This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]

On: 19 November 2014, At: 20:41

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Higher Education Policy and

Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhe20

Does size matter? The impact of

student–staff ratios
a
Gael McDonald
a
Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin University, Burwood,
Australia
Published online: 14 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Gael McDonald (2013) Does size matter? The impact of student–staff
ratios, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35:6, 652-667, DOI:
10.1080/1360080X.2013.844668

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2013.844668

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2013
Vol. 35, No. 6, 652–667, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2013.844668

Does size matter? The impact of student–staff ratios

Gael McDonald*

Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia

Student–staff ratios (SSRs) in higher education have a significant impact on teaching

and learning and critical financial implications for organisations. While SSRs are often
used as a currency for quality both externally for political reasons and internally within
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

universities for resource allocations, there is a considerable amount of ambiguity over

the actual impact of SSRs and whether a low SSR is reflective of better education out-
comes. To provide insight into the importance of SSRs, this article reviews the existing
literature looking at both an Australian and international context. It explores the impact
of SSRs from three perspectives: (1) learning outcomes; (2) staff workloads and well-
being; and (3) organisation reputation and funding. This article concludes by proposing
a range of recommendations to improve SSRs in the tertiary education sector.
Keywords: class size; organisation reputation; staff workload; student learning;
student–staff ratios

Introduction
In the current climate of higher education, institutions face increasing financial pressure
to gain productivity improvements through raised student–staff ratios (SSRs). Added to
the financial rationale to raise SSRs is the fact that they are largely seen as a proxy for
quality, and organisations tend to work intuitively towards lower SSRs. Although used
extensively for their reputational value and often as an organisational measure in accred-
itation by professional bodies and international rankings, SSRs are a slippery construct.
As this discussion will indicate, they do not necessarily correlate with negative outcomes
in relation to students and staff. Moreover, the calculations of SSRs are easily manipulated.
The literature surrounding SSRs reflects this inherent ambiguity as arguments vary con-
siderably about their overall impact. On one side are those who insist large classes do
not allow lecturers to give individual attention to students, which is the cause of decreas-
ing student achievement, satisfaction and numbers of re-enrolments in higher education
(Cuseo, 2007; Davern, Davies, & Loi, 2006; Dillon, Kokkelenberg, & Christy, 2002).
Taking another perspective are those who claim that large classes are economically advanta-
geous and that there is no research-based evidence to prove that large classes are detrimental
to student learning or educational outcomes (Maxwell & Lopus, 1994). This spectrum
of opposing views ensures that there is still considerable opacity surrounding the overall
impact of SSRs, suggesting that further investigation is required.
This article will canvass the extant literature and explore the impact of SSRs from three
perspectives: student learning outcomes, staff workloads and well-being, and organisation
reputation and funding. Acknowledging that SSRs are very vulnerable to manipulation,

*Email: dean-bl@deakin.edu.au

© 2013 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Education Leadership and
Management
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 653

particularly in how they are actually calculated, it aims to discuss and determine what con-
stitutes an appropriate SSR and to propose a range of recommendations to help deliver
improvements to SSRs in the tertiary education sector. Before examining the funding
and related issues to deliver improvements, it will discuss the background from both an
international and national perspective to contextualise the current discussion.

The international context

The steady increase in demand for tertiary education and the corresponding decline in gov-
ernment funding have, according to Davern et al. (2006), ‘naturally translated into larger
class sizes’. These pressures are widespread, affecting higher education institutions in the
United Kingdom (Gibbs, Lucas, & Simonite, 1996), the United States (Maxwell & Lopus,
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

1994), Europe (Fortes & Tchantchane, 2010; Gibbs & Jenkins, 1992), Canada (King Head,
2011), the United Arab Emirates (Fortes & Tchantchane, 2010) and Australia (Davern et al.,
2006). From the mid-1990s American universities were realising that ‘large classes are
here to stay’ (Crull & Collins, 2004, p. 206). Since that time, higher education institutions
around the world have come to the same realisation as large classes, ranging from 300 to
1000 students, become increasingly common in universities, particularly in first-year foun-
dation subjects (Fortes & Tchantchane, 2010; Gibbs & Jenkins, 1992). While class size
and SSRs are two separate ‘key performance indicators’, there is no question the two are
positively correlated.
While many see the increase in class size as problematic, interesting findings have
emerged from Asia to counter this. Despite very large class sizes in primary, secondary
and tertiary education, countries like China, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan, outper-
form other countries in the world (Biggs, 1998). China is a prime example of this. Rather
than concentrating on class size, it is a country which prioritises teaching quality, and this
approach is proving immensely successful with China among the top leaders on the world’s
education league tables (OECD, 2012). Some critics see China’s approach to teaching and
managing large classes as ‘a way forward’ for the rest of the world (Ferrari, 2012). While
SSRs are obviously a key component of student success, there are undoubtedly lessons
to be learned from countries in Asia outperforming western countries, despite their large
classes.
Not surprisingly, the deterioration of SSRs on the international scale has seen more
researchers addressing the question of the impact of large class sizes on students, faculties,
universities and teaching and learning in general (Borden & Burton, 1999; Cheng, 2011;
Davern et al., 2006; Drago & Peltier, 2004; Hancock, 1996; Kennedy & Siegfried, 1997;
Mandel & Sussmuth, 2011; Mulryan-Kyne, 2010; Noble, 2000; Raimondo, Esposito, &
Gershenberg, 1990; Russell & Curtis, 2012). To understand the impact of SSRs, this arti-
cle will now provide a brief overview of how they are playing out at a national level in
Australia.

