ISSN 1799-2591

Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 333-339, April 2021
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1104.01

Large Classes in the Context of Teaching English

as a Foreign Language
Basmah Ali Abu-ghararah
College of Education, Taibah University, Saudi Arabia

Abstract—The purpose of this study is to explore the techniques used by teachers of English as a foreign
language (EFL) in teaching the four language skills to students in large classes in Madinah, Saudi Arabia. This
study also seeks to determine the most effective technique to teaching large classes by examining teachers’
experiences. Additionally, this study investigates the teachers’ use of language techniques for language classes
with respect to gender, qualification, years of experience, and level of teaching. The subjects of the study were
307 EFL teachers from Saudi schools. This study used descriptive statistical methods to examine the teachers’
preferred techniques in teaching the four central English skills in a large class setting. The results show that
EFL teachers use a variety of language techniques in teaching graphic skills rather than aural ones. Further,
gender and level of teaching shape their preferences for using certain techniques when teaching language skills
in large classes. The study raised some questions for further research.

Index Terms—language skills, teaching techniques, large classes, English language teaching

I. INTRODUCTION
English as a foreign language (EFL) is introduced in the fourth grade at primary schools in Saudi Arabia by the
Ministry of Education, and it has become a compulsory subject in Saudi schools. It is common for classes in Saudi
public schools to have more than 35 students. The nature of the impact of large class sizes depends on many factors,
such as the quality of the school, the level of discipline, and even the character of the class (Mulryan-Kyne, 2010). That
class size has a significant impact on learning makes good intuitive sense: smaller classes offer the potential for more
individual attention, more time per pupil for feedback and differentiation, fewer classroom management issues, and
closer interpersonal relationships. However, such a commonsense idea has rarely been investigated by high quality
research on any scale, although issues of teacher workload and wellbeing provide reasons for reducing class sizes.
While Filges et al.’s (2018) review included a wide range of studies, which were all demonstrated to be of high quality,
with the scope of the review being limited to intervention studies using experimental designs and the generation of
quantitative data. This approach is clearly suited to a large-scale systematic review that is narrowly focused on the
impact of class size on student attainment, but it neglects the lived experience of teaching and learning in a large class.
This is neatly summed up by Devi (2016), who points out that there are particular challenges when teaching aural skills,
giving individual feedback, and developing rapport with students. However, Devi’s own research is limited by an overly
simplistic interview approach and data analysis that does not explore the issue in sufficient detail. A more
comprehensive and rigorous study found that many of these challenges could be overcome through social approaches to
learning (Yang et al., 2018). However, the conclusions of the study came with the caveat that they applied to older
students who had sufficient access to technology and to teachers proficient in designing tasks for virtual learning
environments.
Other studies similarly suggest that the pedagogical norms of EFL mean that class size may be a particular issue. The
effects of class size may be evident in these contexts in ways that are not sufficiently captured in quantitative measures
of language development. For instance, a study in Iran focused on the impact of class size on students’ willingness to
communicate, arguing that large classes limit a teacher’s ability to use communicative language teaching pedagogies
(Khazaei et al., 2012). In this case, classroom observation data revealed a quantifiable impact of class size on the time
that students spent using the target language. A similar study with a group of students learning Arabic demonstrated that
willingness to communicate has a direct impact on language acquisition (Mahmoodi & Moazam, 2014). Despite a
willingness to communicate being commonly cited as an important factor in successful second language acquisition, a
recent systematic review by Zhang et al. (2018) found that class size had been considered as a variable of interest in
only one studythe aforementioned study by Khazaei et al. (2012). The implication is, therefore, that if a willingness
to communicate is important for language development, and if students are more willing to communicate when in
smaller classes, then class size does, indeed, have an impact on language learning. It also appears that class size has a
bigger impact on the motivation and interactions of younger EFL learners than on older, self-motivated students
(Carpenter, 2006; Yang et al., 2018).
In addition to those studies that have examined features of EFL classes such as willingness to communicate, other
studies have focused solely on teacher perceptions. The logic is that if teachers find it easier to do something that they
think is beneficial for their learners in a smaller class, then class sizes should be reduced to help teachers carry out their

