University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An exploration of the relationship between class size and students' ratings of teaching quality at the University of Phoenix: Do adult students make a difference?

(USC Thesis Other)

An exploration of the relationship between class size and students' ratings of teaching quality at the University of Phoenix: Do adult students make a difference?

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment
can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and
there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright
material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning
the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to
right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in
one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic
prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for
an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
AN EXPLORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLASS SIZE AND
STUDENTS’ RATINGS OF TEACHING QUALITY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX:
DO ADULT STUDENTS MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
By
Mark Bernard DeFusco
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
May, 1999
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 9933804
UMI Microform 9933804
Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertation, written by
Mark Bernard DeFusco
under the direction of fch?. Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
ofGrmUutfJ Studies
Date . ...W.k.
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
tyy/w i
Chairperson
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
To a world of Marvelous teachers who have shown me the magic of learning:
The first, my parents, Bernard and Rachael, who teach me to this very day;
With thanks to the religious, who started this adventure (at Visitation parish);
And further gratitude to the often-beleaguered public school teachers, of Methacton High,
Now I know why they are a blue ribbon school;
To my friends at Villanova University, who proved the value o f a liberal arts education;
And to the faculty of USC, whom I have had the pleasure o f knowing twice;
To William B. Michael, the finest educator I know — whose passion for learning and care
for his students will be a model to whom I shall always aspire;
To my friends at the University of Phoenix, whose vision has caused a change in
education, the likes of which have not been seen for nearly 500 years;
And to my superior, Dianne Pusch, who not only tolerated this endeavor but also insisted
upon it (and financially supported it);
To my adult students at the University of Phoenix, who daily teach me about learn in g,
and who strive valiantly to catch up on their education — perhaps it is better the second
time around;
Finally, but certainly not least,
To my wife, Jan, w ho shares my life and teaches me about the most essential parts.
I like to tell my faculty at the University of Phoenix the distinction between a good
teacher and a great one: With a good teacher, the student goes on and on, raving about the
outstanding qualities of the teacher and his/her class. The compliments are boundless.
With a great teacher, the student goes on and on about how much s/he has learned and
when asked about the teacher, notes that, “well, they were there”. The mark of a great
teacher, therefore, is the ability to fade into the background so that the learner feels the
accomplishments. You can see, it is easy to overlook outstanding teaching. I have been
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
very fortunate to have had many outstanding teachers. I hope I have not overlooked
them. I honor them here. My life would have been very different without them.
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is not often in life that one is given a second chance. The completion of this
dissertation marks a wonderful second chance for me, one that I shall treasure my whole
lifetime. When I finished my qualifying exams the first time in 1986,1 had every
intention of completing my studies. Unfortunately, the fates did not see fit to allow
completion then. The disappointment of not finishing my dissertation constantly troubled
me, and I all but gave up hope for well over ten years.
First of all, I shall forever be indebted to Dr. William B. Michael, for his care and
devotion to all his students, and especially to me. Known as the St. Jude (patron of
hopeless causes) of graduate students, I was among his most difficult cases, but Dr.
Michael always leads his students through the labyrinth of Graduate studies with the
patience of Job. Throughout his more than five decades with the University of Southern
California, Dr. Michael time and time again makes a difference in the lives of his
students. He is a model of what every professor should aspire to be, and his love for his
work and for his students is unwavering throughout his long tenure. He not only worked
magic in my readmission, but also has been a constant guide and mentor. I am also
indebted to Dr. Dennis Hocevar and Dr. Jay Zom for their efforts on my behalf while
serving on my dissertation committee. I am proud to have such an esteemed advisement.
Next, I must thank my parents, Bernard and Rachael DeFusco, who every week
throughout these last twenty years, have asked me when I was going to finish my
dissertation. Their constant confidence in my ability and their unwavering love have
always been my compass in the stormy tumult that is the latter years of this century.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
They always treasured the value of an education, and this value has made my life special.
They are a gift from heaven.
I am honored to work for the University o f Phoenix. Our founder, Dr. John
Sperling, is a revolutionary whom I admire and his lifelong goal of providing greater
access to higher education is now coming to fruition in ways he could not have dreamed.
Dr. Sperling has assembled some of the finest educators and scholars I have ever met,
and I am happy to call many my friends. I cannot mention all my colleagues at the
University who have made this possible, but I must mention just a few, without whom,
this dissertation would not have been possible. Dr. Karen Spahn of the University’s
Institutional research department not only gathered the appropriate data, but also was
kind enough to provide gracious criticism. Her helpful tone made this a much stronger
result. Don Hume o f the University’s institutional research department worked tirelessly
to extract the survey results so that these data could be analyzed. There are literally
hundreds of thousands of data sets that could have potentially been used for this research,
and Don’s work in distilling the appropriate data was invaluable to my findings. I am
thankful to Dr. Craig Swenson, a true scholar, who has been a leader in translating the
scholarly literature about adult learning into practical solutions for real teachers. He was
helpful in developing the early thinking of my research and is a collaborator of the
highest order. I must thank my immediate supervisor. Jennifer Cisna, who has given me
a great deal of latitude to complete my research, and Tony DiGiovanni, who is a true
inspiration and leader of our organization. In Italian families, there is always an uncle (a
mentor) who is able to decipher the true story and to give advice one can not hear from
anyone else. I am fortunate to have such a mentor, and for this I am most grateful.
V
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Two women at the University have made such a profound impact that I must
honor them here. Dianne Pusch has been my superior at the University since I was first
hired. I am proud to have her not only as a superior but also as a friend. She not only has
tolerated my study, but also in fact, has mandated it. She included the completion of my
Ph.D. as part of my professional goals at the University, and has supported me not only
financially but also personally. The greatest compliment that I can pay to her is that I
Ieam something from her nearly every day. I thank Dianne for giving me a second
chance at the academic world.
JoAnn Cashman is more than just the best administrative assistant at the
University. She handles the rigors of a campus with over 9000 students and nearly 1000
faculty, and still can type my work and get it out in the mail on time. Her nurturing
attitude has made these last two years possible. Her care and friendship make my whole
job easier, not to mention the chocolate treats as rewards. In many ways, JoAnn earned
her Ph.D. as well these last two years.
Finally, my wife Jan. the joy of my life, makes-all good things possible. She often
comes home to a tired and grumpy scholar, but her smile lights my life and gives me
perspective in all things, scholarly and otherwise. I truly borrow from her when my
energy sags, and her wisdom is an elixir for all that troubles me.
I am thankful to these and many others for their constant friendship and for many
second chances.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION....................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................... iv
LIST OF T A B L ES....................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIG U RES............................................................................................. x
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND............................... 1
Introduction
The Adult Student
Practical Implications of Class Size Research
The Relationship Between Class Size and Students’ Evaluation
Purpose of this Study
Importance of this Study
Research Questions
Research Hypothesis
Delimitations
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
II. METHODS AND PROCEDURES.................................................... 20
Sample
Instrument
Statistical Analyses
Methodological Assumptions
Limitations
III. ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION, AND
DISCUSSION OF FIN D IN G S............................................................ 25
Analysis of the Data
Interpretation of Findings in Relation to the Research Hypothesis
Discussion
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IV. SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations
REFEREN CES.............
A PPEN D IX ...................
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Means, Standards Deviations, and Ranges of Scores
On Five-Point Rating Scales Representing Levels of
Satisfaction of Students with Five Dimensions Associated
With Their University Experience (N = 67 Instructors) 27
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Evaluations of Teaching Quality (Y)
As a Function of Class Size (X) when
Divided into Five Conventional
Categories............................................................... 11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
x
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
A great debate exists regarding class size in the K-12 arena. However, the issue
of class size also is of importance to institutions of higher education. Generally, studies
conducted at university settings support the view that small classes are preferable to large
ones because they result in higher levels of student academic achievement (Franklin,
Theall, & Ludlow, 1991; Gary and Rosevear, 1986; Goldfinch, 1996; Hou, 1994; Keil &
Parted, 1998; Knight, 1991; Raimondo, Esposito, & Gershenberg, 1990; Scheck, 1994).
This finding, however, is not universal. Additionally, studies of the effects of college
class size have been broadened to include areas beyond academic performance. Some of
these areas include the effect of class size on retention (Asher & Skenes, 1993; Keil &
Parted, 1998; Lopus & Maxwell, 1995), alumni satisfaction (Davis, 1988), and
institutional reputation (Ramaswamy. 1992).
The evaluation of teaching quality in higher education through students’ opinion
appears to be fully accepted and established, although it is but one among a myriad of
procedures used (i.e., faculty self-evaluation, expert observation, peer evaluation)
(Arubayi, 1987; Cohen. 1981; Howard, Conway, & Maxwell, 1985; Mateo & Fernandez,
1996; Miller, 1988; Millman, 1981). In this context, the issue of class size is of particular
consequence. It is common for faculty to use excessive student numbers as an opportune
excuse for lack of teaching quality. In fact, Aleamoni (1981) pointed out that teachers
appear to believe that their own teaching is evaluated less positively in overcrowded
classes because of students’ preference for small classes.
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Additionally, research on the effect of class size on students’ perceptions of
teaching quality has taken on greater weight when institutions of higher education
countrywide are being asked to do more with less. Keil and Partell (1998) reported that
the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (SUNY) had recommended
that its faculty be at least as productive as their national counterparts. This
recommendation was followed by a June. 1997 audit by the New York State
Comptroller’s Office which insisted that SUNY schools increase the mean class size in
an effort to make their faculty more “productive.”
Although there has been nearly a century of research, there has been until recently
little agreement of the effect of class size on students’ perceptions of quality of
instruction. Because student evaluations have been among the most commonly utilized
measures of teaching abilities, it is important to determine whether class size biases
student perception. The current consensus on this issue is that there is a weak negative
relationship between class size and mean ratings of quality of teaching. Further, in
studies that utilize a wide range of class sizes, this relationship has been shown to be a
curvilinear relationship (“U” shaped), where very small and very large classes are rated
more favorably. This recent finding explains some of the often-contradictory previous
results about class size, now explainable by the restriction of range.
