class period was spent discussing the report, and students were expected to read the book to find more information. Dan’s recommendation for Brown was “tell me more specifically instead of saying find it in the book.”
The student focus group indicated that they did not have smaller assignments that helped them complete their one major writing assignment. Aaron stated, “I like the idea of, like, gradual assignments over time because it keeps people in check, and I feel like maybe there would be a better product at the end.” Because of this, students had not received any feedback at all on their writing ability before turning in their major writing project. Students were given a rubric to follow in completing their assignment, but Adam commented, “Honestly, I feel this is more of a format type thing. He is not going to look entirely at the content.”
Brown commented that he would like to spend more time on listening, team communication, conducting business meetings, and electronic communication in class. However, he was hesitant to pursue these changes because of his time limitation. Student views on possible changes differed. Adam felt that more time was needed discussing interviews, and Dan wanted to see more real-life scenarios because he did not believe that the examples given in class and in the book were accurate.
In short, Brown’s hybrid class allowed for flexibility in course management. At 187 students, the class was large, which seemed to force more responsibility on the students. This class had only one writing assignment, which was a group-based formal report that counted as 20% of the grade. The online component of the class and some scheduled class time allowed for significant group time to collaborate and complete the written report. However, there were not incremental assignments or feedback provided during the course to improve writing.
University Facts: Wolf University
In the fall of 2012, Wolf University had a student-faculty ratio significantly higher than the state’s average of 22:1; however, the average class size matched the statewide average. During this same semester, approximately 12% of the classes had an enrollment of more than 50 students per section (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2013).
Both of the classes studied at Wolf University were once-a-week afternoon courses offered in a traditional face-to-face format with an enrollment of at least 140 students. In addition to the lecture course, students were required to enroll in a corresponding lab course, usually taught by a TA, with 26 to 30 students. Instruction for the course was done in the large lecture course, but all writing and other activities were completed in the lab section. Objective exams were given in the lecture course. The requirements for the two portions of the course included three objective exams, a written research report, an oral presentation, three written messages, and classroom exercises. Although the course was taught by different instructors, course requirements were similar, with only minor changes in assignments.
Course 3: Karen Thomas
When teaching writing, Thomas said she used her human resources background for inspiration and tried “building a direct relevance with everything I teach.” She presented the material by asking questions like, “When will you see this done?”
Thomas used many examples in her teaching and referred to today’s students as an “example-driven group.” Students stated that they learned best by being shown both good and bad examples of the assignment they were writing. One student commented, “I like to know what she is expecting. . . . [Thomas] did show us good examples and bad ones, so that was good.”
Although they did like the examples being shown, students acknowledged, “The only way you can really learn is to practice it yourself.” Thomas agreed that practice was very important in the learning process. She stated that if the students had more “opportunity topracticeeffective writing, effective email construction, [and] effective presentations in my other classes,” it would provide better educational experiences.
As a class requirement, students were assigned a formal group report that included incremental deadlines. Students liked this approach to larger projects. One student explained how it was helpful: “It kind of leads up and keeps you on track.” Another student added, “I like that we had deadlines for the final project because I had an awful person in my group and it was a lot easier to manage when the teacher knew he wasn’t turning stuff in the whole time.”
When students needed additional help with a task in the class, they had multiple sources to use for help, including Thomas and the TA. Students stated that they utilized their lab instructor more when they needed help with writing. One student stated, “We have talked to [our lab instructor] in class almost every day.” The students seemed more comfortable in the smaller class setting.
Thomas taught one of the lab courses. In that class, she used a TA to help mark papers, and she added specific comments. She did not tell students how to correct the error but expected the student to find the answer. She explained that part of writing is the revision process: “I work that into the grading that they can pick one of their first three writing assignments and revise it.” Thomas acknowledged that sometimes students would state on teaching evaluations that she was not specific enough, but she was quick to emphasize the difference in learning from the high school learning experience: “This environment is a shared learning. You have a shared responsibility.” Thomas stressed the importance of providing feedback to help students perform to her expectations. None of the students in the focus group had Thomas for the lab class. They did have the same TA, and they acknowledged differences in the feedback they received from her. One student stated, “I think she was an English major, so she is really technical.” Another student added, “She marks it up pretty good, which is a good thing because we probably need help in that.”