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

334 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

work. Although her work has so far been published only as a master’s dissertation, Garcia found, after interviewing
EFL teachers, that the pace of learning and the level of attention paid to individual students were both improved in
smaller classes (Garcia, 2016). There are other examples in the literature of teachers being able to take more creative
approaches to teaching because of reduced class sizes, one example being an EFL teacher in Indonesia who was more
easily able to facilitate educational games and outdoor learning (Hadi & Arante, 2015). However, the same limitations
apply to the studies by Hadi and Arante (2015) and Garcia (2016): student outcomes were not measured, the studies
have not been subject to rigorous peer review, and the link between these more interesting teacher activities and gains in
student learning can only be implied, rather than demonstrated objectively. Contradicting the view that smaller classes
are always better, there are examples of large classes enabling teachers to benefit from economies of scale. For example,
a larger class can make it worthwhile for a teacher to invest time in designing effective online learning tasks (Yang et
al., 2018). In addition, small classes may result in a greater reliance on teacher-centered learning, while examples in
both Devi (2006) and Yang et al. (2018) point to some benefits when teachers can draw upon large groups of students to
engage in tasks like formative peer feedback.
Hattie (2005) offers one way of interpreting what seems to be a contradiction in the literature by arguing that class
size has an impact only when it changes teaching and learning strategies. This may seem to be an obvious point but is
one that is often overlooked because most teachers have been found not to vary their teaching methods between smaller
and larger classes. Coupled with this is the challenge of comparing teacher groups of differing quality. The results of
studies using teacher groups of different levels of skill appear to lead to different conclusions. A questionnaire and
observation study in Kenya, for instance, found that teachers reported that teaching large classes was a problem
(Ndethiu et al., 2017). However, the study also found that the principals of the schools studied were unaware of the
specific techniques that teachers used when teaching large classes. The researchers discovered that the majority of
teachers were simply lecturing and “spent little lesson time on demonstration, question and answer time, pair or group
work, or class discussion” (p. 76). In their study, Hunt et al. (2003) found that team-learning methods resulted in
positive learning outcomes. Carpenter (2006) suggested that “faculty teaching large classes should attempt to include
constructive, active teaching methods in their courses whenever possible. Structured, controlled collaboration (e.g.,
jigsaw, case study) would probably be most comfortable to students as opposed to uncontrolled, unstructured
experiences (i.e., team projects)” (p.19).
A. Purposes of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the techniques used by teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) in
teaching the four language skills to students in large classes in Madinah, Saudi Arabia. This study also seeks to
determine the most effective technique to teaching large classes by examining teachers’ experiences.
B. Research Questions
In harmony with the above stated purposes, the following research questions were addressed:
1. To what extent do EFL teachers use teaching techniques for large classes?
2. What are the dominant teaching techniques used by EFL teachers for large classes?
C. Research Hypotheses
Based on the aforementioned research questions, these four null hypotheses were formatted:
H.1
There were no statistically significant differences in means between EFL teachers at (a<0.05) in their use of language
teaching techniques for large classes with respect to gender.
H.2
There were no statistically significant differences in the mean between EFL teachers (a<0.05) in their use of language
teaching techniques for large classes with respect to their qualification.
H. 3
There were no statistically significant differences in means between EFL teachers at (a<0.05) in their use of language
teaching techniques for large classes with
H. 4
There were no statistically significant differences in means between EFL teachers at (a<0.05) in their use of language
teaching techniques for large classes with respect to the level of teaching,

II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Participants
In this study, 307 EFL teachers from Saudi schools in Madinah participated. As seen in Table 1, the distribution of
participating EFL teachers according to gender was 28.66% male, while female EFL teachers accounted for 71.34% of
respondents. The majority of the respondents, 86.97%, hold a bachelor’s degree while 13.03% hold a master’s degree.
Of the EFL teachers, 36.48% had more than 15 years of experience in teaching, 28.35% had 5-10 years of experience,

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 335

26.38% had 10-15 years of experience, and 8.79% had less than five years of experience. Almost 60% of the EFL
teachers teach in secondary school, and the rest in intermediate school.
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS

B. Research Instrument
A list was made of teaching techniques used in teaching English language skills for intermediate and secondary
classes. It consisted of 22 teaching techniques that were grouped into four sections, each dealing with a particular
language skill. The compiled list was given to a panel of experts in the domain of teaching English as a second language
and applied linguistics, which consisted of five teachers and two lecturers. They were instructed to point out the
teaching techniques that could be used for intermediate and secondary schools in the Saudi language learning context.
The addition and deletion of some techniques were recommended. Teaching techniques such as chorus methods, total
physical responses, and instructional games were considered not to be appropriate tools in the teaching of language
skills at intermediate and secondary schools in the Saudi educational context. This is because learners were reluctant to
participate and actively engage in language learning due to their age factors and peer influence.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Results of Research Questionnaire
The results from Table 2 clearly indicate that the overwhelming majority of EFL teachers tend to always use listening
to conversation (94.78%), reading aloud (92.83%), and listening to the discussions (90.88%) as language techniques
when teaching listening to their large classes. They ranked these techniques in their uses as 1, 2, and 3 respectively. In
regard to the least/most rarely used techniques in teaching listening, it is found that only around 24% of teachers used
dictation and storytelling and 18% used interview, auditory memory, and video types. These results imply that listening
skills were de-emphasised in teaching. Little attention was paid to these skills in language examinations. It is also found
that in the prescribed language materials, there exist no classroom activities on listening skills.
TABLE 2
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ABOUT THE USE OF TEACHING TECHNIQUES IN LISTENING
Teaching Rating Scale All Cases
Techniques in Always Sometimes Rarely Never Always Never
Listening and and
Sometimes Rarely
n % n % n % n % n % n %
(Listening to) 161 52.44 130 42.35 11 3.58 5 1.63 291 94.78 16 5.22
Conversation
(Listening to) 148 48.21 131 42.67 27 8.79 1 0.33 279 90.88 28 9.12
Discussion
(Listening to) 87 28.34 165 53.75 48 15.64 7 2.28 252 82.08 55 17.92
Interview
Dictation 81 26.38 140 45.60 61 19.87 25 8.14 221 71.99 86 28.01
Reading Aloud 203 66.12 82 26.71 21 6.84 1 0.33 285 92.83 22 7.17
Auditory Memory 74 24.10 178 57.98 45 14.66 10 3.26 252 82.08 55 17.92
Telling Stories 56 18.24 162 52.77 70 22.80 19 6.19 218 71.01 89 28.99
Video Tapes 142 46.25 111 36.15 34 11.08 20 6.52 253 82.41 54 17.59
Recorded Materials 158 51.46 103 33.55 33 10.75 13 4.23 261 85.02 46 14.98
(play, speech)

As is evident in Table 3, the vast majority of the EFL teachers preferred to use conversation (91.53%), presentation
(88.93%), and description (88.60%) in teaching speaking to language students in large classes. These techniques are
highly ranked 1, 2, and 3 respectively. However, the participating teachers claim that they rarely used chain stories
(41.69%), miming (37.13%), lecturing (32.57%), problem solving (24.43%), or interviewing (22.80%) when teaching
speaking. These results imply that the majority of teachers spent their lesson time lecturing and spent little time using
language communication teaching techniques.

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

336 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

TABLE 3
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ABOUT THE USE OF TEACHING TECHNIQUES IN SPEAKING
Rating Scale All Cases
Teaching Always Sometimes Rarely Never Always Never
Techniques in and and
Speaking Sometimes Rarely
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Presentation 181 58.96 92 29.97 23 7.49 11 3.58 273 88.93 34 11.07
Role-Playing 124 40.39 140 45.60 26 8.47 17 5.54 264 85.99 43 14.01
Interview 67 21,82 170 55.37 52 16.99 18 5.86 237 77.20 70 22.80
Conversation 166 54.07 115 37.46 19 6.19 7 2.28 281 91.53 26 8.47
Description 135 43.97 137 44.63 23 7.49 12 3,91 272 88.60 35 11.40
Chain Story 37 12.05 142 46.25 84 27.36 44 14.33 179 58.30 128 41.69
Mime 66 21.50 127 41.37 72 23.45 42 13.68 193 62.87 114 37.13
Problem Solving 91 29.64 141 45.93 57 18.57 18 5.86 232 75.57 75 24.43
Lecturing 60 19.54 147 47.88 74 24.10 26 8.47 207 67.43 100 32.57