The Australian context

Looking at the Australian context, staff numbers are said to be growing at a noticeably
lower rate than student numbers, invariably resulting in increases to SSRs (Coates &
Goedegebuure, 2010). While SSRs in Australia have apparently stabilised over the last
decade, Coates and Goedegebuure (2010) claim these changes are ‘serious’ in that they
create a challenging environment in which institutions and academics must operate. The
recent Bradley Review of higher education in Australia was emphatic in its pronouncement
that SSRs were jeopardising teaching and learning and needed to be reduced:
 654 G. McDonald

. . . student–staff ratios in Australian universities have reached a point where the student expe-
rience is being threatened. This situation cannot continue without jeopardising the quality of
the teaching, and the programs and learning support provided to students. Student-to-staff
ratios will therefore need to be reduced as a matter of priority. (Bradley et al., 2008, p. 71)

Within Australia, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

measures SSRs in its Institutional Assessment Framework (IAF). The IAF data after
1990 show the large increases in SSRs experienced in universities associated with the tran-
sition to a much larger higher education system. The ratio rose sharply between 1996 and
2001 and has continued to rise since. The mix of staff contributing to the ratio has also
changed in the time series, and there are now relatively fewer full-time staff compared to
casual/sessional staff involved in teaching or in the delivery of courses (Maslsen, 2010).
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

Referring to this trend, Bradley et al. (2008) concluded that there is a limit to how far
improving productivity performance by increasing SSRs can go without damaging student
outcomes. In submissions to the Review from student groups, a very significant number
reported negatively on aspects of the student experience, including many who complained
that class sizes were too large in their university.
Twenty years ago, Australia was one of the first countries to restructure to enable wider
participation in higher education. The results of those changes made it a leader internation-
ally in the movement from elite to mass systems. With the increase in numbers has come
much greater diversity in the student body, and, as Bradley et al. (2008) suggest, the conse-
quences are evident. They conclude that there are clear signs the quality of the educational
experience is declining; the established mechanisms for assuring quality nationally need
updating; and student-to-staff ratios are unacceptably high (Bradley et al., 2008). While
intuitively one would suspect that high SSRs would have detrimental effects, is that in fact
the reality?

Prior literature
Despite the apparent importance of SSRs to teaching and learning, and the financial impli-
cations to organisations, the literature on the topic is not as plentiful as one would have
anticipated. Much of the literature has tended to concentrate on the primary and sec-
ondary school setting; however, this trend is changing and more research is emerging, which
explores the issue in relation to higher education. The literature can be broadly delineated
into four key themes: (1) hortatory comment (i.e., generalised concern about the creep in
SSRs); (2) descriptive material (arguably an unintended consequence of the transparency
of the Internet where a large number of organisations list in full detail, internal documen-
tation on their current or planned SSRs); (3) prescriptive recommendations (suggestions
as to what SSRs should be from a discipline perspective); and (4) analytic evidence (lit-
erature that supports or rejects whether SSRs have an impact on student learning, student
satisfaction, staff morale or any other impact measures). Drawing on the literature enables
us to explore the impact of SSRs with a specific examination of learning outcomes, staff
workloads, organisational reputation and funding.

The impact of SSRs on student learning outcomes

Cognitive student achievement
In most organisations, people have passionate personal views about SSRs and the impact
on learning. However, it is appropriate to look first at the evidence and controversy over
the effects of class size on student achievement (Williams, Cook, Quinn, & Jensen, 1985).
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 655

For the most part, researchers thus far have linked reduced class sizes to positive effects
on student achievement (Biddle & Berliner, 2002; Finn & Achilles, 1999; Glass & Smith,
1979; Grissmer, 1999), particularly in the early primary grades and for those who come
from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds (Nye, Hedges, & Konstantopoulos, 2004;
Pate-Bain et all., 1992; Smith, Molnar, & Zahorik, 2003). Glass and Smith (1979) reported
research that they argue lays to rest many of the arguments surrounding class size. Using
a technique called meta-analysis to combine statistically the findings of 77 studies (repre-
senting data on nearly 900,000 students), they concluded: ‘A clear and strong relationship
between class size and achievement has emerged . . . There is little doubt that . . . more is
learned in smaller classes’ (Glass & Smith, 1979, p. 15). Glass and Smith (1979) explained:
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

Class size affects the quality of the classroom environment. In a smaller class, there are more
opportunities to adapt learning programs to the needs of the individual. Chances are good
that the climate is friendlier and more conducive to learning. Students are more directly and
personally involved in learning . . . class size affects pupils’ attitudes . . . In smaller classes,
pupils have more interest in learning . . . there seems to be less apathy, friction, and frustration.
Class size affects teachers. In smaller classes, their morale is better; they like their pupils better;
have time to plan, and are more satisfied with their performance. (p. 46)

Similarly, Kokkelenberg, Dillon, and Christy (2008) looked at 760,000 undergraduate

observations to determine whether large classes affected student grades in a university,
concluding that grades are negatively affected.
Up until recently, the research has tended to use secondary students as the unit of anal-
ysis, and relatively few studies with class sizes larger than about 40 or with university-age
populations were undertaken before 1980 (Glass & Smith, 1979). This is changing, how-
ever, in that more papers are emerging, which explore the issue in relation to the higher
education context (Cheng, 2011; Davern et al., 2006; Drago & Peltier, 2004; Mandel &
Sussmuth, 2011; Noble, 2000; Russell & Curtis, 2012).
In relation to the higher education sector, Bradley et al. (2008) report that there is evi-
dence from the United States that increasing class sizes have a negative impact on student
learning outcomes. Kokkelenberg et al. (2008) found that average grade points declined as
class size increased ‘precipitously up to class sizes of 20, and gradually but monotonically
through larger class sizes’ (p. 2). More recently, Mandel and Sussmuth (2011) provided
‘confirmatory evidence’ of the ‘negative impact’ of large classes, concluding that size does
indeed ‘matter’ (p. 1073).
This discussion has been ensuing for some time as historical studies indicate. Cheydleur
(1945) cited research done at the University of Wisconsin between 1919 and 1943 on hun-
dreds of French classes ranging in size from 9 to 33. Cheydleur reported the consistent
superiority on objective-test results of students in small classes. Mueller (1924) found better
performance in an elementary psychology class of 20 students than in one of 40. Nachman
and Opochinsky (1958) found that students in a small class did better than those in a larger
one on surprise quizzes, but not on final exams, for which there was better student prepa-
ration. After studying 85 studies completed between 1903 and 1959, based on his research,
Simmons (1959) concluded that the University of Wichita’s course in intermediate alge-
bra should be taught in small discussion classes. However, Simmons carefully limited his
conclusions to a specific subject area.
However, there are contrasting views. McKeachie (1980) reported that the Edmonson
and Mulder (1924) research at Michigan encouraged the Committee of Research of the
University of Minnesota to begin a classic series of studies of class size. In 59 experiments
 656 G. McDonald

