emotional aspects of large group teaching

8/14/2019 Emotional Aspects of Large Group Teaching

1/15

Emotional Aspects of Large Group Teaching

David Hogan 1 and Richard Kwiatkowski2,3

With the growth of mass education in the U.K. has come the see mingly

inevitable growth of large group teaching. Many technical solutions to the

problems of large group teaching have been proposed (e.g., use of microphones,

structured handouts, buzz groups, etc.) but we contend that emotional aspects

have bee n largely ne glected and ignored. We argue that it is legitimate to

consider the role of emotion in higher education, and its particular effects in

large teaching groups. While it is, perhaps, easier and safer to pretend that all

is well, there are clear emotional consequences to working in these large groups

for both students and lecturers. For instance, students may experience powerfulfeelings of alienation, anger, and envy in large groups and compensate in various

ways, some of which will be antithetical to achieving effective learning and a

stimulating educational experience. Similarly, lecturers can also seek to cope

wi th the i r own f ee l ings o f f ear and uncer ta in ty by behav ing equal ly

maladaptively. We examine the contribution psychodynamic thinking can make

to our understanding of large teaching groups and contrast this with the

consequences o f adhering to simplistic te chnical model s. We argue for the

legitimacy of the role of emotion in higher education and seek to encourage a

debate on this issue which will include appropriate research into the effects oftrying to teach and learn in large groups. This paper thus seeks to raise issues

and encourage debate in this relatively unresearched area. Further, we contend

that it is important and necessary to conduct appropriate research into the

emotional effects of such groups on both teaching and learning.

KEY WORDS: teaching; learning; higher education; large group; emotion;

psychodynamic.

INTRODUCTION

Over the last few years, there has been a sudden and rapid increase

in the numbers of students in Higher Education in the United Kingdom

Human Relations, Vol. 51, No. 11, 1998

1403

0018-7267/98/1100-1403 $15.00/1 1998 The Tavistock Institute

1Chartered Psychologist and independent consultant.2School of Management , Cranfield University, Cranfield, Be dford, E ngland.3Request for reprints should be addressed to Richard Kwiatkowski, School of Management,

Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedford, MK43 0AL, England.


2/15

(HEFCE, 1994; Phillips, 1995; Scott, 1995). A consequence of this increase

has been the advent of large group teaching (Gibbs & Jenkins, 1992). The

que stion of what constitutes a large class has change d. Whereas some 10

years ago, a large teaching group in higher education would be considered

to be one in the region of 3040 students, a large group is now more likelyto thought of as 150400 students.

This increase in class size owes more to satisfying governmental and

administrative requireme nts than it does to a desire to improve the edu-

cational experience and accomplishment of students. Moreover, the advent

of large group teaching has bee n a rapid one. In many cases, lecturers have

had to quickly learn to acquire new skills and methods, or try and adapt

their existing approache s. However, authors such as Gibbs and Jenkins who

have contribute d extensive ly to this debate , have stated that it is not suf-

ficient to simply adapt the old, conve ntional way of teaching to the new

demands. In their view, the rapid increase in class sizes requires a radical

reconsideration by le cturers of how they de liver their course s (Gibbs &

Jenkins, 1992).

Such a reconsideration, however, needs to be put in context. Lecturers,

like all individuals who have had to cope with rapid and significant change ,

are like ly to have experienced a variety of feelings and reactions. Somewill accept the inevitability of the change s and work to provide practical

advice to help lecturers to cope with the increased enrollments and class

sizes (e.g., Gibbs & Jenkins, 1992; Habeshaw, Gibbs, & Habeshaw, 1992).

Others may dislike (or active ly hate) having to cope with the increase in

numbers but feel helpless and powerless to influence such unwelcome as-

pects of the changes. There may be those who mourn the loss of valued

aspects of the conventional way of teaching and its accumulated and tacit

wisdom; those who feel that the new way, with large impersonal groups,

implicitly discredits their previous commitment to the old approach and

thus engenders in them a sense of failure.