However, research about this relationship of class size to student evaluations of
teaching effectiveness (SETEs) has been completed entirely at traditional university
settings. The issue of how non-traditional students (i.e., adult students over 25 years of
age) react to class size has not been studied. Non-traditional students account for nearly
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
half of all students enrolled in colleges and universities, clearly a significant portion of
the population that deserves study.
Adult learning theorists (Brookfield, 1986: Cross, 1981; Knowles, 1990; Rossman
& Rossman, 1990) have suggested that adult students, because of their greater life and
work experience, are very much different from their younger counterparts. Research in
adult learning theory (androgogy) has suggested that these students Ieam in a manner
different from that of typical younger students and bring to the classroom different
expectations o f how they should leam, what they should leam, and what the professor’s
role should be. The University of Phoenix was designed to cater to the adult student by
building a curriculum based on these differences. Classes are held at night, are taught by
practitioner faculty, and are designed to use the students’ expertise to contribute to the
learning process. Faculty members are expected to ‘'facilitate” a learning process, rather
than simply to lecture. Students are not viewed as sponges, but as active participants in
their learning and the learning of their colleagues. For the University, this collaborative
learning process produces horizontal learning, where students leam not only from their
faculty, but also from the life and experience o f their classmates. A further requirement
for students is participation in study groups. That students meet outside the classroom
reinforces the idea that the adult students are responsible for their own learning and that
faculty members merely provide the frame and background for students to leam. Clearly,
this approach is not just a traditional day class moved to the evening, but a whole
academic program designed around how adult students leam.
Because of these design requirements, classes at the University of Phoenix are
relatively small (from 5 to 30 students) to facilitate this collaborative process and to
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
manage study groups (usually four or five groups of four or five students). This design
allows for extended class participation, analyses of case studies, facilitation activities
such as simulations and role playing, and the opportunity to mix theory and practice
(because students are asked to bring relevant issues from their daily work life to the
discussion in the evening class). The premise is that theory will come alive if students
leam it one night and use the newly acquired knowledge the next day at work.
The 57.000 adult students of the University of Phoenix rely on this model to
achieve their educational goals. The current research effort represents an attempt to
determine whether there is a difference between what has recently been reported about
the relationship of class size and SETEs for traditional universities and whether adult
students rate their instructors depending on class size. The answer to this question is of
considerable consequence in developing course curricula and in making a myriad of
operational decisions regarding the everyday life of the university. In addition to the
usefulness of SETEs as one of the most valid and reliable predictors of student
achievement (this usefulness is especially true of adult students who prove to be wise
consumers of education), SETEs are also an ongoing feedback mechanism of “customer
service" for the University of Phoenix. Beyond the goal of completing the University of
Phoenix' mission of educating adult students, understanding how students react to class
size (as one component of “product") is also of great importance.
The Adult Student
Malcolm Knowles (1990) is noted for his research with adult learners. In fact, his
effort have been widely acknowledged for developing the term androgogy (in
contradistinction to pedagogy — literally, “the art of teaching children”). Knowles
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
suggested that adult students leam in a manner different from that of children, and that
teachers who work with adult students must understand these distinctions in order to
teach them more effectively. Knowles delineated five key foundation stones as building
blocks to his theory:
1. Adults are motivated to leam as they experience needs and interests that
learning will satisfy; therefore, these needs and interests should be the most appropriate
starting points for adult learning activities. Adults need to know why they need to know
something before they are willing to invest time and energy in learning it. Explaining
context is more important than heuristics or memorization.
2. Adults' orientation to learning is life-centered; therefore, rather than focusing
on specific subject matters, learning should focus on life situations.
3. Adults have a need to be self-directing. They resent being talked down to,
having decisions imposed on them, or otherwise being treated like children. They like to
figure things out for themselves - but with caring help.
4. As experience is the richest resource for adult learning, adult education should
be designed to analyze experience.
5. Individual differences among people increase with age. Instructors should not
assume every one comes to the task with equivalent experience. Pace, style, place of
instruction, and time of instruction should all be considered.
Therefore, the expectation that adult students demand a different environment for
learning has been clearly established. In the context of this research, it is expected that
adult students in comparison with students of traditional age would rate their faculty
differently partly as a consequence of the different climate required for learning.
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Practical Implications of Class Size Research
In recent years, the popular press has stressed the importance of class size in
determining the quality of institutions of higher education in national rankings.
Administrators are beginning to pay attention as they hope to improve their ranking. U.S.
News and World Report obtains average class size as a component for rating institutional
quality in their annual rankings of elite institutions. In fact, class size has accounted for
40% of the “Faculty Resources" scale and for 8% of the entire ranking (Thompson &
Morse, 1998). The U.S. News and World Reports has identified class size as a measure
of student-faculty interaction. The magazine has reported that there is strong evidence
that student-professor interaction is important to learning. Therefore, in measuring class
size, the magazine writers have determined that classes under 20 receive a positive rating
and classes of 50 and over receive a negative rating. In addition to other ranking
measures (i.e.. quality of faculty credentials and reputation, alumni giving, proportion of
tenured faculty, and alumni ratings) parents, counselors, and therefore administrators
looked to class size as a major factor in deciding which colleges are best.
Recently, Harvard University reported that it would make a significant effort to
reduce the average class size as a consequence of strong financial performance of its
investments. The United States has not been alone in using class size as a determinant of
University quality. In a recent explanation of their University rating system, Maclean’ s,
a popular Canadian monthly, explained how its writers had taken into account the entire
range of classes, by placing them in six groups of ascending size and awarding points for
the number of classes in each group: six points for each class in the smallest range, five
for each in the next smallest and so forth. The total number of points is divided by the
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
number of classes to create a final score for each Canadian University. These scores are
available to potential students and to their parents for enrollment consideration.
Much of this sentiment of evaluating class size has come from K-12 polemics
regarding the usefulness of class size reductions. Eric Hanushek, an economics professor
at the University of Rochester was quoted by Shea (1998) as follows:
The recent embrace of small classes in California, and at the national level
(is, at best) an embarrassment; at worse, a potential policy disaster. We
have been reducing class size for a long time. It’s nothing new. We have
no evidence that we got anything out of it in the past, and in my mind,
there’s no reason to think the future will be different from the past.
Nothing has been studied as much as class size. The reason the idea stays
alive in the face of all kinds of evidence that it doesn’t have an impact is
that it has so much intuitive appeal, (p. 17)
Hanushek notwithstanding. President Clinton has planned to spend $12 billion to
subsidize salaries over the next seven years in an effort to reduce class size.
Additionally, California, which traditionally has had some of the largest classes in the
nation, has spent about $2.5 billion over the past two years to hire new teachers for
massive class size reduction program.
The economic constraints in which many institutions of higher education find
themselves demand scrutiny regarding class size as a fiscal consideration. “If the
nation’s colleges and universities do not take up their own reins, the outside world soon
will” (Zemsky, Massey, & Oedel, 1993, p. 56). In favorable financial times, discussions
of class size center on the funding of new positions so that faculty are relieved of
overloads to improve the scope and quality of their research. In times of financial stress,
class size is left almost entirely to financial considerations. Departments typically trade
off class size against teaching load, by increasing the number of sections for each course
until the gain caused by lowered class size is offset by a heavier teaching load.
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Relationship Between Class Size and
Students' Evaluations
The first studies attempting to establish a possible relationship between class size
and teaching quality date back to the beginning of the 20th century (McKeachie, 1990).
More recent looks at the effect of class size on University teaching and education have
raised the issue again, but no more conclusively (Arreola & Heinrich, 1977; Feigenbaum
& Friend, 1992; Feldman, 1984; Marsh, Overall, Kesler, 1979 [a USC study]; Smith &
Cranton, 1992). An analysis of the long history of this research leads one to several
contradictory positions representing an evolution in thought which can be categorized
into five distinct clusters. Advances in statistical analysis have led to a more nearly clear,
though not less complex, view of this effect. In this section, a brief review of the
literature is presented that considers these five clusters.
Cluster Number 1: Lack of Difference in Students’
Evaluations o f Small and Large Classes
Among the first research reported regarding the relationship of class size to
student performance was the work of Edmonson and Mulder (1924). They found
minimal (nonsignificant) differences in academic attainment between students in classes
of more than 100 and those with classes less than 50 despite the fact that students
reported that they preferred smaller classes. More recent studies focusing specifically on
the evaluation of teaching quality and its relationship with class size largely confirm the
notion that there is little or no differences in evaluation or performance due to size
(Aleamoni, 1978; Aleamoni & Graham, 1974 Arreola & Heinrich, 1977; Baldwin, 1993;
Hancock, 1996; Solomon; 1966).
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Cluster Number 2: Higher Student Evaluations in
Larger Than in Smaller Classes
A second cluster of research findings began with the work of Hudelson (1928)
who suggested that larger classes are associated with student improvement. He
performed an early analysis from the 59 studies that he had available at the time. A
majority of the studies he reported (46) showed higher grades for students in larger
classes than for those attending smaller classes. Although there have been a few more
recent articles which support this positive relationship between class size and overall
evaluation o f teaching and performance (Danielsen & White, 1976; Hill, 1998), this
position has not been common in the education literature.
Cluster Number 3: Higher Student Evaluations in
Smaller Than in Larger Classes
A third position asserts that the lower the number of students, the higher the level
of student performance and of student evaluations (Crittenden, Norr, & Leibailly, 1975;
Glass, Cahen, Smith, & Filby. 1982; Glass & Smith, 1978; Scott, 1977). As many of the
roots of this research have come as a consequence of previous studies in elementary and
secondary education, this investigation is seen as an extension and confirmation of
findings found in this alternate venue.
Cluster Number 4: Highest Student Evaluations
in Very Small Classes or Verv Large Classes
A fourth position posits that there is a U-shaped relationship between level of
favorableness of teaching evaluations and class size and between level of academic
performance and class size. In essence, both very small classes and very large classes
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
have been rated higher or have been associated with higher performance levels than have
medium sized ones (Centra. 1979; Feldman. 1984; Fernandez. Mateo. & Muniz. 1998;
Marsh. 1987; Marsh. Overall, & Kessler, 1979; Mateo & Fernandez, 1996). Forsake of
this review, “very small" classes were defined as those with fewer than 10-15 students
while “very large" has often been equated to substantially more than one hundred (100)
students in class. Centra (1979) found those classes with fewer than 15 students clearly