that involved such widely varying subjects as psychology, physics, accounting, law and
education, it was found that 46 favoured the large class.
Shane (1961) concluded that, using academic achievement as a criterion, there were
no differences between large and small classes in 32 studies, and that large classes were
more effective in 18 studies, and that small classes were more effective in 35 studies.
Addressing the question ‘does class size affect achievement in introductory economics?’
Kennedy and Siegfried (1997) used a national economic education database to consolidate
the data so that each observation represented a single class rather than a single student.
Intriguingly, they found that class size does not affect student achievement and, further,
that class characteristics over which instructors or department chairs have control also do
not influence achievement. The Clearinghouse on Educational Management (1978) sum-
marized the research findings available on class size while questioning the quality of the
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

available research, indicating that the main studies of the past 75 years show little relation-
ship between class size and achievement. Some studies favour small classes, some large
and others find no difference. They do observe that the general inconsistency, however,
need not disprove some relationship, since the research collectively has been too poor to be
of much help.
Also contributing to the ‘size doesn’t matter’ argument, advocates such as Dubin and
Taveggia (1968) concluded in their literature review that there is no measureable differ-
ence in college student achievement when class size is varied. Milton (1972) stated, ‘such
variables as class size, frequency of class meetings and manner of preservation, when con-
sidered in isolation, have been demonstrated to wield no major impact upon learning as
measured by the usual tests’ (p. 23). Laughlin (1976) concluded from his literature review
that ‘at this time research data does not substantiate that differing class sizes make a dif-
ference in student cognitive growth. Therefore, any rationale or justification for a certain
class size relationship should be based upon a social basis (rhetoric or reputation), a safety
criterion or variables other than cognitive learning’ (Laughlin, 1976, p. 345).
By analysing a university’s testing-centre data-archives representing 16,230 test scores
in 24 different courses (note different lecturers), Williams et al. (1985) revealed that at the
university level, class size may be less important an influence on student achievement than
some educators have previously thought. The pre-1990 research argues that increasing class
size from levels of 30 to 40 or more up to several hundred may not radically affect college
student achievement. Related research (Feldman, 1978, 1984; Laughlin, 1976) suggests
that the trends found by Smith and Glass (1979) regarding student and teacher attitudes
hold at the college level as well. In a nutshell, the conclusions are that university students
and teachers prefer smaller classes even though students perform as well academically in
larger ones. This may be because students at university assume more responsibility for their
learning by using self-study methods, a factor that could impact on class-size achievement-
results.
Further refining the discussion, it is also possible that class size has little or no impact on
lower-level educational outcomes, such as recall of facts; but an impact of class size might
be found on higher-level outcomes, such as the development of thinking and problem-
solving skills and motivation. For example, while Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) found
that class size had no direct bearing on student achievement (in relation to the acquisition
of content and skills), class size affects the level of students’ motivation, attitudes and
higher level thinking; a view supported in the literature (Litke, 1995; McKeachie, 1990;
Milner, 1992) and, therefore, worthy of further investigation.
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 657

Non-cognitive student achievements

The literature appears to be more conclusive on non-cognitive variables of student achieve-
ment such as self-esteem and attitudes toward learning and instruction (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991; Smith & Glass, 1979). Macomber and Siegel (1957) broadened their def-
inition of achievement to study measures of critical thinking and problem-solving as well
as performance on conventional achievement tests. They found statistically significant dif-
ferences favouring smaller classes in changing students’ perceptions about psychology and
in problem-solving in a marketing course. A 2-year follow-up showed no significant differ-
ence in the achievement of students in large versus small classes (McKeachie, Iran-Nejad,
& Berliner, 1990). Smith and Glass (1979) also noted that smaller class sizes were sig-
nificant to success in ‘courses geared toward promoting critical thinking and advanced
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

problem-solving’.
In contrast, McKeachie (1978) found that large lectures are not generally inferior to
smaller lecture classes when traditional achievement tests are used as a criterion. When
other objectives are measured, large lectures are on shakier ground. Goals of higher level
thinking, application, motivation and attitudinal change are most likely to be achieved in
small classes. Moreover, both students and faculty members feel that teaching is more effec-
tive in small classes. Recent studies have canvassed the many ways in which large classes
impact negatively on higher level outcomes, as well as the overall university experience
for students (Mixon & Hsing, 1994) and the student–staff relationship (Brown, 1994). The
research has also expounded on large classes as a significant hindrance to those who enter
higher education ill-prepared or who are educationally disadvantaged (Borden & Burton,
1999; Toth & Montagna, 2002).
The research into the impact of increased class sizes on the learning experience of stu-
dents suggests that the quality of teaching and assessment provided are more important than
class size. It is argued that large classes do not of themselves cause a less satisfying stu-
dent experience. Nevertheless, increasing class sizes inevitably engender further problems
because they increase the complexity of teaching. This is because a corollary of increased
student numbers is the increased diversity of the student cohort and the resulting increased
complexity of teaching them. Academics have to deal with a more diverse population of stu-
dents, have more problems communicating with other members of staff as well as students,
suffer under a greater administrative burden, as well as face more difficulties in promoting
active participation and monitoring student progress.

Assessment
Large classes in courses which aim to improve students’ skills in research and analysis
invariably burden academics with unmanageable marking loads and may tilt assessment
tasks towards exams rather than more collaborative forms of assessment. A literature review
conducted by the Australian University Teaching Commission (AUTC) (2001) found:

Valid assessment of student learning is also problematised in large classes, especially because
classes have increased in size at the same time as pressures have mounted for a change in
the focus of assessment. Interpersonal and applied skills, such as communication, negotiation,
linking theory and practice, lateral thinking and meta-cognition, which are increasingly valued
by government and industry, are more difficult to incorporate into the learning activities in
large classes. Higher student–teacher ratios inevitably make it more difficult for academics to
personalise lectures, maintain students’ attention, facilitate collaboration between students or
even to assess such processes. (p. 3)
 658 G. McDonald

Student evaluations of teachers

A presumed factor affecting student ratings is class size, but there is little evidence of this
in the literature. In a somewhat general finding, positive outcomes on student and teacher
attitudes have been found in the context of smaller classes (Smith & Glass, 1980; Zahorik
et al., 2003). In relation to student evaluations, Cashin (1992) argued that, taken alone, class
size was not a serious source of bias in student evaluations. Centra (1993) also concluded
that rating differences due to class size had little practical significance. Pan et al. (2009)
also counter the commonly held assumption that class sizes are related to low student eval-
uations, with their finding that high student ratings are not dependent on small class size
and ‘dumbing down’ of courses and the consequent expectation of high grades. Their find-
ings indicate that students value teaching quality more than teacher characteristics (Pan
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

et al., 2009).