Thomas believed the students were not utilizing the lab time effectively, and she noted that classes were being dismissed early. She worried about the inconsistency that students were getting in their classes. In their responses, students concurred. One student commented, “I feel like our lab is just literally a place to turn stuff in. We really don’t do anything in there.” One student said their lab instructor was “more, like, lenient and laid back” and “very straightforward.” One student elaborated that Thomas “likes to go into a lot of detail and kind of likes to go through a lot of personal experience, which can be very helpful.” However, the students seemed to like these differences.
Thomas responded that the topic of interviewing needed more time. Because there was so much emphasis on writing, there was not enough time to prepare students for interviewing for a job. Students also needed more help on professionalism and nonverbal communication. Some students agreed that interviewing and résumés were two subjects most relevant to them. They stated that résumé writing was discussed in the lab class, and one student requested a mock interview in-class activity.
In summary, Thomas’s class used a combination lecture and lab class to help personalize the larger class offering, which allowed students to receive some personal attention on their writing. Although the instruction on writing was done in the lecture course, the actual writing was assigned and graded in the lab section. Counting as 45% of the total grade in the course, writing was a significant portion of the course grade. Students were required to write three letters and one formal group report and had an opportunity to work on group projects.
Course 4: Tamara Green
After teaching for almost 30 years, Green said she began to teach in the larger section format about 6 years ago. Previously, the class had about 35 students in each section. In that format, she taught and graded everything herself. With up to 230 students now, the course changed to the lecture/lab combination. Green had a graduate assistant who recorded grades and graded quizzes for her lecture class. Green admitted, “I do think they perform better in the smaller sections. Now that is just an opinion. . . . I know this is a model that we probably have to do, but I really prefer the small class.” Green said the types of assignments had not changed since beginning the larger section format.
One obstacle that she had to overcome was test administration. Green said there were some coordination issues to consider when the lecture and lab were different courses. She expressed that coordinating her lecture material with lab assignments was sometimes challenging.
Most of the writing assignments were given and graded in the small lab classes. Green provided writing instruction and examples in class, and then students would practice and turn the assignment in to the lab instructor. Rachael, a student, said, “I’m a visual learner. Seeing standard examples of what has been done in the past [is most helpful to me].” David, another student, said he liked “having the example, sort of like drawing with a stencil. . . . Having the structure there really helps me personally.”
In addition, David said he liked it when there were smaller assignments that built into a larger one.
The lab instructors were mostly responsible for providing feedback on writing assignments. On providing feedback, one student, Seth, said his lab instructor gave extensive feedback: “They mark it up, but it’s so subjective because our teacher grades harder than the other classes that I know people in.” Seth did not always believe the feedback was fair. David acknowledged that his lab instructor graded differently: I don’t think really as tough, but very similar. He would mark it up, give it back for maybe 5 to 10 minutes, and then we would have the option of returning to his office hours . . . to discuss issues.
David believed his instructor marked errors and provided feedback, but he did not think the instructor marked as many errors or was as grammar-focused as others. The lab instructor did not spend time in class reviewing errors, and students were to take the initiative to follow up outside of class with any questions about grading.
The students admitted that there was consistency between what Green said and what the lab instructors did. Students’ complaints seemed to focus on inconsistency between lab instructors. Some instructors seemed to be very lax in grading, while others were very strict. David added, “There’s the qualifier that [grading is] ultimately up to the lab instructor.”
When students needed help on their writing, Green deferred to the lab instructors. In addition, students had several resources on campus they could use, including the writing labs. Green said the students know about the lab; she did not have to tell them. Students concurred that they would go the student writing lab for help, and they also used books, online sites, friends, and family to help with their writing.
When asked about learning to adjust to the different writing requirements of each instructor, David explained, “I usually end up learning after the first small assignment.” He had a very positive experience with his lab instructor, who “was very up-front and followed through. He was very specific and anal (I can’t think of another word) about grammar and punctuation. He was very up-front about it and he held true to that.”
Green felt the fundamentals of writing could use more time: “I don’t really have enough time to cover the fundamentals. . . . Time is short. [We] only meet once a week.” David suggested that more time could be spent on résumés.
