Academics, individually and collectively, are clever people and, faced with a new situation, will address it ingeniously. Being human, when faced with an old situation, they will tend to address it the same way as before. When faced with a very similar situation, they will adapt the previous solution slightly. Preeti’s chapter challenges us to realise that the changes in Higher Education, both qualitative and quantitative, mean that ‘How best to teach’ is a new situation that requires ingenious solutions, not just adapting the old ones.

Professor James Davenport

1. Context

Increasingly, the economics of neo-liberal education perpetuates systemic and structural compulsions which require us to stop, think, critically reassess, challenge and/or calibrate our role and pedagogic practices as academics.

The continuing discourse of education as a tool for socio-economic vertical mobility has seen an influx of students into higher education institutions. Scott (1997), inter alia, identifies this as a reason for the ‘massification’ of higher education (HE). Interestingly, the last decade has seen a surge in full-time students entering both first degree as well as postgraduate taught and research programmes. Part-time enrolments for each have, however, witnessed a decline in the same period (Universities UK 2015). This continual rise in the number of students has direct and pressing implications for the processes of learning and teaching in HE.

Academic discourse concerning the quality of education has identified a favourable pupil–teacher ratio as one of the key components of an effective and fulfilling teaching–learning experience. However, unlike the hugely researched, debated and discussed issue of pupil–teacher ratios for school education (OECD 2014), the discussion around the same with reference to HE has been scant in public and policy discourse.

This is not to imply an absence of discussion. When it does occur, the nomenclature used is that of student–staff ratio (SSR) (Universities UK 2015). The SSR is designed to show the total number of students per member of academic teaching staff, and is calculated from the student and staff full-time equivalent figures (HESA 2016). For a long period of time now, the British HE system has relied on the SSR to gauge the adequacy of the human resource available for teaching (SRHE 2012).

Yet, the issues of calculating the SSR and the implications of using it in HE are more nuanced and complicated than for the pupil–teacher ratios used in school education. Given the complicated matrix of HE created by the various modalities of teaching and learning – face to face and online, full-time and part-time, taught and research-based programmes, etc. – the quantification and calculation of academic staff’s teaching engagements is decidedly layered and non-linear. In HE, the SSR rarely translates into a teacher-taught ratio, and thus has limited pedagogic bearing. The SSR of 16 in Box 1 rarely translates into scenarios where teachers walk into lecture rooms with just 16 students awaiting them!

2. Higher education: an appraisal

The aims of HE have been contested substantially. In particular, Barnett’s (1990) expositions on the emancipatory aim of HE has received much attention (Aviram 1992). Barnett posits that self-understanding and self-empowerment are the key elements in emancipation. HE, Barnett argues, must strive to facilitate a state of intellectual independence as well as a discipline-transcending reflection for all students. For Barnett, HE is so named because it necessarily calls upon higher-order skills like analysis, synthesis, imagination, criticism and evaluation. It involves critical reflections on the disciplinary knowledge gained as well as critical self-reflection.

White (1997) questions the philosophical underpinning of Barnett’s arguments and highlights the contradistinction between a discussion on the aims of school education and what he refers to as post-compulsory education designed for autonomous agents. He invokes the principle of ‘consumer sovereignty’ to denounce a paternalistic imposition of an emancipatory aim on HE. Yet, White meets Barnett midway by acknowledging that through HE ‘students should be encouraged to reflect on the philosophical and sociological horizons of their own specialism and its relationships to other specialisms, especially with a view to an enlargement of their own self-understanding and capacity for autonomous action’ ( White 1997, 14).

Similarly, the predicament of academics themselves has been a topic of sustained interest. Kinman and Jones (2003) assert that academics are reeling under increased job demands, while their job satisfaction and levels of support have declined in recent years. Others have shown that the job satisfaction among academics is much lower when compared to the UK workforce as a whole (Metcalf et al. 2005). The reasons for this state of dissatisfaction vary from pecuniary reward to the qualitative and aspirational aspects of the job. Importantly, academics derive more satisfaction from research. Teaching, though perceived in a positive light, is not the most important reason for their becoming an academic (Kinman and Jones 2004).