Retention, attrition and engagement

Scott (2008) claims there is a strong link between student retention and success and the
extent to which they are engaged with their fellow learners and teachers during their studies.
Factors influencing the extent of engagement include ‘the social climate established on
campus, the academic, social and financial support provided by the institution, student in-
class and out-of-class involvement with campus life and frequent feedback provided to
students and staff about their performance’ (Scott, 2008, p. 32). All of these factors are
made more difficult in large classes.
Bradley et al. (2008) similarly expressed concern with the link between SSRs and
student engagement: ‘Student representative bodies identified accessibility to staff as an
important factor in students’ learning experience. Submissions suggested that increasing
student–staff ratios have led to increased class sizes and staff being less accessible to stu-
dents outside contact hours’ (Bradley et al., 2008, p. 211). A study by Radloff and Coates
(2010) found worrying trends and deficiencies in students’ interaction with staff – one of
the key factors of quality education. Bradley et al. (2008) noted, ‘Access to staff was a
matter of particular concern for distance and Indigenous students’ (p. 211). Studies have
certainly shown that students who enter higher education from educationally disadvantaged
backgrounds may struggle in large classes (Borden & Burton, 1999). Needless to say, stu-
dent disengagement often leads to a lack of re-enrolments, and the research suggests that
enrolment rates are being negatively impacted by increasing class sizes (Borden & Burton,
1999; Toth & Montagna, 2002).

Student satisfaction
Bradley et al. (2008) was firmly of the opinion that staff–student ratios are related to student
satisfaction, claiming:

the evidence in relation to the decline in student satisfaction . . . strongly suggests that the
current ratio is too high, and is now having an impact on the quality of the educational experi-
ence provided to students. This points to the need to increase significantly the public funding
quantum for teaching to enable universities to reverse this trend. (p. 50)

Regrettably, however, there is little research evidence to support this view.

 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 659

Impact of SSRs on staff workloads and well-being

Research
In regard to the impact on research, once again, there is a notable paucity of research
and it appears to be largely axiomatic that high SSRs impact on research productivity.
In an effort to gain some objective assessment, the UK Complete University Guide League
Table 2009/2010 provides data on both SSRs and an external measure of research assess-
ment. From the data, a negative relationship does exist in which increases in SSRs clearly
have a diminishing effect on research (also see Boyd & Wylie, 1994). Given that we have
an obligation to teach the students, teaching activities dominate workloads, often leaving
less and less time to devote to research.
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

Staff profiles
Noting the growth in the Australian university sector over the past two decades, Dobson
(2010) has observed the uneven development and disjointed growth of university staffing
since the Dawkins Report, an era of rapid change in higher education when the number of
higher education institutions went from 80 to 39.
In addition to acknowledging that the acceleration in numbers of students has far
exceeded that of staff, he noted that the numbers of staff in casual, administration and
support roles have grown more sharply than those of teaching staff. Given the doubling of
the number of students to be taught, one might have expected a similar increase in the num-
ber of teachers; however, that is not the case. Teaching staff numbers increased by about
one-third overall, but over half of that growth was in casual staff. Brown, Goodman, and
Yasukawa (2008) suggest that the use of casual staff is impacting on the quality of teaching
at Australian universities because of the lack of effective training opportunities, incon-
sistent management and supervision of casual staff, and a lack of integration for casual
academics.

Well-being
Where once higher education institutions were seen to be a stress-free workplace, recent
research suggests times and conditions have changed significantly (Kinman & Jones, 2003;
Willie & Stecklein, 1982). Kinman and Jones (2003) claim that the most significant shift
has been the ‘move towards mass higher education without a corresponding increase in
resources’ (p. 23). This has given way to mounting stress for teachers who feel unable to
devote sufficient time to their growing student cohorts. In their study of academic stress,
Kinman and Jones (2003) found that 52 per cent of academics felt they did not have enough
time to deal with students’ problems. These staff attributed their lack of time to large stu-
dent numbers. One staff member commented, ‘Student numbers are now so high that it is
impossible to give them the individual attention they need’, while another stated, ‘I used
to know all of my students, now I barely get time to have a one-to-one with 20 per cent
of them. I feel I am letting them down. They deserve more . . . and this makes me feel
even more stressed’ (Kinman & Jones, 2003, p. 28). Rolfe (2002) similarly found that the
expanding number of students in higher education has had an adverse effect on university
lecturers.
This strain on academic staff members can undermine the quality of their experience
and job satisfaction. In a study of occupational stress in 15 Australian universities, Gillespie
et al. (2001) reported on the first phase of a longitudinal investigation of occupational stress.
 660 G. McDonald

A total of 22 focus groups were conducted with a representative sample of 178 academic
and general staff. Staff reported a dramatic increase in their stress levels, with academic
staff reporting higher levels of stress than general staff. Work overload was indicated as
one of the five major sources of stress.
Gillespie et al. (2001) propose several common factors contributing to the rise in work-
load, including declining staff numbers; increasing student numbers; the changing nature
of students; the introduction of new technologies and unrealistic deadlines. Staff reported
that the decline in staff numbers resulted in a loss of skills and knowledge and an increased
workload for the remaining staff (Gillespie et al., 2001).
In a study of New Zealand universities, Boyd and Wylie (1994) reported that increas-
ing workloads and work-related stress resulted in less academic time spent on research,
publishing and professional development; decreasing teaching and research standards and
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

increasing interpersonal conflict in academic staff relationships. They further report that
stress negatively impacted on the physical and emotional health, family relationships and
leisure activities of both general and academic staff. More recently, Watts and Robertson
(2011) argued that stress can impair both personal and professional competence and impact
negatively on productivity. They argue that exposure to high numbers of students may lead
to staff burnout (Watts & Robertson, 2011). Gillespie et al. (2001) also claim, ‘high levels
of occupational stress, left unchecked and unmanaged, undermine the quality, productiv-
ity and creativity of employees’ work, in addition to employees’ health, well-being, and
morale’ (p. 54).