received the highest ratings, followed by those with sixteen (16) to thirty-five (35)
students, and then those with over one hundred students. The lowest ratings were found
in classes with 35 to 100 students (Centra & Creech. 1976). This evidence for curvilinear
relationship has been confirmed in a comprehensive study conducted by Wood (1974)
where data analyzed for over 4,000 classes at 16 campuses yielded a definite curvilinear
relationship.
This relationship might possibly explain the reason for the apparently
contradictory results. Depending on the range of the group size (which often is arbitrarily
chosen at the whim of the educational administrator), this restriction of the range might
explain, in part, why the relationship appears linear in one study and curvilinear in
another. Also depending on the starting point, large classes might appear to be received
more favorably by students if compared to only classes in midrange in size.
Fernandez et al. (1998) showed this curvilinear function reproduced in the
Figure 1;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ia
vsn-ei su(io-2S) r * p o-sst w<*o-i«i VLt»i«l
c t
Figure 1 . Evaluation of leaching quality (Z) as a function of class lize (X) when divided into
five conventional c a lo r ic s .
Fernandez et al. (1998) were able to show widi a large sample (2,915 classes) with a
nearly unrestricted range in size (1 to 234 students) that the relationship between class
size and student evaluation was curvilinear. Further, they confirmed an “unequivocal
presence of a statistically significant but very small negative linear relationship between
class size and mean rating of quality of teaching”, but that “in spite of the statistically
significant effect, (the relationship) is extremely weak” (p. 599). Both Marsh (1987)
and Centra (1979) argued that administrators should be cautious when interpreting this
possible large class effect (in an effort to free up an enormous amount of instructional
time by using the data in support of large classes). They recommended that the
unexpectedly higher ratings for large classes could be due to (a) the selection of
li
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
particularly effective instructors with demonstrated success in large classes; (b) the
systematic selection by students of courses taught by “better” teachers - a circumstance
leading to an increase in class size; (c) an heightened motivation for instructors to do well
when teaching behemoth class sections; and (d) the development of differing
instructional techniques for larger classes. In fact, Centra (1993) was clear to point out
that very small classes (numbering fewer than 15 students) showed the highest ratings,
but that the resulting data were also confounded by the fact that there were fewer
demands on the instructor, and less variation in the data.
This curvilinear finding certainly should lead to further study. Future research
should clearly describe the range of class size used when discussing the relationships
between class size and student evaluation of teaching quality. This indeed, is one
consideration of the present study.
Cluster Number 5: Certain Instructional Dimensions
of Teaching Being More Influenced bv Class Size
Feldman (1984) conducted the most extensive review of relationships between
class size and student evaluations. His meta-analysis showed that most studies indicated
very weak negative relations, but that the size of the relation was stronger for
instructional dimensions pertaining to instructor’s interactions and interrelationships with
students. (Of note, he also reported a roughly U-shaped nonlinear relationship.)
The idea of multidimensionality revealed in a large number of the most widely
used student evaluation surveys has made the evaluation of the effect of class size rather
complex. Analyses may be able to make even more subtle distinctions about the possible
relationship of class size to any number of dimensions of student evaluations. Marsh
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(1982, 1983, 1984) examined the correlation between class size and dimensions in the
Students Evaluation o f Educational Quality (SEEQ). Class size was moderately and
negatively correlated with scores in Group Interaction and Individual Rapport scales
(with r's as large as -0.30). However, there was little or no correlation with the other
seven dimensions or with the overall ratings of the instructor. Marsh concluded that the
reason that class size was negatively associated with student evaluations in a majority of
these studies was that a majority of the class sizes in the sample was in the range where
the relationship would be negative. Marsh (1987) concluded that class size did have a
moderate influence on some aspects of effective teaching (Group Interaction and
Individual Rapport) and that these apparent effects were accurately reflected in the
ratings.
Mateo and Fernandez (1996) found that it was possible to observe certain
differences between two large groups of dimensions: (a) those fundamentally associated
with presentation or communication of curriculum content by the faculty (which they
determined to be somewhat less affected by class size) and (b) those differences that
pertained to the facilitation of what they termed Participatory Interaction (which is
affected by class size). Among the first to discuss this dimension, Feldman (1984)
indicated that the research showed that if the student and teacher needed to interact, to
ask and answer questions as part of the class, then this dimension of the rating would be
affected.
In the context of the many research findings, a final question must be raised as to
the possible effects of class size as a bias that could potentially invalidate an entire
student evaluation regime. Fernandez et al (1998) found that teaching quality, as
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evaluated through instruments created to evaluate lectures, was not especially associated
with the reduction in the numbers of students in class. These researchers provided
support for this conclusion by the fact that less than 5% (and usually lower) of the
variance in evaluations could be explained by class size. Marsh (1987) suggested that the
similarity of student evaluations to faculty evaluations, along with expected correlation
between the dimensions argued that class size was not a “bias” to student ratings, but a
contribution to the validity of the entire student rating. Furthermore, researchers found
that more important than class size in explaining the variance in student evaluations were
the expected grade in the class, difficulty of the course, and prior interest in the course
(Marsh. 1978, 1983, 1984; Marsh & Cooper, 1980; Overall & Marsh, 1977). Thus, the
initial decline in students’ evaluation as course enrollments increased was not considered
large enough to warrant separate norm groups for analysis. Therefore, it was concluded
that size of classes did not necessarily invalidate the results of student evaluations.
Summary of Findings
There has been a long history of interest in the relationship of class size to how
students and faculty perform in class. This literature has yielded little agreement until
recently about the relationship of an increase in class size to student ratings. Restricted
ranges in the dependent variable (class size) may in part explain these disparate
outcomes. Marsh (1987), Centra (1979), Fernandez et al. (1998) and others have found a
curvilinear relationship with very small (fewer than 10 students) and very large (greater
than 100 students) showing the highest evaluations. Because many of the studies
examined for this review were in the middle range o f class size, interpretations of the
findings could be prejudiced by the average range each university department prescribed.
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Furthermore, class size has appeared to contribute very little to the explanation of the
total variance in student evaluations (in most cases less than 5%). and in most cases
yielded a very weak negative relationship to student evaluation. However, class size has
a much stronger relationship to certain dimensions of teacher evaluation (what Marsh
termed Group Interaction and Individual Rapport for the SEEQ and what Feldman called
the Participatory Interaction dimension). Therefore, this qualitative feature should be
considered. Although the global/overall ratings have appeared to be most important in
making administrative decisions, it is important to understand whether class size
reductions affect overall quality or rather, the manner in which courses should be taught.
It seems intuitive that some classes are better suited to large lecture formats while others
require the intimacy of discussion and questioning. This analysis of the published
research appears to support that intuition.
Purposes of This Study
For a sample of 67 faculty members each of whom taught during a one year
period one class in each of three classifications (small. 10 or fewer students; medium. 1 1
to 15 students; or large. 16 or more students), the first major purpose of this investigation
was to determine through use of the University of Phoenix Student End o f Course Survey
(SEOCS) the relationship between class size and ratings of student satisfaction in each of
five scales representing five dimensions of their educational experience: (a) Overall
Educational Effectiveness of the course in meeting their educational needs, (b) Faculty
Evaluation reflecting selective instructor behaviors contributing to a meaningful learning
experience, (c) Curriculum involving content, materials, processes, and requirements, (d)
Study Groups portraying the contributions of group discussion and shared activities in
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
facilitating learning experiences, and (e) University Sendees representing quality of the
administrative and support sendees in meeting student needs. A second major purpose
was to ascertain whether the relationship of ratings in each of the five scales representing
levels of satisfaction with various educational experiences to class size was linear or
curvilinear. For the first two SEOCS scales just cited, a hypothesis of an inverted U
relationship was examined between the ratings and class size.
Importance of This Study
For the University of Phoenix, the Students End of Course Survey (SEOCS) has
been one of the most important indicators of effectiveness and efficiency of the
educational program among its various campuses. For practical reasons, therefore, it was
thought important to judge whether size of class size was associated with any differences
in the ratings of satisfaction obtained from selected scales of the instrument. Identifying
the optimal class size would help with a myriad of organizational decisions. If class size
has little or no relationship to the perceived effectiveness of the learning experience,
enlarging classes would help to improve profitability. If on the other hand, it was found
that class size appeared to contribute to optimal learning experiences, course curricula
would need to reflect this finding for the benefit of the students and the University.
Beyond the immediate implications of any research findings to the University of
Phoenix, this research might add to the limited body of knowledge in the area of optimal
class size in universities, and extend this research to a population not previously included
— colleges that service non-traditional students. Currently, non-traditional students
constitute nearly half of all college students in America. The findings from this study
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
could be important to administrators who need to make decisions about how to organize
classes especially with respect to size for these students.
Research Questions
Consistent with the purposes of the study, the following research questions were
posed:
1. To what extent would the variation of class size across three levels (10 or fewer
students; 11 to 15 students, 16 or more students) be related to measures of student
satisfaction in terms of ratings of the overall educational effectiveness of the course as
measured by the Student End of Course Surveys (SEOCSs)?
2. To what extent would the variation of class size across three levels (10 or fewer
students; 11 to 15 students, 16 or more students) be related to measures of student
satisfaction in terms of ratings in selected characteristics o f each of the following broad
measured dimensions: (a) Faculty behaviors; (b) Curriculum; (c) Study Groups
(interaction of students with one another); and (d) University Services
(multidimensionality)?
3. In relation to the first two research questions, to what extent, if any, was a
curvilinear relationship present?
Research Hypothesis
The research hypothesis and its rationale were as follows:
Statement
There w'ould be a curvilinear inverted U relationship (parabolic function) between
ratings (ordinate values traditionally corresponding to the vertical axis) representing
levels of satisfaction expressed by students in each of two dimensions of their learning
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of the Overall Educational Effectiveness and Faculty Evaluation and size of class (small,
medium, or large) designated as three points (abscissa values traditionally on the
horizontal axis). In simpler language, the highest levels of satisfaction would occur for
classes of moderate size with lower levels of satisfaction for classes categorized as either
small or large.
Rationale
One component of the basic philosophy of University of Phoenix has been the
importance of cooperative learning in which a great deal of collaborative efforts, student
interaction, and group discussion take place. A small class might not afford the
opportunity for sufficient diversity of interest and backgrounds of students necessary to
maximize their level of satisfaction. Moreover, a relatively large group might tend to
inhibit cooperative learning and group interaction and thus contribute to a lower level of