The data detailed in Table 4 show that the majority of the subjects (about 80%) indicated that they always used a
variety of techniques in teaching reading to their language classes. These techniques included scanning (85.02%),
skimming (84.04%), intensive reading (82.08%), and extensive reading (80.45%). However, approximately (35.50%) of
EFL teachers rarely used diaries and (23.45%) rarely used book reviews. These results imply that they used numerous
teaching techniques to enhance their presentation of the reading texts. Reading skills were considered to be the most
important skills in the teaching of language in large classes.
TABLE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ABOUT THE USE OF TEACHING TECHNIQUES IN READING
Rating Scale All Cases
Teaching Always Sometimes Rarely Never Always Never
Techniques in and and
Reading Sometimes Rarely
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Book 124 40.39 111 36.16 52 16.94 20 6.51 235 76.55 72 23.45
Reviews/Summaries
Diaries 54 17.59 144 46.91 75 24.42 34 11.07 198 64.50 109 35.50
Intensive Reading 107 34.85 145 47.23 41 13.36 14 4.56 252 82.08 55 17.92
Extensive Reading 81 26.38 166 54.07 45 14.66 15 4.89 247 80.45 60 19.55
Scanning 170 55.37 91 29.64 35 11.40 11 3.58 261 85.02 46 14.98
Skimming 141 45.93 117 38.11 38 12.38 11 3.58 258 84.04 49 15.96

It was found from the data presented in Table 5 that the vast majority of EFL teachers placed great emphasis on the
use of teaching techniques in their writing classes. These language techniques encompassed making up questions
(89.25%), description (86.97%) and composition (85.34%). The results also indicated that nearly 79% of participating
teachers always used dictation, note taking, and letter writing. However, the lowest-rated techniques in use for large
classes were essays (54.40%) and emails (49.84%). These results imply that writing is given a high priority in language
teaching and examination.
TABLE 5
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES ABOUT THE USE OF TEACHING TECHNIQUES IN WRITING
Rating Scale All Cases
Teaching Always Sometimes Rarely Never Always Never
Techniques in and and
Writing Sometimes Rarely
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Dictation 107 34.85 135 43.97 36 11.73 29 9.45 242 78.82 65 21.18
Email 47 15.31 107 34.85 71 23.13 82 26.71 154 50.16 153 49.84
Note Taking 106 34.53 133 43.32 43 14.01 25 8.14 239 77.85 68 22.15
Letter Writing 94 30.62 144 46.91 48 15.63 21 6.84 238 77.52 69 22.48
Making up Questions 165 53.75 109 35.50 26 8.47 7 2.28 274 89.25 33 10.75
Description 139 45.28 128 41.69 28 9.12 12 3.91 267 86.97 40 13.03
Composition 113 36.81 149 48.53 33 10.75 12 3.91 262 85.34 45 14.66
Essay 42 13.9 98 31.8 67 21.8 100 32.5 140 45.60 167 54.40

B. Results of Research Hypotheses

H.1
To check the hypothesis postulating that there were no statistically significant differences in means between EFL
teachers at (a<0.05) in their use of language teaching techniques for large classes with respect to gender, the mean

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 337

scores and standard deviations were calculated. Two independent samples (t-test) were used, and the results are shown
in Table 6.
TABLE 6
DISTRIBUTION OF GENDER MEAN SCORES
Gender n Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Male 88 91.3409 17.44343 1.85948
Female 219 101.2100 11.72317 .79218

The mean score of male EFL teachers in their use of language teaching techniques for large classes was 91.3409 with
a standard deviation of 17.44343. For female EFL teachers, the mean score was 101.2100, with a standard deviation of
11.72317. Evidently, the female teachers’ mean score was higher than that of the male teachers.
Table 7 shows that the calculated value of T reached -5.749 at the degree of freedom (305), and the value of
significance (.000) was less than 0.05, indicating that the difference is statistically significant.
TABLE 7
INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST
Levene’s Test for
Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances
Variables 95% Confidence
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the
F Sig. t df Difference
tailled) Difference Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
18.939 .000 -5.749 305 .000 -9.86914 1.71680 -13.24740 -6.49087
assumed
Equal variances
-4.883 119.870 .000 -9.86914 2.02119 -13.87099 -5.86728
not assumed

H.2
To verify the hypothesis assuming there were no statistically significant differences in the mean between EFL
teachers (a<0.05) in their use of language teaching techniques for large classes with respect to their qualification, the
mean scores and standard deviations were calculated. Two independent samples (t-test) were used, and the results are
shown in Tables 8 and 9.
TABLE 8
RESULTS OF QUALIFICATION MEAN SCORES
Qualification n Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Bachelor’s 267 98.9588 14.13237 .86489
Master’s 40 94.5250 14.96661 2.36643