Such feelings and reactions may lead to an unquestioning compliance

with what are perceived as inevitable changes, especially if such feelings

are denied or not considered legitimate within the culture of higher edu-

cation. Unfortunate ly, this may then lead to the uncritical acceptance of

the inevitability of large group teaching and to an emphasis being placedsolely on providing technical and administrative solutions to addressing any

problems which arise.

Furthermore, this situation can easily give rise to an atmosphere of

polarized thinking, which is known as splitting in Kleinian work (for a

discussion of this process see Jacques, 1953). Those who support and work

for the new status quo may be categorized as good teachers, while

those who doubt or are troubled by the changes, or resist, may be catego-

1404 Hogan and Kwiatkowski


3/15

rized as bad teachers. The bad teachers and their views can then be

readily rejected or even derided by those in, or allied with, the good

camp. The process is sometimes more subtle than this, but can quickly lead

to a culture characterized by an unwillingne ss to criticize such changes, if,

by doing so it is imagined that one would be labeled as bad. This isespecially true if power rests with the supporters of the new status quo.

Compounding the rush toward technical solutions and away from (de-

nied) emotional difficultie s, the teaching and learning proce ss in large

groups often seems to be cast by institutions in terms of teachers and stu-

dents as individuals having to adapt to changing practice. In keeping with

this individualistic perspective the issues and problems of large group teach-

ing are , therefore , considered in terms of the need for competent technical

and administrative resolution (e.g., Gibbs & Jenkins, 1992; Andresen, 1994;

Newble & Cannon, 1995). While these authors have emphasized the need

for and acquisition of improved technique to teach large groups and while

they acknowle dge there are proble ms in being in large teaching groups,

there is a paucity of research and an absence of debate about the effects,

particularly the emotional effects, on both lecturers and students of such

changed teaching and learning experiences.

Given this emphasis, it may also be that anxieties which are raised bythe changes are seen as individually unfortunate, not as universally prob-

lematic or worthy of investigation in and of themselves. Even when emo-

tions are acknowle dged as important in the teaching process, they are often

skirted around. The following is an example:

The emotional tone you set through your teaching, and the attention you pay to

the emotional well-being of your students, are likely to be at least as important

as the teaching and learning methods you adopt and the skills you develop. (Gibbs

& Habeshaw, 1996, p. 19)

So, while Gibbs and Habeshaw clearly acknowledge the importance of

the emotional tone of teaching, unfortunate ly they then simply urge lec-

turers to pay it attention. They do not provide the detail or inte nsity of

how to do it procedural information and advice that they do in more

technical areas.

Our intention in this paper is to argue for the legitimacy of the role

of emotion in highe r education and to encourage a debate on this issuewhich is intended to stimulate appropriate research into the effects of trying

to teach and learn in large groups. In arguing for this legitimacy, we suggest

that it is useful to bring together certain aspects of two disciplines which

are often kept entirely separateeducation and psychodynamic psychother-

apy. We believe that bringing together understandings from these two areas

may well lead to awareness, insight, and new approaches to teaching and

learning in large groups. However, we are aware that this is rather more

Large Group Teach ing 1405


4/15

easily stated than achie ved as there are like ly to be diffe rences in ap-

proache s, thinking, and language which might make an integrative and col-

laborative approach problematic. To this end, this pape r represents a series

of proposals and hypotheses that do need to be refined and tested both

through debate and, at some point in the future, systematic research.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE INCREASE IN LARGE GROUP

TEACHING

Denial of Emotion

It is hardly surprising that the emotional impact of aspects of our workenvironme nts are large ly ignored. It tends to jar with prevailing culturally

acceptable (rational) concepts of ourselves. For instance , the emotionle ss

man and the emotional woman are common stereotypes in our society and

they are diffe rentially valued. In organizations too, rationality is prized and

favored (Putnam & Mumby, 1993). Yet while emotion is difficult to study,

it is often the driving force of our live s and accomplishme nts. This is some-

thing which organizational managements implicitly and explicitly acknow-

ledge when they emphasize the importance of motivation, commitment,satisfaction, morale, and the effects of stress for their employees. Unfor-

tunately, our knowledge of the experience and effects of emotions at work

is negligible (Briner, 1995) . Moreover, Fineman (1993) suggests that writers

on organizations have successfully ignored the subje ct of emotions to the

extent that is often impossible to detect their existence. In examining the

literature on large group teaching, the topic and impact of emotions seems

to be absent and ignored in a similar way.