Impact of SSRs on organisations’ reputation and funding

While quality is seen as a ‘market appealing symbol’, the growth of student numbers con-
tinues to increase as a way to enhance revenue streams (Parker, 2010, p. 19). Within higher
education institutions around the world, funding cuts are prompting budgetary constraints,
which have created ‘a climate of cost containment, within which larger class sizes may
be seen as an alluringly quick and convenient cost-cutting strategy’ (Cuseo, 2007, p. 5).
The benefits of high SSRs, according to McLeod (1998) and Carpenter (2006), lie in
decreased costs for instructors, more efficient use of teachers, efficient use of resources
and greater standardisation of the learning experience. However, high SSRs inevitably have
implications for an organisation’s reputation and funding.
Chapman and Ludlow (2010) articulate the inherent difficulty facing university admin-
istrators as they struggle to balance ‘rising education costs, potentially through larger
classes, against their academic reputation through small student-to-faculty ratios’ (p. 106).
Many theorists have explored the issue looking at class size economies of scale (see Toth &
Montagna, 2002). Kokkelenberg et al. (2008) suggest that there are diseconomies of scale
in terms of the purported deterioration of student outcomes, which is said to occur as class
sizes increase, and problematically, quantifying the cost of this deterioration is no easy task.
They maintain that ‘any consideration of economies of scale must consider the scale effects
of the quality of outputs. Schools that seek to reduce costs by increasing class sizes may
need to take steps to train faculty or otherwise rectify poorer student outcomes and other
diseconomies of scale’ (Kokkelenberg et al., 2008, p. 222).
Looking at the issue of deteriorating SSRs in accounting schools, Parker (2010) argues
that while increasing student numbers generates revenue, the question has to be asked:
‘Where does that leave accounting?’ (p. 19). Parker’s (2010) question is a timely and
important one considering the impact of SSRs on quality of education and the reputation of
institutions. Chapman and Ludlow (2010), on the decision facing organisations in relation
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 661

to SSRs, surmise that: ‘From an institutional perspective it would be prudent to examine

class size options and weigh whether the cost-cutting solutions that larger classes provide
are worth the trade-off of potentially decreasing student learning’ (p. 120).

Quality audits
One of the major trends occurring in higher education institutions around the world is qual-
ity audits. The increase in quality audits has been discussed in literature from a wide range
of countries. Shah (2012) explored audits in the Australian higher education sector, while
Cheng (2011) canvassed the issue of ‘audit cultures’ in academic institutions in the United
Kingdom. Pitiyanuwat (2011) looked at quality assurance in South East Asian higher edu-
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

cation institutions, while Westerheijden (2005) discussed quality audits in Europe. Other
countries whose institutions are experiencing quality audits include Lithuania (Dienys,
Pukelis, & Ziliukas, 2005), New Zealand, South Africa and Norway, to name a few. With the
shift towards systematic quality audits in higher education institutions in many countries,
SSR levels are increasingly being looked at in terms of their effectiveness and potential
vulnerabilities.

External rankings
It is readily acknowledged that universities are measured externally partly by their SSRs,
which contribute to their reputation, as well as by their learning outcomes. The compar-
ison and ranking of universities around the world have proliferated in recent years as a
result of globalisation and students being more mobile than ever before (Buela-Casal et al.,
2007). Buela-Casal et al. (2007) explain that in the contemporary era, ‘higher education
has become so international that it is no longer enough for universities [to] know their
position in comparison to other universities from their own country. As universities com-
pete in an increasingly global environment, they tend to compare themselves with world
universities’ (Buela-Casal et al., 2007, p. 350). The World University Ranking for exam-
ple, measures SSRs as one of its six chosen indicators (Buela-Casal et al., 2007; Taylor
& Braddock, 2007). As a measure of quality, therefore, SSRs play an important role in
external rankings. SSRs are also indicators in other university league tables across differ-
ent countries, such as the Good Universities Guide in Australia, The Maclean’s Guide to
Canadian Universities in Canada, The Times Good University Guide and The Guardian
University Guide in the United Kingdom, and the the US News & World Report America’s
Best Colleges in the United states (Dill & Soo, 2005). Given the importance placed on
SSRs in determining rankings, universities in Australia not surprisingly do not hesitate to
make their SSRs known. For example, Bond University promotes its SSRs on its website,
claiming that the ‘university has it right when it comes to providing a personalised and
outcomes-driven education’ (www.bond.edu.au).

Internal funding models

With few exceptions (Bellante, 1972; Maxwell & Lopus, 1994), there is little research
surrounding the economic issues and overall cost effectiveness of large classes in higher
education institutions. Davern et al. (2006) claim, ‘Of the studies that do exist, the con-
clusion seems to be that substantial financial gains can be made by increasing class size’
(pp. 5–6). Despite the fact ‘these gains . . . come at a significant cost in terms of loss of
 662 G. McDonald

revenue from subsequent enrolments’ (Davern et al., 2006, pp. 5–6), the decline in gov-
ernment funding combined with an increase in demand for tertiary education ensures large
classes are becoming more frequent. The question facing institutions is what will be the
full cost of addressing SSRs? The responses will undoubtedly vary across institutions and
between faculties. When developing funding models, there are a number of key issues that
need to be raised and that institutions need to be cognisant of:

• Prior lack of commitment to improving SSRs. Given the productivity gains associated
with increased SSRs, the setting of specific targets for deduction is often not a prior-
ity. Institutions might consider working towards university-wide SSR targets. This is
no easy task, however, given that such moves have generally gained little traction in
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

the past.
• The poverty of historicism: the need for accurate internal data. Attaining accurate
internal data is another issue facing higher education institutions. The measuring of
student–staff load numbers and the differing definitions surrounding SSRs, make it
particularly difficult to ascertain.
• The need to align planning and budgeting. There is an acknowledgement that recruit-
ing good quality staff (whether they be academic or general) can take a long time.
Universities need to work towards an approach to planning and budgeting that is
well-aligned and sufficiently flexible to enable Deans to make strategic decisions in
their faculties. Institutions might consider what funding levels are required to allow
Deans to make sufficient and necessary staff appointments in their faculties to gen-
uinely improve SSRs? Faculties work in an undoubtedly uncertain environment and
it is not clear from year to year that a base allocation will cover all existing staffing
and operating costs.
• Funding lags. Often faculties receive increasing numbers of students without cor-
responding and adequate funding for them. Funding is never certain and student
enrolment targets can often be offset by the negative impact of funding lags, which
inevitably inhibit the staff recruitment process, thus ensuring raised SSRs.
• Excessive administrative hurdles associated with staff recruitment and selection.
Beyond funding issues, administrative hurdles can also prove problematic and result
in delays in recruiting and appointing staff.
• Faculties’ ability to recruit and retain quality staff. In a competitive industrial envi-
ronment, there is a scarcity of staff in many disciplines. This situation will be further
exacerbated by the aging of the workforce and future retirements. In the past, the abil-
ity to offer competitive loadings for senior appointments has been problematic. There
is an acknowledgement that a faculty cannot continue to seek to appoint academic
staff without a corresponding increase in its professional staff complement.
• Academic to general staff ratios. Some faculties are able to maintain a consistent
general-to-academic ratio. However, general staff workloads have become excessive
in some areas and there has been an increase in the reliance on casual staff as well as
an increase in delegated workloads.
• Workload model. Institutions may want to consider implementing faculty-wide work-
load allocation models, which may translate to an increase in the numbers of
academic staff required, an increase in research output expectations and a moderation
of teaching workloads.
• Pressure on infrastructure. Attracting new staff can often result in a situation where
institutions are unable to accommodate them. Sufficient teaching and learning spaces
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 663

need to be provided for teaching staff as part of an institution’s infrastructure. This

should also include social spaces for students.
• Dealing with complex cohorts of on- and off-campus students. Across the globe,
the higher education student body is becoming increasingly diverse and continues to
change rapidly. In the Australian context, it is now widely acknowledged that the tra-
ditional image of a student moving straight from secondary schooling into full-time
on-campus study is no longer the norm. Many students study full-time while work-
ing part-time, while others study part-time and hold down a full-time job. Mature
age students are a large and increasing cohort. A significant proportion of students
study off-campus and some may only visit a campus to receive their final award.
In the Australian context, a very substantial proportion of the student body is now
comprised of international students. Australian higher education’s mission includes
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

increasing the proportion of students from low socio-economic backgrounds, indige-

nous students and equity and access for individuals and groups who might not
otherwise enjoy the benefits that flow from participation in higher education. A static
student-to-staff ratio may not be helpful in measuring whether we can adequately
meet the needs of such a changing student body.

Recommendations for consideration

Despite anomalies in the research about the overall impact of SSRs, it appears that low
SSRs are considered a proxy for quality, and considerable effort is undertaken in many
institutions to improve them. To improve SSRs in the tertiary sector, the following are
recommendations for consideration:

1. Determining what is an appropriate SSR. Understanding trends in SSRs is helpful,

but the problem that remains is deciding what constitutes a large class? Clearly, the
answer will differ according to a range of factors, such as the nature of the class
(lecture, tutorial, laboratory work, work placement); pedagogy; and perceptions and
expectations of individual students.
2. Creating a clear organisational commitment to reducing SSRs. Institutions need
to remain focused and committed to the fundamental reasons for reducing SSRs,
namely, to free-up the staff’s time to provide access to staff for students; quality
assessment; superior feedback to students; improved student satisfaction; enhanced
research productivity and improved working environments for staff.
3. Resolving definitional and data accuracy issues. SSRs can be calculated in different
ways depending upon which categories of staff and which students are included.
To adequately address the issue of SSRs, institutions will need to resolve definitional
and data accuracy issues.
4. Refining the discipline approach to SSRs. When it comes to SSRs, there is often not a
single number target; it depends on the different disciplines. For example, disciplines
such as medicine and science have much lower SSRs (down in the teens).
5. Linking of processes and databases. It is hard to separate the funding, enrolments
and the staffing from one another – they are all inter-dependent and, therefore, need
to be linked in both the planning process and in the databases used.
6. Greater flexibility in recruitment and selection. Institutions need to be nimble in
their approach to recruitment and selection. There needs to be more streamlining
of process, removal of administrative hurdles and, where appropriate, invitational
appointments used.
 664 G. McDonald

7. Professional development. As explicated in the research, it is not so much the size

of the class but the quality of the teaching which is important, thus, institutions need
to reflect on strategies, which can assist in the professional development of staff in
order to maximise student engagement in the classroom.

Conclusion
Increasing class sizes is an issue affecting many higher education institutions in the world,
and the spectrum of views surrounding the issue demonstrates its overall significance to
the sector. Based on the findings, it appears that more important than the issue of SSRs and
large classes is the quality of teaching. Research testifies to the fact that student satisfaction
is not entirely dependent on small class sizes, a view particularly popular in the 1970s and
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

late twentieth century (Kokkelenberg et al., 2008). Having said that, recent literature (post-
2000) on the issue is focused heavily on the detrimental impact raised SSRs has on students,
teachers and teaching and learning in general. The Bradley Review of higher education in
Australia was just one ‘voice’ amongst many in the international arena, arguing that raised
SSRs are seriously damaging to students and teachers alike.
There is inevitable tension in educational institutions to seek better use of their
resources and financial improvements through raising SSRs. All the while, however, there is
a perception that SSRs impact negatively on quality. This tension is ever present and would
undoubtedly benefit from further investigation, particularly in regard to the perceptions of
the impacts of increased SSRs. The question that arises, of course, is: should the discus-
sion be about student-to-staff ratios or appropriate staffing levels? The former may give an
illusion of a measurable, solid target that can be used to benchmark/compare the invest-
ment in human resources between faculties or between institutions; however, in reality, the
statistical approach often falls short of this expectation.
This article has canvassed the extant literature to ascertain the broad range of views
relating to the overall impact of SSRs and whether class size really does matter. From
the research surrounding the impact of SSRs on student learning outcomes, staff work-
loads and organisations’ reputations and funding, recommendations have been developed
for higher education institutions to consider in their efforts to improve SSRs in the tertiary
sector. These recommendations are timely given the international productivity pressures to
increase SSRs around the world and the fact that they look as if they are ‘here to stay’.