The mean score of EFL teachers with a bachelor’s degree was 98.9588 with a standard deviation of 14.13237, while
the mean score of EFL teachers with a master’s degree was 94.5250 with a standard deviation of 14.96661. Evidently,
EFL teachers with a bachelor’s degree mean score was higher than EFL teachers with a master’s degree.
TABLE 9
RESULTS OF THE T-TEST
Levene’s Test for
Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances
Variables 95% Confidence
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the
F Sig. t df Difference
tailled) Difference Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
.433 .511 1.836 305 .067 4.43380 2.41461 -31761 9.18521
assumed
Equal variances
1.760 49.984 .085 4.43380 2.51953 -62686 9.49446
not assumed

It is obvious from Table 9 that the level of significance is 0.067, which is higher than 0.05, indicating that there are
no statistically significant differences between the average scores in the qualification of sample research.
H. 3
To test the third hypothesis, which postulated that there were no statistically significant differences in means between
EFL teachers at (a<0.05) in their use of language teaching techniques for large classes with respect to years of
experience, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. The means and standard deviation for the years
of experience are presented in Table 10.

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

338 THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES

TABLE 10
RESULTS OF MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION FOR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
95% Confidence Interval for
Years of Mean
n Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Minimum Maximum
Experience
Lower Bound Upper Bound
<5 27 98.5926 11.54676 2.22217 94.0248 103.1603 76.00 124.00
5-10 87 96.4368 11.81023 1.26619 93.9197 98.9539 48.00 121.00
10-15 81 97.6914 17.39946 1.93327 93.8440 101.5387 48.00 123.00
>15 112 100.3393 14.09974 1.33230 97.6992 102.9793 47.00 128.00
Total 307 98.3811 14.29685 .81596 96.7755 99.9867 47.00 128.00

The results of ANOVA show that there were no statistically significant differences in means between EFL teachers at
(a<0.05) in their use of language teaching techniques for large classes with respect to years of experience (F= 1.305,
df=3, p< 0.05). The level of significance is .273, which is bigger than 0.05. Accordingly, this hypothesis was rejected.
TABLE 11
RESULTS OF ANOVA
Variables Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 798.099 3 266.033 1.305 .273
Within Groups 61748.312 303 203.790
Total 62546.410 306

H. 4
To investigate the fourth hypothesis, which assumed there were no statistically significant differences in means
between EFL teachers at (a<0.05) in their use of language teaching techniques for large classes with respect to the level
of teaching, the means and standard deviations of the study were calculated. A T-test was also used to measure the
significance of the differences. Table 12 shows the mean and standard deviations for the teaching variable.
It appears from Table 12 that the mean of the intermediate variable was reached (98.8065) with a standard deviation
(14.62689), while the mean for the secondary variable scores was 98.0929 with a standard deviation (14.10195).
TABLE 12
GROUP STATISTICS
Level of Teaching n Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Intermediate 124 98.8065 14.62689 1.31353
Secondary 183 98.0929 14.10195 1.04245

The data detailed in Table 13 reveal that the level of significance is 0.669, which is higher than 0.05, indicating no
statistically significant differences between the average scores with respect to the teaching variable. Accordingly, this
hypothesis was accepted.
TABLE 13
INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST
Levene’s Test for
Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances
Variables 95% Confidence
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the
F Sig. t df Difference
tailled) Difference Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
.229 .632 .429 305 .669 .71356 1.66515 -2.56308 3.99019
assumed
Equal variances
.426 257.656 .671 .71356 167692 -2.58866 4.01577
not assumed

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of this research, the following conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, EFL teachers prefer to use
listening to conversations, reading aloud, and listening to discussions when teaching listening skills to their large classes.
However, they rarely use dictation, telling stories, auditory memory, or video tapes in teaching listening skills. These
results imply that listening techniques are not emphasized in large classes, which depend mainly on forum language
teaching techniques. Secondly, EFL teachers tend to use conversation, presentation, and description extensively in
teaching speaking to their large classes. However, they seldom use chain story, mime, lecturing, problem solving, or
interview language techniques. These results denote that they place little emphasis on oral communication. In sum,
aural language skills, that is, listening and speaking, are not adequately emphasized in large classes. Thirdly, EFL
teachers use scanning, skimming, and interviewing when teaching language students. However, they rarely use diaries
or book reviews. These results connote that reading skills are highly emphasized in large classes. Fourthly, when