To conclude, Green’s class used a combination lecture and lab to help personalize the larger class offering. This allowed students to receive some personal attention on their writing through the lab course. Counting as over 50% of the total grade in the course, writing was a significant portion of the course grade. Students were required to write three letters and one formal group report.
Discussion
The four courses were similar in that they were required junior-level courses that covered common topics of team communication, business reports, business letters, electronic communication, and employment communication. The only assignment used in all of the courses was a formal written report. Like the majority of the courses reported on inRuss’s (2009)research, both universities presented content that was similar to other universities across the United States. They both offered the class in the college of business as an upper-level course and covered written communication in the course objectives.
All courses also used teaching methods that utilized examples to exemplify good writing. Students in all focus groups concurred that they felt using examples was the best method for them to learn what was expected. All students liked both good and bad examples, and students seemed to thrive when given clear examples and instructions with expectations. Instructors understood this need because it was common in all classes. When discussing good writing in any class, providing clear examples of good writing provides students with confidence about their writing ability and should be included in the teacher’s lesson.
All instructors seemed to be comfortable in their ability to deliver the course with larger enrollments, but the instructors at Wolf University preferred smaller classes. These instructors had the experience of teaching smaller classes, while the instructors at Tiger University had little or no experience teaching in the smaller format.
The main difference between the classes was related to the delivery methods. With Jones teaching a fully face-to-face class, Brown teaching the hybrid class, and Green and Thomas teaching the lecture/lab combinations, course delivery was significantly different. The conflicting viewpoints of how instructors considered the writing focus of the class were also a concern. All instructors believed that writing was important; however, Brown’s class differed the most because there was little focus on improving the students’ actual writing ability. Instead, his course focused on learning about what constitutes good writing. The other three courses could be considered writing intensive, mirroring the instructors from theRuss (2009)andMoshiri and Cardon (2014)studies.
All instructors utilized TAs to help with classroom management, but each instructor utilized them in different ways. Some instructors had TAs do almost all of the grading and attendance and even had them serve as communication contacts for the students. However, the TAs were not always assigned to the lecture course, but instead were used to support other courses the instructor may have been teaching. One instructor had TA assistance for the lab course only. Another instructor had TA help for the online business communication course, but did not have the help in the course for this study.
There was also a difference in group activities for the courses. All courses used group activities to some extent; however, Jones used groups the least. Her group activities were limited to short in-class activities. The other instructors used the groups to complete the formal report, giving students more opportunities to practice their team communication skills.
A comparison of classes across the universities shows there were many more differences than there were similarities. Each course was unique in how it was taught and what concepts were most important. It is obvious that the instructor plays a significant role in how a course is designed and delivered. This variation supportsRice (1999), who advocated that policies should not be instituted concerning a standard class size. Student preferences, teacher attitudes, and delivery methods should all be considered. Brown used the hybrid course to increase student engagement, but students seemed to resent being forced to “read the book” and learn the material on their own.
Instructors in the cases differed widely on their views of larger classes, but it was interesting that views were consistent within the universities. Instructors at Tiger University accepted the large classes, whereas the instructors at Wolf University viewed the large classes as necessary but not necessarily as effective. InRuss’s (2009)study, 70% of instructors preferred classes with 20 students in the course; however, only half of this study’s instructor-participants preferred the smaller classes.
Implications
Offering the course in a large section format can cause instructors to make many changes to the course. The business communication instructors in this study have been able to make adjustments in the course and still offer similar experiences to students who take the course in a smaller section. FollowingTierney’s (2011)stance that “distance learning begins in the fifth row” (para. 8), Wolf University adapted to this by offering the lab classes. These lab classes allowed for practical applications and increased opportunities for interactions to share ideas and learning, as referenced byKeirle and Morgan (2011). The instructors at Wolf University did support the lecture and lab combination class because they believed that it gave the students more opportunities to learn and receive feedback in the smaller setting. However, these instructors agreed withKryder (2002)and did not recommend the larger class as more beneficial.