Having said that, it is also the case that the formal study of the large

group as a phenomenonwhich is considered different from other sorts

and sizes of groupis relatively recent. Since the mid 1960s, the study of

large group processes and their impact on people who are a part of them

has been a topic of interest for academics (e.g., Gibbs and Jenkins, 1992)

and group therapists (e .g., Kreeger, 1975; de Mar, Piper, & Thompson,1991) . Large groups are used in the Leicester Confe rences run by The

Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (Rice, 1965); and, more recently,large groups have been utilized by organizational behaviorists as part of

change interventions and strategies (e.g., Bunke r & Alban, 1992; Dan-

nemiller & Jacobs, 1992). To some extent, these sources indicate that the

phenomena that occur in large groups are common across people and situ-

ations even if the explanations of such phenomena differ among different

orientations such as group analysis, psychology, sociology, or organizational

behavior. Given our focus on the emotional life of students and staff, we



5/15

shall concentrate in this paper on the psychodynamic formulations of the

phenomena encountered.

Psychodynamic psychothe rapists suggest that processes that occur in a

large group can include phenomena such as detachment, the loss of self,

the experience of alienation and frustration at the difficulty and lack ofcommunication with others, voyeuristic stimulation, access to fee lings of

anger, envy, and aggression, and, conversely, the sense of belonging, akin

to ecstasy, that be ing part of a large group can develop. The re is little

doubt that under certain circumstances, being part of a large group can be

an exhilarating experience . However, all too often, attempting to achie ve

a collective purpose with a large group leads to feelings of powerlessness,

isolation, and the sense of an inability to reason and think appropriate ly

(de Mar, Piper, & Thompson, 1991). This latter point is particularly rele-vant when we consider teaching and learning in a large group. If such a

distortion of thinking occurs, then we would expect it to influence the qual-

ity of learning of both the students and lecturers.

As an example, let us consider the feeling of detachment which can

be experienced in a large group. One can simply be an inconspicuous mem-

ber of a crowd, with no need to think or to actively participate in the events

at which you have become, in e ffect, a passive observer. O ne can be inattendance but concealed, just a face in the crowd. As an invisible member

of a large lecture group, you are not really available to be challe nged, you

may not even be capable of being provoke d to thought or fee ling by the

lecturer, you can simply let things go by, wash over you, the feeling may

be that of warm comfort and anonymity. While in the smaller gathering of

the tutorial, you can easily be observed and might well be asked for a view,

in the mass of the large group you can feel relatively safe and anonymous.

This experience, akin to withdrawal, can be seen as a defensive state, an

inner flight from the adverse external situation in which the students may

find themselves. In this anonymous withdrawn state, thinking does not play

a part and is simply not required. Rather, daydreaming and distancing are

to the fore; a state of detachment is achieved which can be quite pleasant

and almost trancelike. Students can be physically present but not fully or

actively here.

A problem for both lecturer and student is that the processes we aredescribing are often experienced indirectly and sometimes out of conscious

awareness, consequently, it is relatively easy to dismiss or deny the rele-

vance of such emotionally based factors. It might be that many of those

who experience large groups are either unaware of their effects on them-

selves or may seek to deny their reality or impact. For example, who could

say out loud I feel agoraphobic, or I fear a riot, or I feel so anxious

I cant think properly? There are social norms operating in the educational



6/15

context that make it very unlike ly for an expression of emotion in a lecture

to be conside red appropriate , even if such feelings have been brought to

the surface. Acknowledging these kinds of feelings is unlikely to be con-

sidered legitimate by the individuals themselves, let alone their pee rs or

their lecturers. However, their denial has real consequences.