The evolving picture is one of an increasingly business-like HE sector with ever-growing student numbers (Kinman and Jones 2003). The demands of the knowledge society lead to increasing differentiation and a ‘service station concept’ of university (Aviram 1992). The situation is exacerbated by mounting pressures on over-burdened academics to balance teaching, research and administrative responsibilities (Kinman and Jones 2003; CHERI 2007). A casualty of these pressures is the reduction in the quality of, and available real time for, student–teacher interactions.

The related phenomenon of the massification of HE is also relevant here. Scott (1997, 15) notes that since the 1960s, HE has become increasingly socially pervasive and has moved beyond its marginal status. This has resulted in, inter alia, an increase in student intake, which has in turn exerted increased demands on institutional and staffing provisions within HE.

The debates on whether emancipation is a suitable aim for students in HE, or whether the conceptualisation of a knowledge society has rather done a disservice to education at large, are ideological in nature, and will find takers on both sides. However, other issues, like the impact of teacher motivations and expanding class sizes on the effectiveness of teacher–learner interactions, may be more readily amenable to a consensus.

The undeniable reality remains that the debates and issues continue to interact dynamically to shape, arbitrate and delimit the aims of HE in general. At the same time, they make it less likely that the professed aims of HE, in real-time educational interactions between students and teachers, can be achieved.

The take away from the discussion above remains that in the day-to-day experience of a university academic who walks down a corridor towards a lecture hall for her next class, the macro-reality of HE produces constraints that seem immediately non-negotiable. One such constraint – whether face-to-face or online – is burgeoning class sizes.

The next section draws upon (i) my experience as an academic and (ii) the masterclass dialogue to deconstruct the notions of, and delineate some challenges arising from, large-group teaching.

3. The reality and casualties of large-group teaching

Schools have classrooms.

Universities have lecture halls!

Assuming the intentionality of language orchestrated through specificity of words, the semantic difference between a room and hall is instructive. It tells us something about the reality of class sizes in HE!

My first reaction, bordering on disbelief, led me to think about what qualifies as being a large group in a formal education space?

My reasoned response was that any number which renders individual students ‘identity-less silhouettes’ in a class is large, and is sacrilegious to the very aims and pursuit of education, either emancipatory or functional. Put simply, a large group is one which constrains the proactive engagement of every student in the process of learning and impedes the teachers’ ability to enable such proactive engagement on logistic grounds.

What, then, is the threshold beyond which the group size is sacrilegious to the very aims of education?

This, I reckon, is a matter for a non-linear investigation. I am of the view that the futility of an arbitrary proclamation of a magical number – say beyond 30 (the commonly used threshold for differentiation between large and small samples in statistics) – is self-evident in education on at least two grounds: first, an educational interaction has human beings as its actors. It forecloses the possibility of a nomothetic, homogenising and universal dictum on a magical number across educational scenarios. The definition of what comprises a large group will thus organically evolve from the particularities of the teacher and taught.

To give an example, if the class comprises of non-native speakers for whom the instruction in, say, English is a jeopardising rather than enabling variable, creating an added layer of educational challenge in comprehending and engaging with the content at hand, then probably a class size of 25 may already be large enough to render the achievement of any semblance of effective teaching–learning experience questionable. Language is only an illustrative case in point; the students’ prior knowledge and cognitive readiness for the content comprise some others pertinent variables. The particularities of the teacher and the learners are multifarious and are best left to a reflective practitioner to observe, delineate and consider.

Once again, as subject specialists, it rests upon our shoulders to figure out which content demands a more intimate learner–teacher interaction and which, if any, may be suitable for large-group teaching.

Having said this, I revert back to the earlier point about the non-negotiability of the restraints of large class sizes. The above discussion is not predicated on a utopian hope about the teacher choosing at will what class size to teach. Instead, it is aimed at signposting some points to help the sensitive practitioner undertake a reflexive audit of the reality that she faces and the challenges it may entail, thereby enabling her to work towards effective pedagogic strategies to address the reality and counter the inherent challenges.