References
AUTC. (2001). What’s different about large classes: A survey of large class teaching around
Australia. AUTC Project, pp. 1–4. Retrieved from http://www.cadad.edu.au/largeclasses/
Bellante, D. M. (1972). A summary report on student performance in mass lecture classes of
economics. Journal of Economic Education, 4(1), 53–54.
Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). Small class size and its effects. Educational Leadership, 59(5),
12–23.
Biggs, J. (1998). Learning from the Confucian heritage: So size doesn’t matter? International Journal
of Education Research, 29, 723–738.
Borden, V. M. H., & Burton, K. L. (1999). The impact of class size on student performance in
introductory courses. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Conference of the AIR in Seattle, WA.
Boyd, S., & Wylie, C. (1994). Workload and stress in New Zealand universities. Wellington: New
Zealand Council for Educational Research and the Association of University Staff of New
Zealand.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P.,Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education.
Final Report. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Commonwealth
of Australia, Canberra, ACT.
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 665

Brown, B. J. (1994). Making connections with individual learners in large introductory geology
courses. Journal of Geology, 93(3), 132–135.
Brown, T., Goodman, J., & Yasukawa, K. (2008). Casualisation of academic work: Industrial justice
and quality education. Dialogue, 27(1), 17–29.
Buela-Casal, G., Gutierrez-Martinez, O.,Bermudez-Sanchez, M. P., & Vadillo-Munoz, O. (2007).
Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities. Scientometrics, 71(3),
349–365.
Carpenter, J. M. (2006). Effective teaching methods for large classes. Journal of Family and
Consumer Sciences Education, 24(2), 13–23.
Cashin, W. E. (1992). Student ratings: The need for comparative data. Instructional Evaluation and
Faculty Development, 12(2), 1–6.
Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty
effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chapman, L., & Ludlow, L. (2010). Can downsizing college class sizes augment student outcomes?
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

An investigation of the effects of class size on student learning. Journal of General Education,
59(2), 106–123.
Cheng, D. A. (2011). Effects of class size on alternative educational outcomes across disciplines.
Economics of Education Review, 30, 980–990.
Cheydleur, F. D. (1945, August). Criteria of effective teaching in basic French courses. Bulletin of the
University of Wisconsin.
Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (1978, March). What do you know about class size?
NASSP Bulletin, 62, 120–122.
Coates, H., & Goedegebuure, L. (2010). The real academic revolution. Research Briefing. Victoria:
LH Martin Institute, University of Melbourne.
Crull, S. R., & Collins, S. M. (2004). Adapting traditions: Teaching research methods in a large class
setting. Teaching Sociology, 32(2), 206–212.
Cuseo, J. (2007). The empirical case against large class size: Adverse effects on the teaching, learning,
and retention of first-year students. Journal of Faculty Development, 21(1), 5–21.
Davern, M., Davies, M., & Loi, A. (2006). Report on class sizes. Graduate Studies Committee,
University of Melbourne.
Dienys, V., Pukelis, K., & Ziliukas, P. (2005). Institutional assessment of research and studies:
Inevitable feature of a modern state or one more bureaucratic whim in Lithuania? Quality of
Higher Education, 2, 26–51.
Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national
analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49, 495–533.
Dillon, M., Kokkelenberg, E. C., & Christy, S. M. (2002). The effects of class size on student achieve-
ment in Higher Education: Applying an earnings function. Cornell Higher Education Research
Institute (CHERI). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1015&context=cheri
Dobson, I. R. (2010). Uneven development: The disjointed growth of university staffing since
Dawkins. People and Place, 18(1), 31–38.
Drago, W., & Peltier, J. (2004). The effects of class size on effectiveness of online courses.
Management Research News, 27(10), 27–41.
Dubin, R., & Taveggia, T. C. (1968). The teaching-learning paradox. Eugene: Center for the
Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon.
Edmonson, J. B., & Mulder, F. J. (1924, January). Size of class as a factor in university instruction.
Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 1–12.
Feldman, K. A. (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. A. (1984). Class size and college students’ evaluations of teachers and courses: A closer
look. Research in Higher Education, 21(1), 45–91.
Ferrari, J. (2012, February 17). Lessons from Asia show way forward for schools. The
Australian. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/lessons-
from-asia-show-way-forward-for-schools/story-fn59nlz9-1226273274269
Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee’s class size study, findings, implications, misconcep-
tions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97–110.
Fortes, P. C., & Tchantchane, A. (2010). Dealing with large classes: A real challenge. Procedia Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 272–280.
 666 G. McDonald

Gibbs, G., & Jenkins, A. (1992). Teaching large classes in higher education. How to maintain quality
with reduced resources. Herndon, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Gibbs, G., Lucas, L., & Simonite, V. (1996). Class size and student performance: 1984–94. Studies
in Higher Education, 21(3), 261–273.
Gillespie, N. A., Walsh, M., Winefield, A. H., Dua, J., & Stough, C. (2001). Occupational stress
in universities: Staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and moderators of stress. Work &
Stress, 15(1), 53–72.
Glass, G. V., & Smith, M. L. (1979). Meta-analysis of research on class size and achievement.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(1), 2–16.
Grissmer, D. (1999). Conclusion: Class size effects: Assessing the evidence, its policy implications,
and future research agenda. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 231–248.
Hancock, T. M. (1996). Effects of class size on college student achievement. College Student Journal,
30(4), 479–481.
Kennedy, P. E., & Siegfried, J. J. (1997). Class size and achievement in introductory economics:
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