The Rise of the Technical Solution

There have been several discussions of the problems of large group

teaching in the professional and academic literature (e .g., Gibbs & Jenkins,

1992; Andresen, 1994; Jenkins, 1991; Newble and Cannon, 1995). In par-

ticular, Gibbs and Jenkins are of the view that there are basically two stra-tegic approaches which can be adopted to teaching large groups, namely,

those based on control and those based on independence. Control

strategies emphasize the teacher/lecturer remaining in control of the proc-

ess and procedures of learning. Independence strategies imply that the stu-

dents gain more say and influence in the operation of the procedures and

the process of learning.

In addressing the issues of large group teaching, some authors have

tended to emphasize the control strategies through the technical resolutionof problems with better video resources, better radio microphones, better

overhead transparencies, and so on (e.g., Jenkins, 1991). In other words,

the emphasis of the improvementshas tended to highlight the better and

clearer transmission of information.

Other authors have emphasize d the inde pendence strategy by stressing

the use of small groups and student centered approache s in large group

settings to promote the notion of the participation and involvement of the

students (e .g., Pre ndergast, 1994) . This use of student participation may

signal a tacit acknowle dgment of the loss of something valuable in the move

to large group teaching. Also, converting an anxiety provoking large group

into a numbe r of rather more manageable smaller ones has obvious benefits

in ameliorating the feelings of alienation, passivity, and exclusion that large

groups readily stimulate.

However, we contend that there is more to teaching large groups than

simply improving personal and administrative technique by individual lec-turers. We argue that large groups inevitablyhave an emotional impact on

lecturers, students and on those who have to administe r such an e duca-

tional system, and that this impact is large ly unacknowledged.

Further, we suggest that the lack of an appropriate acknowledgme nt

of the emotional effects of teaching large groups is in part because it is

relatively easy to address technical problems of teaching large groups. We

can then view these problems as outside of ourselves. They can be readily



7/15

acknowledged and fulfill our desire and need for immediately available so-

lutions to our problems. We can submit to the necessity of improving our

technique and we can be emotionally uninvolve d but still rationally active

when considering the problems and difficulties the technical issues present.

We can safely feel that we are at least doing something. Thus, the emotionalconsequences of working in large groups can be ignored or denied, as they

are frequently by both managers and lecturers, in the pursuit of better in-

formation delive ry and the (anxiety-provoking) nee d to adapt to rapid en-

force d change . Howe ver, the e motional consequences of large group

teaching are unlikely to be simply resolved by the application of such so-

lutions. If they are ignored or denied, then such consequences are often

exacerbated.

In universities, it seems to us, there is a strong rationalistic (Western)

belief present that assumes that better training technology will somehow

save us. Thus, there is a drive toward greater use of computers and other

technological means of information delivery and assessment. Incidentally,

this seems to be allied to the belief that the existence of a goal (i.e., mass

education) means you will magically be able to solve associated problems

(increased dive rsity of skill le ve ls, increased group size, decreasing re-

sources, etc.). Both are clear and organized forms of denial, as has beenably demonstrated in the TCLPs publication (Clark, 1996).

Student Problems in Large Groups

A body of research does exist in the U.S. higher education sector on

the effects of class size but this largely seems to utilize student ratings of

instruction rather than student performance to assess impact (Gibbs, Lucas,

& Simonite, 1996). Studies on the performance of students taught in large

classes in higher education in the United Kingdom are somewhat scarce.

The major ones derive from work carried out at Oxford Brookes University

(e .g., Gibbs, Lucas, & Simonite , 1996; Lindsay & Paton-Saltzbe rg, 1987)

and, in general, indicate that students tend to perform less well in larger

classes.

Large groups, in general, are often experienced as intimidating, inhib-

iting, and frustrating. They can also become isolating and alienating, wherethe individual may have difficulty in finding a voice (de Mare t al., 1991).Skills such as the ability to think, to argue and to reason, to socially find

and develop themselves, to engage others in dispute in a nonviolent man-

ner, that is, many of the implicit aims of undergraduate education, are not

easily present in the large group.