Teaching a large group, when ‘large group’ is defined in relation to the matrix of student, teacher and content specificities and demands, is a daunting task in more ways than one.

For the learners, the forced expectation that they will acclimatise to the reality of studying in a large group may significantly challenge the socio-psychological as well as cognitive competencies of new entrants to HE, who were accustomed to studying in relatively smaller groups during their school years. Professor Davenport pointed to this in his Masterclass discussion, noting that he feels ‘sorry for people [learners] negotiating the challenges of transitioning from small groups to inordinately large groups.’

Specifically, large-group teaching can impinge on the nature and extent of an individual student’s engagement in class. Given the burgeoning teacher–student ratio and the declining average time available in a scheduled class to encourage the proactive participation of every student, the challenge to design a meaningful learning experience for all involved becomes imminently pressing.

Similarly, a key component of a teacher’s in-class formative assessment effort is to look out for non-verbal cues indicative of students’ dipping concentration and interest levels or discomfort with the content being transacted. Often these cues initiate impromptu strategies for further elaborating and clarifying the lesson’s content and concepts. Higher numbers of students in a class will increasingly restrict a teacher’s ability to engage with the non-verbal cues that students unwittingly demonstrate throughout a lecture.

Yet another challenge is to provide in-class feedback to students on their queries, observations and responses. The greater the number of students, the easier it is to practise being equitable by providing little or no feedback to everybody, rather than providing detailed feedback inconsistently. In everyday lived reality, the ticking clock can add to the pressure of content delivery and doubly jeopardise the will and candour for extensive feedback.

The above-mentioned set of pedagogic challenges may severely jeopardise the teaching–learning experience. Any attempts to avoid the fate of the boiled frog will be predicated on devising effective pedagogic strategies to address these challenges. The next section attempts as much, drawing upon my pedagogic reflections and on the interactions with Professor Davenport.

4. Teaching large groups: pedagogic innovations and reaping the collective dividend

Philosophers of education have arduously explicated the difference between education, teaching and instruction. I have come to believe that in the context of formal classrooms, teaching, to be worth its salt, should be taken up in the spirit of education. I therefore embed the subsequent discussion on a willed supposition of an ontological synonymity between teaching and education in the formal educational setting. It is in this spirit that I use the term ‘teaching’ hereafter.

In line with our earlier discussion on the aims of HE, teaching in HE must aim at nurturing a spirit of critical inquiry towards oneself and one’s discipline, paving the way for an intellectual inclination for disciplinary transcendence, a quest for interdisciplinarity, and an ability for reasoned and autonomous action. This articulation necessitates an experience-based education that enables reflective and critical capabilities and facilitates a meaningful and creative appropriation of one’s disciplinary specialisation. The end aim, which I recognise is an ongoing one, is to use knowledge meaningfully in the world we inhabit. Given these aims of HE, research must become a key component of our pedagogic repertoire. I attempt an explication of how this may be done in the context of large-group teaching.

As a teacher–educator, I can hardly over-emphasise the need for a teacher to be more than a master at content delivery. Yet, I start with content delivery for its primacy and sheer obviousness in the discourse of what teachers do.

At the outset, content delivery is a pedagogic misnomer on two counts; first, it connotes the existence of a fixed rather than dynamic content, which is delivered ‘as is’. I argue that the dynamism of content derives from the synergetic interactions of the teacher and the learner. That is why no two classes are ever alike in a teacher’s experience, even when repeating the same curriculum year after year. Second, the term ‘delivery’ masks the proactivity of the ‘recipient’ (and I use the term half-heartedly), who is hardly passive. Classrooms impose physical passivity upon learners through the structuration of space, but mental passivity can only result from a collaborative failure of the teacher and the learner. Mental agility implies that individual recipients engage and negotiate the content ideographically. Importantly, research-based education can be a key ally in countering the physical passivity by changing the definition of what comprises a classroom. In addition, problem-based, scenario-specific research can be used as a valuable pedagogic strategy to keep students mentally agile and invested by positioning them as problem-solvers and innovators.