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN LANGUAGE STUDIES 339

teaching writing, EFL teachers emphasize the use of making up questions, composition, dictation, note taking, and letter
writing. However, they infrequently use essays or emails. These results imply that there is a great priority placed on
using a variety of teaching techniques in writing classes. This study generally concludes that graphic language skills,
that is, reading and writing, are greatly emphasized in large language classes. Fifthly, the results of the research
hypotheses indicate that there were statistically significant differences in the mean between EFL teachers in their use of
language teaching techniques in large classes with respect to their gender and level of teaching. However, there were no
differences in the teachers’ use of teaching techniques with regard to their qualifications and years of experience. The
results imply that gender and level of teaching shape their preferences in the use of teaching techniques to their
language students in large classes.
The current study has raised some questions for further research, for instance: Will the same results be obtained by
repeating this study at other institutions or other grade levels? To what extent will language specialists contribute and
incorporate the results of teaching techniques into the language pedagogy syllabus? To what extent will university
language instructors enhance and motivate pre-service teachers to adopt a variety of teaching techniques in their classes,
particularly the neglected ones? What are the negative consequences for the limited use of some language techniques in
large classes? What causes language teachers to neglect certain techniques when teaching language skills in large
classes? These and other questions may constitute topics of interest for researchers in the future.

REFERENCES
[1] Buckingham, J. (2003). Class size and teacher quality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2(1), 71–86.
[2] Carpenter, J. M. (2006). Effective teaching Methods for Large Classes. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education,
24(2), 13–23.
[3] Devi, R. B. (2016). Problems Faced by the Teachers of a Large Class in Imparting Writing Skills at the Tertiary Level.
Language in India, 16(4), 165–173.
[4] Filges, T., Sonne‐Schmidt, C. S., & Nielsen, B. C. V. (2018). Small class sizes for improving student achievement in primary
and secondary schools: a systematic review. In Campbell Systematic Reviews. Oslo: The Campbell Collaboration.
[5] Garcia, C. N. (2016). Effect of Class Size on Teaching Middle School English Language Learners. Dominican University of
California.
[6] Hadi, M. J., & Arante, L. T. (2015). Barriers in Teaching English in Large Classes: Voice of an Indonesian English Language
Teacher. Online Submission, 2012, 1–7.
[7] Hattie, J. (2005). The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational
Research, 43(6), 387–425.
[8] Hunt, D., Haidet, P., Coverdale, J., & Richards, B. (2003). The effect of using team learning in an evidence-based medicine
course for medical students. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 15(2), 131-139.
[9] Khazaei, Z. M., Zadeh, A. M., & Ketabi, S. (2012). Willingness to Communicate in Iranian EFL Learners: The Effect of Class
Size. English Language Teaching, 5(11), 181–187.
[10] Mahmoodi, M.-H., & Moazam, I. (2014). Willingness to communicate (WTC) and L2 achievement: The case of Arabic
language learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1069–1076.
[11] Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2010). Teaching large classes at college and university level: challenges and opportunities. Teaching in
Higher Education, 15(2), 175-185.
[12] Ndethiu, S. M., Masingila, J. O., Miheso-O’Connor, M. K., Khatete, D. W., & Heath, K. L. (2017). Kenyan Secondary
Teachers’ and Principals’ Perspectives and Strategies on Teaching and Learning with Large Classes. Africa Education Review,
14(1), 58–86. Retrieved August 21, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2016.1224573.
[13] Wiliam, D. (2010). Teacher quality: why it matters, and how to get more of it. Spectator ‘Schools Revolution' Conference
(March). Retrieved January 13, 2020, from
https://www.dylanwiliam.org/Dylan_Wiliams_website/Papers_files/Spectator%20talk.doc.
[14] Yang, N., Ghislandi, P., & Dellantonio, S. (2018). Online collaboration in a large university class supports quality teaching.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(3), 671–691. Retrieved May 22, 2019, from
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9564-8.
[15] Zhang, J., Beckmann, N., & Beckmann, J. F. (2018). To talk or not to talk: A review of situational antecedents of willingness to
communicate in the second language classroom. System, 72, 226–239.

Basmah Ali Abu-ghararah is an assistant professor of language pedagogy and translation who obtained her MA and PhD from
the University of Leeds, UK. Her professional interests include second language acquisition, language testing, and applied translation.

© 2021 ACADEMY PUBLICATION