As class sizes increase, we suggest, from our experience, that rather

similar processes occur to those found in large therapy groups. For instance,



8/15

there is an increase in anxiety and it can become very hard to ask questions

or to attend to what is going on in the lecture session. (This difficulty can

be manifested in a variety of ways.) It is also likely that the content of the

lectures becomes harder to unde rstand in spite of any technical and de live ry

improvements that may have been made. For those more emotionally bor-derline students, it seems likely that paranoid phantasies can arise. These

phenomena can be predicted from observing large and median groups used

for psychotherapy, though the academic context does differ in that there

is usually more purposeful and predetermined content and structure to lec-

tures. (Moreover, students do notovertlyattend lectures for self-insight

or therapy!)

We have observed in the course of our teaching that more emotionally

sophisticate d and stable students do seem to be able to function within

this difficult environme nt. (It would be interesting to speculate what the

characteristics may be of these better functioning students.) Yet, it is also

appare nt to us that a great many students do have difficulty in learning in

a large group but may be unable to articulate the ir problems appropriate ly

and may, just like the ir lecturers, assume this is an individual difficulty,

rathe r than a group-re late d issue. It is easy to categorize problems with

large group teaching and learning as due to individual failure, weakness,and incompetence of particular students and particular lecturers. It would

be very wrong to do so.

Furthermore, the inhibiting and frustrating experience of the large

group may lead to the formation of subgroups. In any group of students,

it is the case that some proportion are not actually going to be interested

in the subje ct matter of a specific lecture . When large numbe rs are in-

volved, this small percentage may well add up to a sizeable total. In effect,

we may have a numerically large subgroup of potentially disaffected stu-

dents. This subgroup may have the potential to be disruptive , and in any

case might occasion an (unspoke n) fear in staff and students that they

could be so. Even if nothing physically happens, this subgroup may become

the focus for ange r, resentment, or fear for others within the whole of

the large group. This then may become a collusive self-fulfilling prophecy,

as the subgroup may experience subtle pressure from others to act out

common disaffection within the whole group, and, in effect, come to viv-idly represent the denied and feared disruptive aspects of those (passive )

others. So a disaffected subgroup may act out its disaffection not only for

itself but also for the larger group (sometimes in an exaggerated way). As

well as causing problems within the student group, it may well allow the

lecturer to split the students into those who are good and those who

are bad, thereby setting up anothe r defense against anxie ty, this time

within the lecturer.



9/15


10/15

How, then, can anxiety be coped with? We suggest that there are nu-

merous strategie s possible, and although there is, again, a paucity of re-

search in this area we have observe d the following being use d: being

overprepared for lectures, seeking to be overfriendly with the students, be-

ing distant and remote, deliberately simplifying the material presented, oreven being boring. None of these strategie s are like ly to be particularly

adaptive in the long term. While there may be rationalizations suggested

for such strategies, we contend that in reality unconscious emotional factors

are producing them in an attempt to control anxiety. However, some ap-

proache s, if carried out with awareness, may be potentially constructive and

palliative . Unfortunate ly, they can also become maladaptive if applied rig-

idly as defensive strategies.

Impact on the Teaching Process

In a large group, is the lecturers role to provoke and stimulate or to

entertain and pacify? Or is it simply to keep control? For example, as al-

ready noted, Gibbs and Jenkins (1992) emphasize the essential need for

control by the lecturer in the large group setting and the need to choose

methods which minimize problems for the lecturer. Lecturing seems to usto be in danger of heading toward a simplistic drive for pacification of the

audie nce and simplification of the material as a consequence of large group

lectures. Perhaps, then, there is a necessity to explicitly use skills from the

stage? For example, Zimbardo, of prison experiment fame, in a seminar

given to staff at the University of East London, talked about his experience

of teaching large groups of American students. One point he made very

clear was his deliberate strategy of e ntertaining his students (Zimbardo,

1992).