Professor Davenport points out that the concern over technological advancements rendering a teacher’s role irrelevant can actually be countered by deploying technology as a pedagogic ally. To elaborate: first, advancements in technology have enabled web platforms like Moodle, which can facilitate ‘flipped’ classrooms and create academic spaces and an intellectual ethos for critical reflections.

In addition, the internet has become a tremendous and ever-evolving resource repository, allowing teachers to assume the additional role of a ‘resource curator’. Engaging students as co-curators of knowledge can be an interesting way of researching a chosen topic. Research in this case would take form of collecting material, cataloguing it against the dominant paradigms of the discipline and evaluating it. This will enable students to critically engage with a topic of their choice.

Lecture podcasts from across the globe, well-researched documentaries and archival resources are just an internet search away for the curious teacher–student team. These resources allow teachers to counter the linearity of the lecture and make learning a research-rich, multi-sensory, interest-provoking and engaging experience.

However, the above discussion is not to denounce the value of a well prepared and presented lecture. A lecture – laced with critical engagement of the content, interdisciplinary anecdotes, academic trivia, a subtle dose of humour and consistent attempts at keeping the students involved – is an equally successful pedagogic strategy. However, the lecture must not be a didactic exercise, but should build upon the intellectual explorations of the students discussed above.

The situation is particularly challenging with regards to teaching a large group which jeopardises opportunities for engagement and learning for some students. The institutional failure to create a conducive learning environment cannot be allowed to translate into the academic failure of students. Large groups thus create an ethical reason to adopt formative and enabling assessment. To illustrate, formative assessment can take the form of mobile quizzes and ‘clickers’; flipped classrooms can create space for peer-to-peer feedback further augmented by feedback from the teacher.

Additionally, the systematic creation of study groups and a regular discussion schedule earmarked for study-group interaction can significantly enrich student understanding. The groups can feedback representative comments in the discussion. However, there has to be a commensurate effort from the faculty to engage regularly with the group comments.

Group work has an added advantage of developing the soft skills so often glossed over in large-group teaching. Groups must be balanced for the various forms of heterogeneity. Negotiating this heterogeneity itself presents an opportunity for reflexivity, appreciation of differences, and academic, cultural and, in some cases, generational tolerance. It also serves to provide a regular space for the cultivation of such soft skills as coordination, effective communication, conflict resolution, teamwork, time management and negotiating complex group dynamics. These opportunities go beyond subject-embeddedness and contribute to what is expected from education for life. The soft-skill dimension can introduce ‘authentic learning’ to the class, as it enables students to nurture the social–personal skills which will remain relevant beyond their immediate contexts (Newmann et al. 1996).

At a macro level, HE has attempted to counter the institutionalisation of linear lecturing and the related challenges of large-group teaching by ingeniously creating an augmenting mechanism of teaching and tutorial support in the form of teaching associates (or assistants) and tutors. Together, the lecturer, teaching support staff and the tutors are capable of creating a collective dividend for the student from a large group, as well as for each other.

However, this triangulation of academic engagement must be requires caution with respect to parity in academic rigour, as well as in assessment criteria. Further, this ‘teacher collective’, if I may call it so, must not be relegated to a hierarchical tier system. Finally, there is also an inherent threat that the classroom becomes synonymous with information transfer, and tutorial support with personalised learning, which must be consistently avoided. The collective must work with formal and democratic communication channels, a shared sense of responsibility and accountability, a participative approach to curriculum and intra-institutional policy design.

I have so far attempted to illustrate some of the challenges of large-group teaching and made some suggestions for addressing them through, inter alia, designing research opportunities in which students can get involved. Yet, far from providing a checklist for large-group teaching, the intent has been to explicate my ontological and epistemological approach towards engaging the individual students who make up the large group. The specific problems and solutions I have chosen to discuss are hardly exhaustive. Nonetheless they stem from an understanding of HE as a key opportunity for students to develop the academic courage to be critical, original and active members of their class and subsequently of society. This necessitates an institutional ethos where students’ voices and participation is continually sought, collectively laboured over and ceaselessly cherished, cohort after cohort.