student satisfaction. On the other hand, classes of medium size might be just what is
needed to optimize the amount of interaction among students and the effectiveness of
their learning experiences in the course. In short, the medium size class might well lead
to the greatest level of satisfaction because of the proper number of students to facilitate
optimal satisfaction in a cooperative learning environment.
Delimitations
The following delimitations were apparent in the current inquiry:
1. This study accounted for only one campus of the University of Phoenix (the
Southern California campus), which has been responsible for approximately 16% of the
total population of the University.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. This research was restricted to only one year o f data collected for this campus
during the 1997 academic year.
3. Only those instructors who had taught one class at each of the three
classifications of size participated in the investigation.
4. Only one instrument to evaluate the perceptions of students regarding the
effectiveness of various features of their learning experience was employed.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
The second chapter pertains to the methods and procedures employed. The major
subdivisions comprise (a) a description of the sample, (b) characteristics of the SEOCS,
(c) the statistical analyses employed, (d) citation of the methodological assumptions, and
(e) an enumeration of the limitations. Chapter III provides an analysis of the statistical
outcomes, an interpretation of the results associated with two of the scales within the
framework of the hypothesis, and a discussion of the findings in relation to those found in
the related literature and in terms of their implications for the design and operation of the
University of Phoenix.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 9
Chapter II
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
This chapter provides a description of the (a) sample of faculty members studied,
(b) survey instrument employed, (c) statistical analyses used, (d) methodological
assumptions, and (e) limitations.
Sample
Results of Student End of Course Surveys (SEOCS) from 201 classes at the
University of Phoenix, Southern California campus were analyzed. These classes were
selected from among literally thousands listed in summary reports because they were
completed by the same faculty member teaching the same class. The reader may recall
from the literature review that this methodology proved enormously productive. This
methodology was used in this study to identify the class size effect. Because the content
of the syllabus and activities are standardized for each academic course module, course
curriculum is the same irrespective of the instructor assigned. Furthermore, on the basis
of extensive research carried out by Dennis Hocevar (personal communication, January,
1999), student ratings of educational effectiveness of a given instructor change little over
time. Because the curriculum in a designated course is essentially invariant, and because
a given faculty member exhibits nearly the same behaviors over time, changes in student
ratings may be assumed to be contributed primarily by any variation in the class size.
The class ratings for classes were grouped into three groups: (a) small (those classes with
10 students or fewer); (b) medium (those with 11 to 15 students); and (c) large (those
with 16 or more students).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Instrument
The Student End of Course Survey (SEOCS) is a questionnaire completed by all
students at the University of Phoenix during the last evening of each class. It is used to
evaluate a wide range of experiences of the student. Among the nine scales of the survey
form, five were chosen for the current investigation. The designation of each scale along
with a brief statement of its content is given as follows:
1. Overall Educational Effectiveness (8 items) -- the extent to which the course
had or had not met the educational needs of the respondent
2. Faculty Evaluation (15 items) — the degree to which the instructor had
contributed to the learning experience associated with the course
3. Curriculum (6 items) — the level of agreement with item statements that the
curriculum materials and activities had contributed effectively to the learning of the
respondent
4. Study Groups (4 items) — the perception of the respondents that the members
of the study groups or other organizational experiences among students had contributed
to the learning experience in the course
5. University Sendees (8 items) — the responses by students that the overall
quality of administrative and student support services during the course had ranged from
excellent to poor
A copy of this instrument is enclosed in the Appendix.
Each scale provides a rating based on a five-point Likert procedure, with five
being the highest score and with one the lowest. The number of students completing each
survey determined class size. Because of the importance of this feedback to all
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
operations at the University, time is designed in each course curriculum module for
students to complete this rating. As this survey activity has been established for many
years as part of the organizational culture, student participation is extraordinarily high.
However, absence from the final night of class may be a cause of very limited error in
class size estimates.
Statistical Analyses
For a total sample of 67 instructors at the Southern California campus of the
University of Phoenix who had taught one class associated with each of the three
categories of class size (small, medium, or large), a mean of the student ratings for all of
the items in a given scale (dimension) was found along with the corresponding standard
deviation, the highest mean rating, and the lowest mean rating. Through use of a
statistical program described in SPSS (1999) that represented for repeated measures
design within the context of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedure,
significance of differences among the means of the 67 instructors across the three
categories of class size was determined for each of five selected scales from the survey
instrument. In addition, a determination was made concerning whether the trend of the
three means associated with class size yielded a linear or quadratic component. The
presence of a statistically significant quadratic component would permit an inference of
the presence of a U-shaped (parabolic) function or curve.
Methodological Assumptions
The following methodological assumptions were central to this study:
1. The survey form provided scores that were sufficiently reliable and valid to
answer the research questions posed.
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. The students responding to the survey form understood the survey items and
gave honest responses.
3. The procedures employed to collect, score, and record the data were relatively
free of error.
4. For a given instructor, the quality of his/her instruction would vary relatively
little over time.
5. For a given course, the objectives, content, and instructional activities were
essentially standardized across instructors.
6. The statistical analyses were appropriate to answering the research questions
detailed.
7. The responses of the participants accurately portrayed their attitudes, feelings,
or opinions relative to the items in the survey form.
Limitations
The following limitations might have compromised to some extent, the findings
of this study:
1. The scales chosen from the survey form for data analyses might not have been
the most appropriate ones.
2. There was a small probability that certain students might have conspired to
provide either low ratings or high ratings, depending upon their degree of rapport with
the faculty member.
3. Because of absence or lack or interest, a small number of response forms
might not have been completed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. The faculty members who participated in this study might have represented a
somewhat superior group, inasmuch as those given the opportunity to teach a small,
medium, or large class had already demonstrated their worth.
5. The degree to which the steps on the Likert scale represented equal intervals of
judgmental levels could be open to questions.
6. The extent to which any o f the methodological assumptions were not met
would constitute a limitation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
CHAPTER III
ANALYSIS. DISCUSSION. AND INTERPRETATION
OF RESULTS
In this chapter, the statistical outcomes are analyzed within the framework of the
research questions set forth in Chapter I. Although relevant to the third research
question, information pertaining to the presence of the linear o r curvilinear trend in the
data is incorporated in the reporting of results for the first two research questions.
However, a summary of the findings about the linear or curvilinear trends is set forth in a
separate section specifically identified as belonging to the third research question.
Following the analysis of the data, a brief segment affords an interpretation of the results
pertinent to the research hypothesis stated in Chapter I. The third part constitutes a
discussion of the findings of this study in relation to those of other investigators and of
their implications for University of Phoenix.
Analysis of the Data
Relationship of Ratings of Student Satisfaction
with the Overall Educational Effectiveness of
a Course to Size of Class
('Research Question 1 1
As indicated in Table 1, the scale of Overall Effectiveness yielded mean ratings
given by students on a scale ranging from scores of 1 to 5 (1 being low, 5 being high) of
3.88, 4.02, and 3.89 in relation to a class categorized by size being small (n < 10),
medium (11 < n < 15), or large (n £ 16), respectively. The differences among these
means approached but just failed to reach statistical significance at the .05 level
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
F(2, 132) = 2.47. 2 = 088. However, the trend of the data points could be judged as
curvilinear, as the quadratic component was statistically significant, t (64) = -2.23,
2 = .029. In other words, the peak mean of 4.02 occurred for classes of medium size — a
finding supporting the presence of an inverted U curve that had been hypothesized.
Relationship of Ratines of Student Satisfaction with
Four Other Course Dimensions to Size of Class
(Research Question 2)
Table 1 sets forth parallel information for the other four scales. The scale of-
Faculty Evaluation afforded means of 4.58,4.62, and 4.46, respectively, relative to class
size of small, medium, or large. Once again, the differences among the means just
missed obtaining statistical significance F (2, 132) = 2.74, 2 = .068. Although neither
the linear nor quadratic component was statistically significant, there was a suggestion of
an inverted U curve, as the quadratic component veered towards statistical significance
t (64) = -1.65,2= -103.
Corresponding to the two scales Curriculum and Study Groups, the respective sets
of means of 4.19, 4.18, and 4.12 and of 4.36, 4.40, and 4.36 failed to provide statistical
significance or to demonstrate a trend other than generating an approximately horizontal
line portraying about equal values across all three points representing class size. In other
words, class size was basically unrelated to level of student satisfaction with the course
characteristics represented by the scores of these two dimensions.
The fifth scale of University Services contributed mean ratings of 3.60, 3.68, and
3.78, respectively, in relation to small, medium, or large class size. The differences
among these three means came close to being statistically significant
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1
M eans, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Scores on Five-Point Rating Scales Representing Levels o f Satisfaction o f Students with Five Dimensions
Associated with Their University Experience (N = 67 Instructors)
SEOCS Scale Dimensions Number
O f Items
Class
Size
Mean Standard
Deviation
Minimum
M ean Score
Maximum
M ean Score
1. Overall Education 8 Small 3.88 0.55 1.79 4.92
Effectiveness (Course M edium 4.02 0.41 2.50 4.79
M eeting Student's
Educational Needs)a
Large 3.89 0.49 2.61 4.66
2. Faculty Evaluation 15 Small 4.58 0.45 2.54 5.00
(Instructor's Contribution Medium 4.62 0.52 3.73 4.65
to Student’s Learning
Experience^
Large 4.46 0.45 3.15 5,00
3. Curriculum (Effectiveness 6 Small 4.19 0.38 3.02 4.75
o f Curriculum Materials Medium 4.18 0.33 2.73 4.77
and Activities Contributing
to Student Learning^
Large 4.12 0.40 2.84 4.71
4. Study Groups (Contributions 4 Small 4.36 0.63 1.00 5.00
o f Other Students to Medium 4.40 0.38 2.67 5.00
Learning Experience^ Large 4.36 0.37 3.33 4.92
5. University Services (Overall 8 Small 3.60 0.58 2,26 4.67
Quality o f Administrative and Medium 3.68 0.49 2.19 4.49
Student Support Service)b Large 3.78 0.41 2.35 4.51
N ote: a F o r the first four scales the response altern atives w ere S trongly A g re e . A g re e . N o O p in io n . D isagree, o r S tro ng ly
D isagree to w hich respectiv e sco rin g w eights o f 5 , 4 , 3 , 2 , o r I w ere assigned,
b For the fifth scale, the respo n se altern atives w ere E x cellen t, A b o ve A v erag e, A v erag e . B elow A v erag e, or Poor to w hich respectiv e sco rin g w eig h ts o f 5 , 4 , 3 , 2 , o r I w ere assigned,
F(2. 132) = 2.59. £ = .079. C learly, the sequence of monotonically increasing means
(3.60, 3.68, and 3.78) did yield a statistically significant linear trend component
(t (65) = 2.45. £ = .023). There was a suggestion that those students in large classes
tended to express higher levels of satisfaction with administrative and student support
services than did those students from smaller classes.
Representation of Data Trends in Terms of
Linear or Quadratic Components
(Research Question 3)
In the instance of the first scale identified as Overall Educational Effectiveness, a