In the cod commercial environme nt that some educational institutions

in the United Kingdom now pursue , a clear message is that you should

not antagonize your customers at any cost. Student fees are essential to

survival. However, it is a perfectly legitimate tactic to deliberately stimulate

and provoke a reaction in students; this can be done to encourage them

to question assumptions, or perhaps to clarify their own views through ac-

tive debate with another. In a large group, though, this deliberate stimu-lation and Socratic questioning is much more risky and difficult. A

deliberate invitation on the part of the lecturer to think, via debate, may

not be taken to be benign, but simply seen as aggression. Its use in a large

group is like ly to feel dange rous both for the lecturer and the students.

One can, rather more safely, promote thought in this way in a small group

but it is not easy to accomplish, in our experience , in a large one. Thus,

part of the traditional role of lectures, that of actively stimulating thought,



11/15

may have been unwittingly lost through class size alone. It may, therefore,

feel dangerous to seek to promote thought in this way and because of this

there may be collusion with the drive toward simplification.

In order to give an illustration of how this might come about let us

conside r the notion of student centered learning in large groups. Lec-turers can set up situations where decisions are appare ntly made by the

students, with each side pretending that they both have autonomy in the

process. We suggest that the idea that truly experiential learning takes place

and is student centered is, to a large extent, a comfortable myth since in

such a large group any exercises are necessarily carefully pre-planned and

structured. The amount of leeway and discretion that the students have is

carefully limited, else the exercises might not work or, even worse, the stu-dents could become uncontrollable .

The Institutional Impact

While it seems there is no going back on mass education and we are

by no means sugge sting that access to education be curtaile d, there is a

need to investigate all aspects of the practice of education with large groups

of students especially whe n this is couple d with a continuing fall in re-

sources. If the need for methods and means of control drive the approach

to learning and teaching, then the content and process of learning and edu-

cation may be both delibe rate ly (consciously) and unwittingly (uncon-

sciously) modified to suit this aim. This may result in the loss of key tacit

aspects of learning which are not subject to technology and control but are

a part of educations essentially humanitarian, relational nature (Knapper

& Cropley, 1991). If the problems of large group teaching are simply per-ceived as in need of technical resolution then learning and education may

well become a technology of control so that they may fit a technically and

technologically obsessed or rigid delivery system.

Moreover, as Menzie s (1970) and Jacques (1951) have pointe d out,

social structures and systems can arise whose function it is to defend against

the inherent anxiety and concerns that accompany our attempts as humans

to organize ourselve s and change our social and institutional environme ntsconstructive ly. Thus, the structure of e ducation may be changing in ways

which have more to do with providing defenses against the anxie ty inherent

in adapting and coping with impose d change rather than changing in a

truly educationally driven way. The like ly outcome of such an inappropriate

approach is long-te rm maladaptive consequences for education.

Thus, it follows that the notion of individual culpability when the system

is itse lf maladaptive is a trite oversimplification. This view avoids the need



12/15

to take account of system, administrative , and political inade quacy in our at-

tempts to organize , develop, and delive r an e ffective educational provision.

For the institution, we would expect ce rtain inevitable administrative

problems to arise with the need to cater to large group teaching. The solution

sought to address the administrative problems is like ly to be a technical andtechnological one and it is perfectly possible to institute an effectiveadmin-

istrative system. However, we would guess that the tyranny of numbers would

gradually alter the nature and feel of an institution thus besieged. In addition,

if the emotional effects we have discussed above continue to be ignored, there

are likely to be further consequences. We would suggest that one aspect of its

manifestation would be more student complaints and more staff and student

illness, which some institutions are, predictably, already experiencing.

CONCLUSIONS

Using examples from group therapy and education, we hope to have

supporte d our thesis that in large groups there are often a lot of raw

emotions available and comparative ly little thinking. It is unfortunate ,

therefore, that large group teaching is becoming an accepted fact of life

at many U. K. unive rsities and that tutorials, for so long considered anessential part of academic life, are rapidly becoming a luxury.