Implications for both universities and instructors support that instructors must be able to maintain a relationship with their students so that they can best deliver course material. Each class and each student is different, and it is important that the instructor is able to identify the needs and abilities of the students enrolled in their classes. The use of TAs can be beneficial, but it is important that the instructor be involved in the class assignments to accurately assess learning. Course instructors need to be aware of students’ writing abilities, and a review of how TAs mark papers will help these instructors when preparing future assignments. Keeping the class sizes small allows for this interaction between student and teacher to take place. Jones’s class of 48 students was the smallest class studied. This was a manageable number for the instructor because it was the only face-to-face course she taught. Her online course was much larger, but she was given a TA to help manage it. Jones was able to provide extensive feedback on assignments in this course because it was, in effect, her only course. However, one could question whether the larger class size may have impeded discussion in the larger classroom.
The courses at Wolf University were able to combine the lecture/lab course to allow for the mass delivery of content in the lecture course, but they provided the small-class atmosphere from the lab course. This provided the students opportunities to interact with their instructors and receive the feedback necessary to improve their learning experiences. Students acknowledged that their lecture classes were large and intimidating, but the lab class provided the comfortable atmosphere to seek feedback. There was still the opportunity for disconnect with the students, though, especially when the students had different lab and lecture instructors. Coordination was more complicated when the instructors differed.
It is possible that universities will continue to offer large classes at various levels, but the university, administration, and instructors must find a balance between budget allocations and student learning. As the class size increases, the chances of the class being taught as a lecture-style course will increase, and the instructor’s ability to connect with students may decrease. Students are more likely to feel detached from the subject matter if they have fewer opportunities to interact with the material being presented. In addition, as the class size increases, instructors may find it necessary to decrease the amount of writing required of students in order to better manage their workloads. If this is the case, the course could soon experience changes in its coverage and have much less focus on actual writing practice.
Recommendations for Practice
When faced with the possibility of teaching more students, it is important for administrators and instructors to understand the implications. When class sizes increase, instructors may find it necessary to adjust pedagogical strategies to maintain student learning. Depending on the structure of the class, possible ways to adjust include modifying the course to the lecture/lab structure, limiting the amount of writing assigned, or allowing the instructor to teach fewer courses. These changes were made in the classes reviewed in this study.
As universities consider class size issues, we suggest that administrators try to offer courses in as small a class size as economically possible. Most instructors realize the importance of the interactions necessary for effective learning, and, asTierney (2011)found, building relationships between students and instructors helps build critical thinking skills. Most students are more comfortable in classroom discussions when the class is smaller; therefore, these relationships are more likely in smaller classes. Instructors Thomas and Green at Wolf University seemed to understand the concept of relationship building, which may be because they had the experience of teaching in the smaller class settings. Smaller classes also allow more flexibility in course delivery and provide more opportunity for instructor feedback.
This study shows that a large class can still use instructional methods similar to a small class. For someone who is apprehensive about offering the class with more students, it can be reassuring that there is no need to drastically adjust teaching style.
The use of TAs can aid in classroom management, but they must be used strategically to ensure that the instructor stays informed about students’ needs and abilities. All instructors in these cases used some form of administrative help to some extent. At Wolf University, it was using a separate lab instructor to manage the actual writing assignments, but at Tiger University TAs were used more to help with administrative tasks. Of course, each institution must find the formula that best fits its purpose, but having TAs mark assignments, enter grades, and take attendance can relieve instructors of tedious duties. Even if a TA is allowed to grade assignments, the instructor should still review each paper before a final grade is entered to stay informed of student abilities and to assess what learning has occurred.
Recommendations for Further Study
Expanding the study to include other types of schools in other states would provide additional insight into teaching large classes. Additional observations of actual class settings and observations of the different teaching styles of lab instructors would provide further insight into discrepancies that could occur in the lecture/lab courses. Studying different types of classes, especially those that are usually considered writing intensive, can help inform others about techniques that have been used to teach large classes.
Another study could also focus on student engagement. Because Brown’s hybrid course stressed student responsibility in their own learning, a researcher could try to determine if students who were more engaged in their learning actually learned more and were more confident in their abilities to communicate.
Another future research option could be to conduct a study of smaller class sizes (with less than 35 students) to see whether assignments differ in the smaller and larger classes.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Stephen F. Austin State University and by the institutional review boards of the participating universities. Participant comments are reproduced by permission. This article is part of a larger body of work included in the author’s doctoral dissertation: Wright, C. (2014).Large class sizes at the undergraduate level: A multi-case study of Business Communication courses(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nacogdoches, TX: Stephen F. Austin State University.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Biography