curvilinear relationship described as an inverted U shape was present, as the quadratic
component was indeed statistically significant. This same inverted U function occurred
at an inspection level for the second scale entitled Faculty Evaluation, but did not quite
achieve statistical significance. This type of curvilinear function did not occur for the
ratings on any one of the other three scales examined. The plotting of scale values of
student satisfaction against the data points of class size for the third and fourth scales
yielded essentially a straight line with no definitive slope or direction. The fifth scale,
however, generated a strong linear trend with increased levels of satisfaction as the class
size became greater. A statistically significant linear trend was indeed present.
Interpretation of the Findings in Relation to
the Research Hypothesis
The research hypothesis indicating an inverted U shape of function for ratings
obtained from the first scale of Overall Educational Effectiveness of the course against
the three levels of class size received promising but not definitive support. The second
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
scale involving Faculty Evaluation as the dependent variable also provided such a
curvilinear pattern, but just failed to achieve statistical significance. Thus, one may
conclude that contrary to the findings of many other investigators (e.g.. Centra, 1979;
Feldman, 1984; Fernandez, et al., 1998, Mateo & Fernandez, 1996; Marsh, 1987; Marsh,
et al.. 1979), who had indicated the highest ratings of satisfaction occurred for classes
tending to be relatively small or large, classes of medium size (11 to 15 members) for
non-traditional students were most satisfying. Of course, the definition of what is large,
medium, or small varied greatly from study to study. The current finding might not hold
for students following a more traditional program in which group interaction and
cooperative learning tend to be minimized. It would appear that for the University of
Phoenix serving many older students the optimal size of class might well be between 1 1
and 15 students. In fact, classes considered as large at University of Phoenix could well
be viewed as quite small in many undergraduate programs and even in many graduate
courses in large private and public universities.
Discussion
The outcomes of this study are important from two perspectives: those findings
that confirm or challenge the current body of knowledge regarding the relationship
between class size and students evaluation of teaching effectiveness; and those findings
that provide practical implications for the design and operations o f University of Phoenix
programs and curricula.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Relationship of Findings to
Those of Other Studies
The results of this study have led to the conclusion that for non-traditional adult
students a curvilinear relationship exists between class size and students’ evaluation of
teaching effectiveness. However, the pattern of this relationship was virtually opposite to
the U shaped relationship reported in the literature concerning traditional students. The
current view is that traditional students prefer very small classes (fewer than 10 students)
or very large classes (usually over 100 students), and that the medium sized classes are
less favored. This wide range accounts for a great deal of the conflicting research
findings, but this view was challenged by the conclusion reported in the current
investigation. For the University of Phoenix, relatively small classes have been a feature
of the curriculum design, as die teaching/learning model relies on group interaction and
cooperative learning described by Knowles (1990) among others. Because of this design
requirement, the findings of diis research make intuitive sense. Very small classes may
tend to inhibit cooperative learning because the quality and quantity of interaction is
limited. Larger classes, on the other hand, make interaction and participation more
difficult. The fact that medium sized classes are rated more highly should not be
surprising, given that standardized curricula are designed to maximize participation and
collaborative learning.
The findings of this study should not be interpreted as further complicating the
literature. Because of the restriction of ranges in class size, even the largest among the
class sizes for this study pale in comparison to class sizes from studies with college
students in traditional programs. In fact, this research supported Centra’s (1979)
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assertion that classes with fewer than 15 students received the highest ratings. (The
reader may recall that the second highest ratings for the same study was for classes with
16-35 students). Future research should specifically address the range of class size to
insure that when examining the relationship with student evaluations, the researchers are
looking to the same parts of the curve. The inverted U found in this study in large
measure might have been attributable to the course design and to the relatively restricted
range in class size for this sample.
Implications of the Research Findings
for the University of Phoenix
Additionally, for the University of Phoenix, the results of this study have
important implications. Classes should ideally be scheduled for sizes ranging from 11 to
15 students. Future research should be concerned with whether different academic
disciplines require different ranges o f class size. One could reasonably expect that
classes that require more participation and interaction to be more restrictive when class
size is considered. Perhaps, case seminar classes may differ from quantitatively oriented
classes. Thus, future research should take the preliminary findings of this study and
further clarify them. In addition, the design of this research was to isolate the
independent contribution of class size to levels of student satisfaction by attempting to
hold several other variables (faculty member, curriculum, textbook) nearly constant.
Because each instructor included only' one sample from each of the small, medium, and
large groups, future research might be directed towards ascertaining whether results are
stable if more than one instance in each condition is examined.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
One of the more surprising findings was that the students’ perceptions o f ancillary
services improved as class size increased. When customer service was considered, the
assumption of the University has been that the more personal the service becomes, the
more the students would have appreciated the service, and would tend to rate it more
highly. Contrary to this belief, the results of this study indicated that as the class size
grew, students rated service more highly. Perhaps, students in larger classes learned to
rely less on university staff and more on each other. It may be that relative lack of
experience with administrative and support services leads to the assumptions by students
that as this service is not required, it still deserves a high rating. An alternative
explanation might be that smaller groups, in comparison with larger ones, are better able
to mobilize strong negative sentiments and help to foment unfavorable feelings. A
thoughtful analysis of this finding is indeed important to consider because it may
challenge the present notion of what makes exemplary customer service.
The fact that scales entitled Curriculum and Study groups yielded essentially
equivalent ratings for all levels of class size (small, medium, and large) is a tribute to the
adult teaching/learning model as it is conceived by the University of Phoenix. It is the
intent of standardized curricula to provide a product that yields uniform experience to
students throughout the country. The fact that each of these conditions experienced
almost exactly the same levels of satisfaction may be quite encouraging to administrators
and faculty members of University of Phoenix.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter IV
SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Background
A great debate exists regarding class size in the K-12 arena. However, the issue
of class size also is of importance to institutions of higher education. The evaluation of
teaching quality in higher education through students’ opinions appears to be largely
accepted and established, although it is but one among a myriad of procedures used. In
this context, the issue of class size is of particular consequence. Although there has been
nearly a century of research, there has been until recently, little agreement of the effect of
class size on students’ perceptions of quality of instruction. The current consensus on
this issue is that there is a weak negative relationship between class size and mean ratings
of quality of teaching. Further, in studies that utilize a wide range of class sizes, this
relationship has been shown to be a curvilinear relationship (U shaped), where very small
and very large classes are rated more favorably. This recent finding explains some of the
often contradictory previous results about class size, now explainable by the large
variation in class size examined from one study to another.
However, research about this relationship of class size to student evaluations of
teaching effectiveness (SETEs) has been completed almost entirely at traditional
university settings. The issue of how non-traditional students (i.e., adult students, over 25
years of age) react to class size has not been reported in the professional literature. Non-
traditional students account for nearly half of all students enrolled in colleges and
universities, clearly a significant portion of the population that deserves study.
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Adult learning theories suggest that adult students, because of their greater life
and work experience learn in a manner very different from that of their traditional
younger counterparts. The study of androgogy provides design requirements for classes
that cater to adult students. Because of these design requirements, classes at the
University of Phoenix are relatively small (from 5 to 30 students) to facilitate this
collaborative process and to manage study groups (usually four or five groups each
comprising four or five students). This design allows for extended class participation,
analyses of case studies, facilitation activities such as simulations and role playing, and
the opportunity to mix theory and practice (because students are asked to bring relevant
issues from their daily work life to the discussion in the evening class). The premise is
that theory will come alive if students learn it one night and use it the next day at work.
This research was designed to determine whether there was a difference between
(a) what has recently been reported about the relationship of class size and scores on
Students' Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness (SETE) measures for traditional
universities and (b) how adult students rate their instructors depending on class size. The
answer to this question is of considerable consequence for developing course curricula
and for making a myriad of operational decisions regarding the everyday life of the
university. In addition to the usefulness of SETEs as one of the more valid and reliable
predictors of student achievement (a circumstance that is especially true of adult students
who prove to be “savvy” consumers of education), SETEs are also an ongoing feedback
mechanism of “customer service” for the organization.
There has been a long history of interest in the relationship of class size to how
students and faculty perform in class. Relevant literature has yielded little agreement
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
until recently about the effect of increasing class size on student ratings. Variations in
ranges in the dependent variable (class size) may in part explain these arguments. Marsh
(1987), Centra (1979), Fernandez et al (1998), and others have found a curvilinear
relationship with very small (fewer than 10 students) and very large (greater than 100
students) showing the highest evaluations. Many of the studies examined for this review
were for classes mid-range in size; therefore, interpretations of the findings might have
been prejudiced by the average range each university department prescribed. Further,
class size has appeared to contribute very little to the explanation of the total variance in
student evaluations (in most cases less than 5%), and in most cases has been found to
have a very weak negative relationship with student evaluation. However, class size has
a much stronger relationship with certain dimensions of teacher evaluation (Group
Interaction and Individual Rapport for the SEEQ -- Feldman’s Participatory Interaction
dimension). Thus, this qualitative feature should be considered. Although the
global/overall ratings seem more important in making administrative decisions, it is
desirable to understand whether class size reductions affect overall quality or rather the
ways in which courses should be taught. It seems intuitive that some classes are better
suited to large lecture formats while others require the intimacy of discussion and
questioning.
Purposes of This Study
For a sample of 67 faculty members each o f whom taught during a one year
period one class in each of three classifications (small. 10 or fewer students; medium. 1 1
to 15 students; or large. 16 or more students), the first major purpose of this investigation
was to determine through use of the University of Phoenix Student End of Course Survey
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(SEOCS) the relationship between class size and ratings of student satisfaction in each of
five scales representing five dimensions of their educational experience: (a) Overall
Educational Effectiveness of the course in meeting their educational needs, (b) Faculty
Evaluation reflecting selective instructor behaviors contributing to a meaningful learning