We have suggested in this paper that the emotional impact of large

group teaching has been effectively ignored. As well as the re lative safety of

seeking technical solutions, it could be argued that this is due to methodo-

logical difficulties in carrying out proper research; but equally, the political

aspects of enquiry might be relevant. For instance , what could be done if

problems emerged from such an enquiry? This could be a case of not wishing

to have the emperors new clothes exposed to too much public scrutiny.

We have argued that teaching large groups has many conseque nces

and that the focus on technical solutions and the subsequent neglect of

the human impact of such methods will lead to significant costs for stu-

dents, lecturers, and institutions. It is difficult to say precisely how the emo-

tional effects of be ing in a large group for the purpose of teaching and

learning will affect those present, without more directed research. We sug-

gest, however, that there is a drive toward passivity and dependency whichcould affect both lecturer and students. Students may become less ques-

tioning and more anxious about complexity in the material presented. Nu-

ances and subtleties of the material and argument may appear not to be

considered important and may become less easily understood. As a conse-

quence there will be a tendency toward using multiple choice or short an-

swers in assessment. It thus becomes difficult to assess whether subtlety

has been comprehended and a mythology is likely to arise that a correct



13/15

answer always exists. The fantasy may be that once the answer is found or

revealed then anxie ty and uncertainly will evaporate , however, given that

the source of the anxiety is, in part, the system within which the teaching

and learning takes place, this fantasy can never be fully realized.

Further, we reject the notion of individual culpability when the systemis itself maladaptive , though we note that it is easy to frame problems and

difficultie s as arising from the person rather than the system within which

they have to work.

However, it would be unfair to leave the topic without some sugge stions.

First, we hope that being made aware that this source of anxiety is common,

reasonable , and warranted will help colleagues to feel a little less alone and

a little more likely to survive emotionally. Second, we hope that it becomes

legitimate to acknowledge the role of emotion in higher education and spe-

cifically in large group learning and lecturing. Third, we hope that prope r

research (perhaps involving some hypothesis presented here) is undertaken

into the effects of trying to teach and trying to learn in large groups.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank Kate Netherton, Rowan Bayne, and Paul

Stenner for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper, as

well as the anonymous journal reviewers. They also wish to thank the stu-

dents and staff of the University of East London who provided important

stimulation for the genesis of some of these ideas.

REFERENCES

ANDRESEN, L. W. (Ed.). Lecturing to large groups: A guide to doing it less . . . but better. Bir-

mingham: Staff and Education Development Association (SEDA Paper 81), 1994.

BENNETT, C., FOREMAN-PECK, L. & HIGGINS, C. Researching into teaching methods: In

colleges and un iversities. London: Kogan Page, 1996.

BION, W. R. Experiences in grou ps.London: Tavistock, 1961.

BRINER, R. B. The Experience and E xpression of Emotion at Work. Paper presented at the

Occupational Psychology Conference, January, 1995, In S. Newell, et al. Occupational

psychology conference, book of proceedings. Leicester: British Psychology Society, 1995.

BUNKE R, B. B., & ALBAN, B. T. Editors introduction: The large group interventionA

new social innovation. Journ al o f Applied Behavioral Science, 1992, 28(4), 473-479.

CLARK, D. R. Interactive media programmes and the problem of scaling. Active Learning,

1996, 4(July), 9-11.DANNE MILLER, K. D., & JACOBS, R. W. Changing the way organizations change : A revo-

lution of common sense. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1992, 28(4), 480-498.

FINEMAN, S. (Ed.). Emotion in organizations. London: Sage, 1996.

GIBBS, G. Research into student learning. In B. Smith and S. Brown (Eds.), Research, teaching

and learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page, 1996.

GIBBS, G., & HABESHAW, T. Learning to teach: Powerful ideas in teaching and learning.

Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, 1996.

GIBBS, G., & JENKINS, A. (Eds.). Teaching large classes in higher education. London: Kogan

Page, 1992.



14/15

GIBBS, G., LUCAS, L., & SIMONITE , V. Class size and student performance: 1984-94. Stud-

ies in Higher Education , 1996, 21(3), 261-273.

