Job Discussion Forums

[FredBlork]

Hi everyone,

At the University where I work, all of our classes run for 90 minutes, and the other teachers often split up their classes into smaller groups and teach them for shorter periods eg. 30 students assigned to a 90 minute class would get split up into 3 groups of 10, each with 30 minutes. Apparently the administration approves, or at the least doesn't care.

I'd be interested in getting other teachers' opinions on this practice. Personally speaking, I'm a bit reluctant to run my classes this way, for a few reasons. (BTW, I'm mainly focusing on speaking classes in this post, although I welcome ideas about other types of classes).

Firstly, I'm not that confident that my teaching a class one third the size will be three times more efficient, so the students might not be learning as much.

In my speaking classes I generally go through some things that don't require a smaller class size (?), for instance: any theory or vocab that I feel is necessary, work from the book, pair work/small group work and/or explanations about pronunciation including mouth position, tongue position etc.

Also, the students (or at least their parents) pay a lot of money to attend university, and might feel that they're getting short-changed with a shorter class. This would not be as important if I were sure that it was a better way.

The other teachers advocate mainly discussion in their split classes, in one group, combined with some vocab. The idea seems to be that talking directly with a foreigner in conversation/group discussion, even in a group of ten, is more beneficial to the student than a class atmosphere. Perhaps for those teachers it is!

I'm relatively inexperienced, so I don't feel qualified to make the call in general, but I'm wondering what other, more experienced teachers think about this issue.

Cheers

[johntpartee]

I think it's a bad idea. A speaker, whether it be a teacher or student, should be addressing the entire class. I realize it's a problem to get students to stop talking when someone is addressing the entire group, but the instructor should just keep hammering it into them how important listening is; I often tell the worst offenders (people who WILL NOT SHUT UP) that I'm going to start lowering grades. Speaking and LISTENING means just that.

[The Ever-changing Cleric]

[FredBlork]

Yeah, some of the foreign teachers are just dividing the class in 3, and telling each group to turn up at a different time. I have no idea what the Chinese teachers are doing, but I suspect that they've got more oversight than us, so they probably aren't doing this.
It's probably a lot easier on the teacher the way they're doing it, practically zero preparation and no class management because you're part of a small group discussion, which, as long as you can talk easily, can go forever.
I know the school couldn't give a toss about quality due to the reasons listed above, which are true at my Uni too, so it's tempting to take the easy option in any given situation, but I like to think that my job can have some positive effect on the world, however small.

[themanymoonsofjupiter]

interesting to read these responses.

if done right, it can really benefit the students. it sounds like it wouldn't be right for the OP (by his own admission), and there really is no point if you're actually teaching something (pronunciation, vocab, grammar structure). however, i've done it twice and think it's worked quite well. students who never speak up in class are a lot more likely to speak in the small groups (i do groups of five; fifteen minutes each). i only use it for deep discussion of a topic we've already spent a good deal of time on. this way, i can hear from every single student on the topic, students have a manageable body of peers to listen and speak to, and i can guarantee that every student will have (approximately) three minutes of speaking time. nothing else i could do in a class of 30 could even come close this situation that best mimics a true discussion one would have in an English-speaking country. partner work is fine but cannot be fully regulated by just one teacher. presentations, speeches and skits will always have a (basically) tuned-out audience, and games won't always interest everyone. i couldn't see doing it every class period, though--the students wouldn't be learning anything, just practicing.

[Jayray]

I've done it many times. The students prefer being in class with thirty-five students rather than seventy. If the OP doesn't feel comfortable with it, he shouldn't do it.

[johntpartee]

[Insubordination]

Even though they may be getting better quality classes, you know that, at some point, one student will complain that they paid for a full class and that they are not getting the full class. They will probably go to administration before they go to you.

I'm careful about putting on DVDs for this reason. 95% want to watch but 5% want a class with a teacher and that's why they turn up.

[dakelei]

No matter what you do or how you do it, SOMEONE will complain. I've taught every level of student here in China, from KG all the way up to uni and adults. There is always someone who doesn't like what you're doing. What I find most annoying is the complainer almost never tells you to your face. The excuse is they "respect" you too much. Instead they complain directly to some sort of administrator. If what you're doing isn't working (or liked), well, you'll find out soon enough.

[MisterButtkins]

[The Ever-changing Cleric]