experience, (c) Curriculum involving content, materials, processes, and requirements, (d)
Study Groups portraying the contributions of group discussion and shared activities in
facilitating learning experiences, and (e) University Services representing quality of the
administrative and support services in meeting student needs. A second major purpose
was to ascertain whether the relationship of ratings in each of the five scales representing
levels of satisfaction with various educational experiences to class size was linear or
curvilinear. For the first two SEOCS scales just cited, a hypothesis of an inverted U
relationship was examined between the ratings and class size.
Research Questions
Consistent with the purposes o f the study, the following research questions were
posed:
1. To what extent would the variation of class size across three levels (10 or
few'er students; 11 to 15 students. 16 or more students) related to measures o f student
satisfaction in terms of ratings of the overall educational effectiveness of the course as
measured by the Student End of Course Surveys (SEOCSs)?
2. To what extent would the variation of class size across three levels (10 or
fewer students; 11 to 15 students, 16 or more students ) related to measures o f student
satisfaction in terms of ratings in selected characteristics of each of the following broad
measured dimensions: (a) Faculty behaviors; (b) Curriculum; (c) Study Groups
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(interaction of students with one another); and (d) University Services
(multidimensionality)?
3. In relation to the first two research questions, to what extent, if any, was a
curvilinear relationship present?
Method
Sample. Results of SEOCS from 201 classes at the University of Phoenix,
Southern California campus were analyzed. These classes were selected from among
listings in literally thousands of summary reports because they were completed by the
same faculty member teaching the same class. This methodology was used in this study
to identify the class size effect. Because the content of the syllabus and activities are
standardized for each academic course module, course curriculum is the same
irrespective of the instructor assigned. Because the curriculum in a designated course is
essentially invariant and because a given faculty member exhibits nearly the same
behaviors over time, changes in student ratings may be assumed to be contributed
primarily by any variation in the class size. The ratings for classes were categorized into
three groups: (a) small (those classes with 10 students or fewer); (b) medium (those with
11 to 15 students); and (c) large (those with 16 or more students).
Instrument. The SEOCS is a questionnaire completed by all students at the
University of Phoenix during the last evening of each class. It is used to evaluate a wide
range of experiences of the student. Among the nine scales of the survey form, five were
chosen for the current investigation. The designation of each scale along with a brief
statement of its content is given as follows:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. Overall Educational Effectiveness (8 items) -- the extent to which the course
had or had not met the educational needs of the respondent
2. Faculty Evaluation (15 items) -- the degree to which the instructor had
contributed to the learning experience associated with the course
3. Curriculum (6 items) -- the level of agreement with item statements that the
curriculum materials and activities had contributed effectively to the learning of the
respondent
4. Study Groups (4 items) — the perception o f the respondents that the members
of the study groups or other organizational experiences among students had contributed
to the learning experience in the course
5. University Services (8 items) -- the responses by students that the overall
quality of administrative and student support services during the course had ranged from
excellent to poor
Each scale provides a rating based on a five-point Likert procedure, with five
being the highest score and with one the lowest. The number of students completing each
survey determined class size.
Statistical analyses. For a total sample of 67 instructors at the Southern California
campus of the University of Phoenix who had taught one class associated with each of
the three categories of class size (small, medium, or large), a mean of the student ratings
for all of the items in a given scale (dimension) was found along with the corresponding
standard deviation, the highest mean rating, and the lowest mean rating. Through use of
a statistical program described in SPSS (1999) that represented for repeated measures
design within the context of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedure,
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the significance of differences among the means of the 67 instructors across the three
categories of class size was determined for each of five selected scales from the survey
instrument. In addition, a determination was made concerning whether the trend of the
three means associated with class size yielded a linear or quadratic component. The
presence of a statistically significant quadratic component would permit an inference of
the presence of a U-shaped (parabolic) function or curve.
Selected Findings
The following statistical outcomes were noted:
1. The scale of Overall Effectiveness yielded mean ratings given by students on a
scale ranging from scores of 1 to 5 (1 being low, 5 being high) of 3.88, 4.02, and 3.89 in
relation to a class categorized by size as being small (n < 10), medium (11 < n_ < 15). or
large (n ^ 16). respectively. The differences among these means approached but just
failed to reach statistical significance at the .05 level F(2,132) = 2.47, p = .088.
However, the trend o f the data points could be judged as curvilinear, as the quadratic
component was statistically significant, t (64) = -2.23, p_ = .029. In other words, the
peak mean of 4.02 occurred for classes of medium size — a finding supporting the
presence of an inverted U curve that had been hypothesized.
2. The scale of Faculty Evaluation afforded means of 4.58, 4.62, and 4.46,
respectively, relative to class size of small, medium, or large. Once again, the differences
among the means just missed obtaining statistical significance, F (2, 132) = 2.74,
P = .068. Although neither the linear nor quadratic component was statistically
significant, there was a suggestion of an inverted U curve, as the quadratic component
veered towards statistical significance t (64) = -1.65, p = .103.
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. The two scales Curriculum and Study Groups generated a horizontal straight
line portraying about equal values across all three points representing class size. In other
words, class size was unrelated to level of student satisfaction in these two dimensions.
4. University sendees contributed mean ratings of 3.60, 3.68, and 3.78,
respectively, in relation to small, medium, or large class size. The differences among
these three means came close to being statistically significant F(2, 132) = 2.59, £ = .079,
and the monotonic sequence yielded a statistically significant linear trend component
(t (65) = 2.45, p = .023). There was a suggestion that those students in large classes
tended to express higher levels of satisfaction with administrative and student support
services than did those students from smaller classes.
Conclusions
On the basis of the findings for the sample of classes delivered to non-traditional
adult students at the University of Phoenix, the following conclusions emerged:
1. An inverted U shaped relationship between class size and students’ evaluation
of overall educational effectiveness appears to exist. In essence, adult students prefer
medium class size to both small and large classes as defined in this study.
2. Adult students reacted somewhat differently from what previously had been
reported in the literature where the relationship was determined to be U shaped (with
traditional students preferring both very small and veiy large classes).
3. As class size increases, students tend to rate the level of administrative and
student sendees higher.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Recommendations
The following recommendation are suggested from the outcomes of the current
inquiry:
1. Additional research needs to be carried out to ascertain whether any systematic
differences exist between ratings of effectiveness of instruction as a function of any
specific clusters of academic disciplines.
2. Extensive efforts need to be made to provide evidence of the reliability and the
validity of scores on the SEOCS.
3. Whenever administratively feasible, efforts should be made to maintain
enrollments in classes between approximately 11 and 15 students per class.
4. Contrary to the belief that one-to-one customer service proves most effective,
the findings of this research suggest that more extensive research should be conducted,
perhaps primarily through interviewing a number of students from classes of different
size.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
REFERENCES
Aleamoni, L. (1978). Arizona Course/Instructor Evaluation Questionnaire
(CIRQ). Results Interpretation Manual. Form 76. Tucson, AZ: Office of Instructional
Research and Development (University of Arizona).
Aleamoni, L. (1981). Student ratings of instruction. In J. Millman (Ed.),
Handbook o f Teacher Evaluation (pp. 110-145). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Aleamoni, L.M., & Graham, M.H. (1974). The relationship between CEO ratings
and instructor’s rank, class size, and course level. Journal o f Educational
Measurement, II, 189-202.
Arreola, R.A. & Heinrich, D. (1977, April). A model fo r differential norming o f
faculty evaluations fo r promotion and tenure decisions. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Arubayi, E.A. (1987). Improvement of Instruction and teacher effectiveness:
Are student ratings reliable and valid? Higher Education, 16, 267-278.
Ashar, H.. & Skenes, R. (1993). Can Tinto’s student departure model be applied
to nontraditional students? Adult Education Quarterly, 43, 90-100.
Baldwin, B.A. (1993). Teaching Introductory financial accounting in mass-
lecture sections: Longitudinal evidence. Issues in Accounting Education, 8(1), 97-111.
Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning: A
comprehensive analysis o f principles and effective practices. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Centra, J.A. (1979). Determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass
Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and
determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Centra, J.A., & Creech, F.R. (1976). The relationship between student, teacher,
and course characteristics and student ratings o f teacher effectiveness. Princeton, N.J.:
Educational Testing Service.
Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A
meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review o f Educational Research, 51,
281-309.
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Crittenden. K.S.. Norr, J.L., & Leibailly, R.K. (1975). Size of university classes
and student evaluation of teaching. Journal o f Higher Education, 46, 461-470.
Cross. K.P. (1981). Adults as learners: Increasing participation and facilitating
learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Danielsen, A.L., & White, R.A. (1976). Some evidence on the variables
associated with student evaluations of teachers. Journal o f Economic Education, 7 ,
117-119.
Davis, G.H. (1988). How should universities respond to the imperative
‘Professors should spend more time teaching and less time on research!’. Phoenix, AZ:
Arizona Board of Regents.
Edmondson, J.B., & Mulder. F.J. (1924). Size of class as a factor in university
instruction. Journal o f Educational Research, 9, 1-12.
Feigenbaum, E., & Friend, R. (1992). A comparison of freshman and upper
division students’ preference for small and large psychology classes. Teaching o f
Psychology, 19, 12-16.
Feldman. K. (1978). Course characteristics and college students’ ratings of their
teachers: What we know and what we don’t. Research in Higher Education, 9, 199-
242.
Feldman. K. (1984). Class size and college students’ evaluation of teachers and
courses: A closer look. Research in Higher Education, 21, 45-115.
Fernandez. J., Mateo, M.A., & & Muniz, J. (1998). Is there a relationship
between class size and student ratings of teaching quality? Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 34, 596 — 604.
Franklin, J., Theall, M., & Ludlow, L. (1991, May). Grade inflation and student
ratings: A closer look. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Gary, N.E., & Rosevear, G.C. (1986). Effect of reduction in class hours in
preclinical schedule on students’ academic performance. Journal o f Medical Education,
61, 683-685.
Glass, G.V., Cahen. L., Smith, M.L., & Filby, N. (1982). School class size.
Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.
Glass, G.V., & Smith, M.L. (1978). Meta- analysis o f research on the
relationship o f class size and achievement. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for
Educational Research and Development.
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Goldfinch. J. (1996). The effectiveness of school -type classes compared to the
traditional lecture/tutorial method for teaching quantitative methods to business students.
Studies in Higher Education, 21, 207-220.
Hancock, T.M. (1996). Effects of class size on college student achievement.
College Student Journal, 30, 479-481.
Hill. M.C. (1998). Class size and student performance in introductory accounting
courses: Further evidence. Issues in Accounting Education, 13, 47-64.
Hocevar. D (1999). Personal communication.
Hou, J.W. (1994). Class size and determinants of learning effectiveness.
Department of Economics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 377 239)
Howard, G.S., Conway. C.G., & Maxwell, S.E. (1985). Construct validity of
measures of college teaching. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 77, 187-196.