HABESHAW, S., GIBBS, G., & HABESHAW, T. 53 Problem s with large classes: Making the

best of a bad job. Bristol: Technical and Education Services, 1992.

HIGHER EDUCATIO N FUNDING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND. Profiles of HEFCE In-

stitutions. Bristol: HEFCE, 1994.

JACQUES, E. On the dynamics of social structure: A contribution to the psychoanalytic studyof social phenomenon deriving from the views of Melanie Klein. Human Relations, 1953,

6, 3-24.

JACQUES, E. Social systems as a defence against persecutory and depressive anxiety. In M.

Klein et al. (Eds.), New directions in psychoanalysis. London: Tavistock, 1955.

JENKINS, J. J. Teaching psychology in large classes: research and personal experience. Teach-

ing of Psychology, 1991, 18(2), 74-80.

KNAPPER, C. K., & CROPLEY, A. J. Lifelong learning and higher education (2nd ed.). Lon-

don: Kogan Page, 1991.

KREEGER, L. (Ed.). The large group: Dynam ics and therapy. London: Constable and Co.,

1975.LINDSAY, R., & PATON-SALTZBERG, R. Resource changes and academic performance at

an English polytechnic. Studies in Higher Education,1987, 12, 213-227.

MAR , P. B., de, PIPER, R., & THOMPSON, S. Koinonia: From hate through dialogue, to

culture in the large grou p. London: Karnac Books, 1991.

MENZIES, I. E. P. The Functioning of Social Systems as a De fence Against Anxiety. Tavistock

Pamphlet No. 3, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London, 1970

NEWBLE, D, & CANNON, R. A handboo k for teachers in univ ersities an d colleges. London:

Kogan Page, 1995.

PHILLIPS, R. AppendixGrowth and diversity: A new era in college and universities. In M.

Slowey (Ed.), Implem enting change from within u niversities and colleges. London: KoganPage, 1995.

PRENDE RGAST, G. P. Student-centred learning in the large class setting. Journal of Further

and Higher Education, 1994, 18(3), 48-62.

PUTMAN, L. L., & MUMBY, D. K. Organizations, emotion and the myth of rationality. In

S. Fineman (Ed.), Emo tion in organizations. London: Sage, 1993.

RICE, A. K. Learning for leadership. London: Tavistock, 1965.

SCOTT, P. The m eanings of m ass higher education.Buckingham: SRHE and Open University,

1995.

SLOWEY, M. (Ed.). Implementing change from within universities and colleges.London: Kogan

Page, 1995.SMITH, B., & BROWN, S. (Eds.). Research, teaching and learning in higher education.London:

Kogan Page, 1995.

ZIMBARDO, P. Lecture/Seminar on Teaching Large Groups given to a staff group at the

University of East London.Video: Psychology Department, University of East London, 1992.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

DAVID HO GAN is a Chartered Occupational Psychologist and Associate Fe llow of the B.P.S.

with experience in both teaching and consultancy. He has worked and consulted for variousorganizations and the focus for his work is action research in which there is active collabo-

ration between the client and the consultant. He has also taught Occupational and Organ-

izational Psychology at the University of East London. He now works as an independent

consultant and is Chair of the Occupational Psychology Division of the British Psychology

Society. His current and abiding interest i s the application of group processes and dynamics

to learning and development both for the individual and the organization.

RICHARD KWIATKOWSKI is a Chartered Counselling Psychologist and a Chartered Oc-

cupational Psychologist. He was Course Director of the Doctorate in Organizational Psychol-



15/15

ogy at the University of East London, and is currently a lecturer in Organizational Psychology

at Cranfield University. He has previously worked in the health service, both as a re searche r

and practitioner, and in industry as an occupational psychologist. In addition to engaging in

research, teaching, and consultancy, he has an active interest in the use of metaphorical lan-

guage in organizations, in psychotherapy, and in the interaction between the two.


emotional aspects of large group teaching

Documents