Evidence from the TUCE III data. Economics of Education Review, 16(4), 385–394.
King Head, S. (2011, September 25). CANADA: Conference looks at ‘Stepford Universities’.
University World News, 190, pp. 1–2. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/
article.php?story=20110923213109807&query=faculty-student+ratio
Kinman, G., & Jones, F. (2003). ‘Running up the down escalator’: Stressors and strains on UK
academics. Quality in Higher Education, 9(1), 21–38.
Kokkelenberg, E. C., Dillon, M., & Christy, S. M. (2008). The effects of class size on student grades
at a public university. Economics of Education Review, 27, 221–233.
Laughlin, S. J. (1976, Spring). A sacred cow – class size. College and University, 51, 339–347.
Litke, R. (1995). Learning lessons from large classes: Student attitudes towards effective and inef-
fective methods in large classes. Portland, OR: Western States Communication Association,
Communication and Instruction Interest Group (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED384088).
Macomber, F. G., & Siegel, L. (1957, July). A study in large-group teaching procedures. Educational
Record, 38, 220–229.
Malsen, G. (2010, December 12). Majority of academics are casual. University World News, 151.
Mandel, P., & Sussmuth, B. (2011). Size matters: The relevance and Hicksian surplus of preferred
college class size. Economics of Education Review, 30, 1073–1084.
Maxwell, N. L., & Lopus, J. S. (1994). The lake Wobegon effect in student self-reported data.
American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 84(2), 201–205.
McKeachie, W. J. (1978). Teaching tips: A guidebook for the beginning college teacher (7th ed.)
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
McKeachie, W. J. (1980, February). Class size, large classes, and multiple sections. Academe, 66,
24–27.
McKeachie, W. J. (1990). Research on college teaching: The historical background. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82(2), 189–200.
McKeachie, W. J., Iran-Nejad, A., & Berliner, D. C. (1990). The multi-source nature of learning: An
introduction. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 509–516.
McLeod, N. (1998). What teachers cannot do in large classes (Research Rep. No. 7). Leeds: Leeds
University.
Milner, R. (1992). Reflections on teaching a large class. Journal of Management Education, 16(3),
290–302.
Milton, O. (1972). Alternative to the traditional. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mixon, F. G., & Hsing, Y. (1994). College student migration and human capitol theory: A research
note. Education Economics, 2(1), 65–73.
Mueller, A. D. (1924). Size of class as a factor in normal school instruction. Education, 45(4),
203–207.
Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2010). Teaching large classes at college and university level: Challenges and
opportunities. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 175–185.
Nachman, M., & Opochinsky, S. (1958). The effects of different teaching methods: A methodological
study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49(5), 245–249.
Noble, J. H. Jr. (2000). Cherchez l‘argent: A contribution to the debate about class size, student
faculty ratios, and the use of adjunct faculty. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(1), 89–102.
Nye, B., Hedges, L. V., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2004). Do minorities experience larger benefits from
small classes? Journal of Educational Research, 98(4), 94–100.
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 667

OECD. (2012). Shanghai and Hong Kong: Two distinct examples of education reform in China. In
Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United
States (Chapter 4, pp. 83–115). Paris: Author. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/countries/
hongkongchina/46581016.pdf
Pan, D., Tan, G. S. H., Ragupathi, K., Booluck, F., Roop, R., & Ip, I. K. (2009, February). Profiling
teacher. Teaching using descriptors derived from qualitative feedback: Formative and summative
applications. Research in Higher Education, 50(1), 73–100.
Parker, L. D. (2010). Introducing the commercialised university environment: Preliminary reflec-
tions on the trajectory of change. In E. Evans, R. Burritt, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Accounting at a
crossroads in 2010 (Chapter 2, pp. 16–21). ICAA: University of South Australia.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from
twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pate-Bain, H., Achilles, C. M., Boyd-Zaharias, J., & McKenna, B. (1992). Class size does make a
difference. Phi Delta Kappan. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/designs/
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 20:41 19 November 2014

online/pdfs/reprints/6_pate.pdf
Pitiyanuwat, S. (2011). Quality assurance in south-east Asian higher education. Oxford Studies in
Comparative Education, 305–322.
Radloff, A., & Coates, H. (2010). Doing more for learning: Enhancing engagement and outcomes.
Australasian Student Engagement Report. Camberwell: Australian Council of Educational
Research.
Raimondo, H. J., Esposito, L., & Gershenberg, I. (1990). Introductory class size and student
performance in intermediate theory courses. Journal of Economic Education, 21, 369–381.
Rolfe, H. (2002). Students’ demands and expectations in an age of reduced financial support: The
perspectives of lecturers in four English universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 24(2), 171–182.
Russell, V., & Curtis, W. (2012). Comparing a large- and small-scale online language course: An
examination of teacher and learner perceptions. Internet and Higher Education, 16, 1–13.
Scott, G. (2008, September). University student engagement and satisfaction with learning and teach-
ing, Review of Australian Higher Education. Final Report. University of Western Sydney, pp. 1–
81. Retrieved from http://logincms.uws.edu.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0008/78668/Research_HE_
review_0908_Scott.pdf
Shah, M. (2012). Ten years of external quality audit in Australia: Evaluating its effectiveness and
success. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6), 761–772.
Shane, H. G. (1961, January). What research says about class size and human development. NEA
Journal, 50, 30–32.
Simmons, H. F. (1959, Spring). Achievement in intermediate algebra associated with class size at the
University of Wichita. College and University, 34, 309–315.
Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1979). Relationships of class-size to classroom processes, teacher
satisfaction and pupil affect: A meta-analysis. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for
Educational Research and Development.
Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1980). Meta-analysis of research on class size and its relationship to
attitudes and instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 17(4), 419–433.
Smith, P., Molnar, A., & Zahorik, J. (2003). Class-size reduction: A fresh look at the data. Educational
Leadership, 61(1), 72–74.
Taylor, P., & Braddock, R. (2007). International university ranking systems and the idea of university
excellence. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(3), 245–260.
Toth, L. S., & Montagna, L. G. (2002). Class size and achievement in higher education: A summary
of current research. College Student Journal, 36(2), 253–261.
Watts, J., & Robertson, N. (2011). Burnout in university teaching staff: A systematic literature review.
Educational Research, 53(1), 33–50.
Westerheijden, D. F. (2005). Walking towards a moving target: Quality assurance in European higher
education. Quality of Higher Education, 2, 52–71.
Williams, D. D., Cook, P. F., Quinn, B., & Jensen, R. P. (1985, September). University class size: Is
smaller better? Research in Higher Education, 23(3), 307–318.
Willie, R., & Stecklein, J. E. (1982). A three-decade comparison of college faculty characteristics,
satisfactions, activities, and attitudes. Research in Higher Education, 16(1), 81–93.
Zahorik, J., Halbach, A., Ehrle, K., & Molnar, A. (2003). Teaching practices for smaller classes.
Educational Leadership, 61(1), 75–77.