Hudelson. E. (1928). Class size at the college level. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Keil. J.. & Parted. P.J. (1998, April). The effect o f class size on student
performance and retention at Binghamton University. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the AIR Forum, Minneapolis.
Knight, W.E. (1991). The effect of class size in English 10000: ‘Introduction to
College English' on student grades in English 10001: ‘College English I’ in the Kent
State University Regional campuses.” (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
335 100)
Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX:
Gulf Publishing.
Lopus, J.S., & Maxwell, N.L. (1995). A cost effectiveness analysis of large and
small classes in the university. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 167 —
178.
Marsh, H.W. (1978, May). Students’ evaluations o f instructional effectiveness:
Relationship to student, course, and instructor characteristics. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Canada.
Marsh, H.W. (1982). SEEQ: A reliable, valid, and useful instrument for
collecting students’ evaluations of university teaching. British Journal o f Educational
Psychology, 52, 77-95.
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Marsh. H.W. (1983). Multidimensional ratings of teaching effectiveness by
students from different academic settings and their relation to the
student/course/instructor characteristics. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 75, ISO-
166.
Marsh. H.W. (1984). Students' evaluations of university teaching:
Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal o f Educational
Psychology, 76, 707-754.
Marsh, H.W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research
findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International
Journal o f Educational Research, 11, 253-288.
Marsh, H.W., & Cooper, T.L. (1980, April). Prior subject interest, students’
evaluations, and instructional effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
Marsh, H.W.. Overall, J.U., & Kesler, S.P. (1979). Class size, students’
evaluations and instructional effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal,
16, 57-69.
Mateo, M.A., & Fernandez, J. (1996). Incidence of class size on the evaluation
of university teaching quality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 771-
778.
McKeachie, W.J. (1990). Research on college teaching: The historical
background. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 82, 189-200.
Miller, A.H. (1988). Student assessment of teaching in higher education. Higher
Education, 17, 3-15.
Millman, J. (Ed.). (1981). Handbook o f teacher evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Overall, J.U., & Marsh, H.W. (1977, April). Class size and students’ ratings o f
instruction: A clarification o f relationship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Ramaswamy, K. (1992). Enhancing business school effectiveness: A multiple
constituency approach. Journal o f Education fo r Business, 67, 353-357.
Raimono, H.J., Esposito, L., & Gershenberg, I. (1990). Introductory class size
and student performance in intermediate theory courses. Journal o f Economic
Education, 21, 369-3 81.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Rossman. M.H. & Rossman. M.E. (Eds.) (1990). Applying adult development
strategies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scheck, C.L. (1994). The effect of class size on student performance:
Development and assessment of a process model. Journal o f Education fo r Business,
70, 104-111.
Scott, C.S. (1977). Student ratings and instructor-defined extenuating
circumstances. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 60, 742-747.
Shea, C. (1998, April 3). Do smaller classes mean better schools? Economists
aren’t so sure. Chronicle o f Higher Education, p. A 17.
Smith, R.A., & Cranton, P.A. (1992). Students’ perceptions of teaching skills and
overall effectiveness across instructional settings. Research in Higher Education, 33,
747-764.
Solomon, D. (1966). Teacher behavior dimensions, course characteristics, and
student evaluations of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 3, 35-47.
SPSS (1999). Advanced statistical models. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Thompson, J.J., & Morse, R.J. (1998). An explanation of the U.S. News rankings.
U.S. New and World Report. America's Best Colleges edition, 1998. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. News and World Report, Inc.
Wood. K. (1974). Class size and student evaluations of faculty. Journal o f
Higher Education, 45(7), 524-534.
Zemsky, R., Massy, W.F., & OedeL P. (1993). On reversing the ratchet.
Change, 25(3), 56-63.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
U niversity o f Phoenix
Student End-Of-Course Survey'
if* . - • :
jgOCIAL SECURITY NO.
- -
Course Location:
O CPE/Corporate Ed. O Continuing Ed.
O CD E/D irected Study O UOP Classroom
O N on-U O P Classroom (hotel, corporation)
(Optional)
Class Level: O Undergraduate O Graduate
Gender: O Female O Male
UOP Course(s) Taken: O 1st O 2-3 O 4-12 O 13+
Please respond to the following statemcnt(s) by selecting the response that most closely reflects your experience in this course.
D IRECTED STUDV STUDENTS - Do N O T com plete sections III. F A C IL IT IE S o r V III. STU D Y GROUPS.
A LL students com plete sections II. U N IV ER SITY SER V IC ES. IV. A L L O C A T IO N . V. LEA R N IN G RESOURCES. VI.
CURRICULUM and VII. O V E R A L L ED U CA TIO N A L EFFECTIV EN ESS.
I. FIR ST TIM E STUDENTS O N L Y :
Strongly
Agree Agree
No
Opinion
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
1 received quality information tram m y Enrollment Representative.
O O O O o 1
1 received ttmclv information trom m y Enrollment Representative.
O O O O o
|1 received quality assistance from m y Academic Counselor.
O O O O o I
1 received timely assistance trom my Academic Counselor.
O O O O o
( 1 received quality assistance trom m y Financial Aid Advisor.
O O o O o I
1 received timely assistance trom my Financial Aid Advisor.
O O o O o
(Administration and staff at my campus are helpful.
O O o O o I
II. UNIVERSITY SERVICES: Please rate the overall quality o f administrative
and student support services during this course. Excellent
Above
Average
Below
Averaee Averaec Poor
(Timeliness o f administrative, staff and support services. O O O O o I
Oualitv ol administrative. statfand support services. O O O O o
[Timeliness of receiving financial aid information. O o O O o I
Quality of the financial aid information received. O o O O o
(Timeliness o f receiving information from m y academic counselor/advisor. o o O o o I
Qualitv o f the information received from mv academic counselor/advisor. o o O o o
(Timeliness o f receiving book and curriculum materials.
o o O o O 1
Quality o f service received from the bookstore.
o o O o o
III. FA CILITIES: Please rate the overall quality o f the University's classroom Strongly No Strongly
facilities. Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree
Classroom had appropriate equipment (audio v isual. dry markers. TV s. VCR’ s,
computers) in working order
O O O O o
Chairs and tables were set up appropriately
O O O O o
Classroom location was appropriate (hotel, room changes, distance to travel)
O O O O O
Class size was appropriate tnumber ol students)
O O O o o
Classroom environment was appropriate (air conditioning, heating, lighting,
ventilation, noise)
O O O o o
Parking was adequate (enough room, close to class) O O O O O
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
VIII. STUDY G R O U PS: If you participated tn a study group, please rate the contribution o f the study group and
other students to your learning experience in this course. Strongly No Strongly
___________________________________________________________________________________ Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree
M y study group functioned effectively as a team in completing assignments. O O O O o
My classmates' knowledge and experience cuntnbuted to my learning. O O O O O
(Study group assignm ents and projects contributed to course obtectives.
o o O O o
My study group was a valuable pan o f the course. o o O O o
Do you plan to continue w ith the next class of your academ ic p ro g ram ? O Yes O No
If no. whv not?
Do you plan to change acaaemic programs? O Yc> O \ o
If vcs. whv?
U N D E R G R A D U A T E S O N L Y : D o you plan to enroll in g rad u ate sc h o o l? O Y es O No
W ould vou like to re c e iv e ad d itio n al inform ation on o th e r co u rses a n d acad e m ic p ro g ram s? O Y es O N o 1
If ves. w hat w ould v o u like to receive?
If vou are a C o n tin u in g E d u catio n student, w hat o th e r co u rse s w o u ld v o u like to see o ffered in a w cek cn d form at?
COMMENT SECTION: (Please put comments about your instructor on the Faculty Evaluation)
M v m ost p o sitiv e e x p e rie n c e tn this course w as:
Suggest o n e th in g th a t you b eliev e w ould im prove this co u rse:
jHave vou m ad e this c o m m en t befo re? O Y es O No
Have you asked for a personal response to an issue on past surveys? O Yes O No
If yes, did you receive a response? O Yes O No
If you need a personal response to a particular issue, please identify the issue here and provide your name, address
and telephone number, with area code.
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IV'. ALLOCATION: Please indicate the approximate amount o f time you spent each week in each o f the follow me acm mes
Less than
1 hour
1-3
hours
4-10
hours
11-16
hours
In
hours N A
individual readme and study O O O O O o
Online at UOP's Elcctomic Library Resources I W orld-W ide Web) O O O O O o
(Library and other research activities O O O O O o
Study group activity O O O O O o
|l interacted with my instructor:
O O O o O o
My class met to r O O o o O o
V. LEA R N IN G RESOURCES: Please rate the overall quality o f the University's Online Collection (c
1-5
Never tim ctsl
dectronic
6-10
limes
library!.
1 1-16
nines
1*-
i ones
|Pnor to this course, how oticn did vou use th e o n lin e collection'.’ O o O O O
D uring th is course, how o ttcn d id you use th e o n lin e co llectio n ? O o O O O
Excellent
A bove
A verage Average
Below
Average Poor
(Rate the quantity of the online resources
O O O O O I
Rate the quality of the online resources
O O O O o
p id the Learning Resources staff m eet your needs ’ O Yes O No O N A I
(Would you like to know more about the Online Collection (httpg/library.uophx.cdu).’ O Y e s O N o |
Strongly No
Agree A gree Opinion Disagree
VI. CU R RICU LU M Please rale ihe effectiveness o f the curriculum materials and activues lhat contributed to vour leammu
Strongly
Disagree
|Coursc objectives were clearly staled.
O O O O o I
Textbook maienals was a valuable resource.
O O O O o
(Individual assignments w ere well-chosen and appropriate lor course.
O o O O o |
Sufficient amount ol nmc was allocated to leam ine course eonteni.
O o O O o
(Amount o f homework was appropriate.
O o O O O I
Computer software was effectively utilized. O o O O o
Strongly No
Agree A gree Opinion Disagree
VII. O V ER A LL EDUCATION AL E FF E C T IV E N E SS Please rale whether or not this course m et vour education needs
Strongly
Disagree
[ I achieved the learning objectives stated in the course module.
O o O o o |
Course contributed practical knowledge 1 can use in niv current work.
O o O o o
|Course contributed theoretical understanding o f key concepts.
O o O o O |
Course strengthened my ermcal thinking skills
o o O o o
|Course helped improve my writing skills.
o o O o o |
interacting with other students was protcssionallv rewarding.
o o O o o
(Course met or exceeded my expectations
o o O o o |
Course improved my computer skills.
o o O o o
Based on yo u r experience in this p a rtic u la r class, w ould you recom m end L O P to o th e r w o rk in g ad u lts? O Yes O No
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Course / Group Name Instructor's Last Name
FACULTY EVALUATION
THIS SECTION IS CONFIDENTIAL
The comments on this page will not be matched to your previous comments. Your instructor will not sec these comments alone, as they will
be aggregated with other student com m ents.
Please rate your instructor's contribution to your learning expenence in this course. D irected S tudy Students - please m ark "No O pinion"
fo r any statem ent th at doesn't app ly to you.
Strongly No Strongly
Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree
Instructor demonstrated knowledge, expertise and professional expenence in
subject. O o o o o
Instructor’s presentation of course subteci m atter contnbutcd to course objectives. o o o o o
Instructor provided a syllabus o r agenda that detailed the course objectives, topics
and assignments. o o o o o
Instructor presented the cutnculum at an appropriate pace. o o o o o
Instructor was well-organized and m anaged the course effectively. o o o o o j
Instructor effectively facilitated classroom learning activities. o o o o o
Instructor stimulated me to explore subject matter further. o o o o O 1
Instructor adequately explained the value o f the study group. o o o o o
Instructor helped me develop my cnncal thinking and decision-making skills. o o o o o I
Instructor provided timely feedback on assignments. o o o o o
Instructor provided clear cntcna ior evaluating and grading assignments. o o o o o |
Instructor wxs available to answer questions. o o o o o
Instructor exhibited a professional relationship with students. o o o o o I
Classroom discussions contnbutcd to meeting course objectives. o o o o o
I would recommend this instructor to other students. o o o o o |
Comments about Faculty onlv:
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (Q A -3 )
/ -
✓
/,
150mm
A P P L IE D A IIVMGE . Inc
— — 1653 East Main Street
- ■ - Rochester, NV 14609 USA
. = = ” = Phone: 716/482-0300
-= = T L E E E Fax: 716/288-5989
0 1993. Applied Image, Inc.. All Rights Reserved
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A descriptive study of the educational practices in adult Sunday School classes in the Syracuse area

