2.1 A narrative review of literature regarding class size in online  (Page 3/11)

As a response to requests to know optimum class sizes for online courses, we conducted a research synthesis on this topic. Though we much rather would have conducted a best evidence synthesis (Slavin, 1986), a systematic review (Cook, Mulrow,&Haynes, 1997), or a research literature critique (Lunenburg&Irby, 2008), we could not do so due to the lack of evidenced-based papers. Therefore, we were compelled by the available information to conduct a research synthesis known as narrative review (Davies, 2000).

The narrative review procedure

The narrative review is the most simple type of synthesis and is qualitative in nature (Davies, 2000). In this narrative review, we sought to identify all that had been written about class size in online courses in higher education. Most writings are commentaries via anecdotal accounts or papers published mainly to the web via blogs or non-refereed forums. Only a few attempts have been made actually to assess the relationship of class size in online higher education to student outcomes or to faculty evaluations. Our protocol, therefore, in this narrative review was (a) to identify the range and diversity of the available literature based on a defined phenomenon, (b) to determine gaps which might spawn new research, and (c) to report the available literature .

We determined our range of literature to be within a 12-year timeframe (2000-2012). In terms of technology density, we based our selection of the 12-year time period on Moore’s Law (Intel, 2005) which indicates that technological advances double every 2 years. Thus, our selected timeframe covered the six latest periods, or 12 years, of technological advances since the turn of the century.

The phenomenon we reviewed, of course, was online education and more specifically optimum class size. Sener’s (2010) definition of online education included teaching and learning with online technologies via not only fully online, but also via a blended learning approach (face-to-face and online combination). We adopted Sener’s definition in order to search the literature. Additionally, we used online education, distance education, blended learning, hybrid courses, mobile learning, virtual learning, synchronous learning, and asynchronous learning along with class size as a search terms.

To determine gaps or to critique published works, we attempted to be inclusive of any type of posting, non-refereed or refereed or any type of writing, anecdotal, theoretical, prior reviews of online instruction, or empirical studies. We searched across various disciplines via: (a) Google, (b) Bing, (c) National Center for Education Statistics, (d) Education Week, (e) Chronicle of Higher Education, (f) Sam Houston State University and Texas A&M University Digital Databases, including EBSCO, JSTOR, Wilson Web, ProQuest Dissertations/Theses, PsycInfo, and (g) Sloan Consortium. We also searched journals related to distance education, online education, and educational technology: Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks , Asian Journal of Distance Education , the American Journal of Distance Education, the Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, Distance Education, the Journal of Distance Education , International Journal of Distance Education Technologie, the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication , the Quarterly Review of Distance Education , T.H.E Journal , the Journal of Educational Computing Research , the Journal of the Learning Sciences , Internet and Higher Education , the British Journal of Educational Technology , the College Student Journal, and the Journal of Technology and Teacher Education .