To wind up the discussion, I attempt a further exploration of the possibilities offered by research-augmented teaching for engaging with large groups of students.

5. R=T in the context of large-group teaching: further explorations

Increasingly, the educational discourse has been dotted with themes of authentic learning, transformative education, constructivist education and so on. Each of these stresses the need for connecting learning with the ‘real world’. Driscoll (2005) emphasises that if the learning process is separated from its applications in the real world, the knowledge earned from it will remain inert and unused beyond the classroom.

Relevance does not imply correspondence or adherence. It may and must entail criticism and critiques too. HE, as an exit point to the real world for many, must strengthen its focus on nurturing the capacities for finding correspondences as well as critiques of the disciplinary theorisations, vis-à-vis the everyday lived experiences of humanity. An important channel through which to induct students in this way of approaching disciplines is by establishing a dialectic relation between research and teaching.

In a similar spirit, Locke (2005) furthers a number of arguments in favour of integrating research and teaching. These include preparing students for the super complexity of a pluralist world, developing an attitude of lifelong learning and critical enquiry, and keeping students abreast and engaged with the latest developments in their chosen field of professional practice. He further highlights the academic, professional and curricular enrichment that an R=T approach entails for practising academics (Locke 2005, 119).

Each of the above comments stresses the need for not discounting R=T; the challenges of the large group notwithstanding. Instead, large-group classes are viewed in a befitting and enabling context, to try and establish the R=T equivalence. I argue that, despite those who do not supporte an integrated approach to research and teaching complaining that there are not enough people ‘to staff research activity throughout a mass HE system’ (Locke 2005), the institutional arrangements for teaching large groups allow the benefits of the teachers’ collective to be enjoyed. This allows for a collaborative intellectual engagement focusing on designing a specific pedagogic project that can foreground research in teaching as well as assessment modalities.

Second, the multitude of research specialisations within the teachers’ collective significantly broadens the ambit of research areas that can be weaved into the learning–teaching contexts. It also allows for a more diverse research mentorship. Further, it can create an institutional space where students can be regularly engaged in research projects as short-term collaborators. The association can also take form of long-term engagements as team members.

From the point of view of students in a large-group setting, R=T is also desirable given the research finding that students positively value ‘the link between teaching and research because it places particular weight on meaningful exchange, based on equal measures of mutual respect and trust’ (Deakin 2006, 84). This takes me back to the initial concern about rendering individual students as identity-less silhouettes in a large-group classroom. The R=T approach allows for foregrounding the individual students – their interests, strengths, capabilities and learning needs – thereby creating a space for idiographic pedagogy within the constraints of the massified HE.

Finally, integrating research in the teaching experience, above and beyond its intrinsic academic rationale, can also address the challenges of formative as well as summative assessment thrown up by large-group scenarios. The assessment can be based on group work with clearly defined criteria of the nature of the engagement of group members, collectively and individually. The engagement with research can be designed in the form of evaluations of existing research on the basis of disciplinary understanding, conceptualisation of a research project addressing specific academic areas, simulated bidding for grants through drafting a relevant research proposal or project outlines, and making group presentations of a bid or peer evaluations of a proposal on the basis of the understanding of content as well as the research methodologies, etc.

Notwithstanding the above, I do wish to restate that I regard the teaching of large groups as a system-enforced condition, which is bereft of a sound academic or pedagogic logic. I do maintain, however, that despite the neo-liberal massification of HE, there is always room for pedagogic innovations. I argue for strategies that can find strength in numbers by reaping dividends of, on the one hand, teacher collectives comprising various teaching support staff, and, on the other, the immense heterogeneity characteristic of student cohorts enrolling in HE.

References

Aviram, A. 1992. The Nature of university education reconsidered (a response to Ronald Barnett’s The Idea of Higher Education). Journal of Philosophy of Education 26, 183–200.

Barnett, R. 1990. The Idea of Higher Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.