PDF

A comparison of the perceptions of senior and junior enlisted Air Force personnel concerning deterrents to enrollment in and completion of adult education courses by junior personnel

PDF

A comparison of analogical and quantitative methods for teaching mechanical functions in science education

PDF

Assessment of the quality of institutes of higher education: Correlational analysis of U.S. News and World Report's university and college rankings and institution size, age, selectivity, graduat...

PDF

Instructor Personality, Course Type, And Teaching Effectiveness In Higher Education

PDF

An evaluation of the pacific air forces transition assistance management program in relation to subsequent adjustment to civilian life and job attainment

PDF

Cognitive and non-cognitive factors as predictors of retention among academically at-risk college students: A structural equation modelling approach

PDF

Critical thinking cognitive abilities and the analytical section of the educational testing service Graduate Record Examinations(R) General Test: A conceptual study in content validity

PDF

A structural model of problem-solving ability, self-efficacy, effort, worry, and achievement in calculus

PDF

Faculty perception of stress in a non-profit business and technology college

PDF

A structural model of self-efficacy, goal orientation, worry, self-regulated learning, and high-stakes mathematics achievement

PDF

A survey of attitudes of California university band conductors toward a synthesis of music disciplines within the university wind band rehearsal

PDF

An Evaluation Of An Algebra Placement Procedure Consisting Of Reinforcement Examples and Measures Of Mathematics Anxiety and Locus Of Control.

PDF

Application of the graded response model to the revised Tennessee Self-Concept Scale: Unidimensionality, parameter invariance, and differential item functioning

PDF

An examination of U.S. Army Aviation Warrant Officers' personality and promotability

PDF

Intonation Accuracy In The Singing Of Elementary School Children

PDF

An evaluation of an Air Force formal mentoring program

PDF

A study of Chinese-Malaysian students' choices to attend a private college, American university transfer program

PDF

An investigation of the current practices and problems associated with recruiting, teaching, and retaining Hispanic students in selected middle school band programs in Southern California

PDF

Closing the achievement gap through the implementation of a Vh -1 electronic keyboard lab: A retrospective case study of a California elementary school

Asset Metadata

Creator DeFusco, Mark Bernard (author)

Core Title An exploration of the relationship between class size and students' ratings of teaching quality at the University of Phoenix: Do adult students make a difference?

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, administration,education, adult and continuing,education, educational psychology,Education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Michael, William B. (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member), Zorn, Jay (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-589543

Unique identifier UC11354610

Identifier 9933804.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-589543 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9933804.pdf

Dmrecord 589543

Document Type Dissertation

Rights DeFusco, Mark Bernard

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA