Co-teach a business simulation to a large class: deepen engagement

Abstract This paper examines challenges linked to teaching and learning in a large class and how using a business simulation, with co-teaching as an instructional method, helped increase engagement. The instructional team was able to address the concerns of student engagement by making changes right from the design of the course to the final assessment through pedagogical rethink and co-teaching. This paper covers the experience of teaching a cohort of 240 management students. The design was intended to teach a large class, though with the feel of a small class. The paper also discusses the instructors’ experiences, including what can go wrong with experiential learning and co-teaching. Many ideas discussed in this case study will likely be informative for those teaching large-sized classes with an intent to make it more engaging with co-teaching and adopting learning with simulations as a pedagogy.


PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
A simulation is an interactive, immersive learning pedagogy that helps amplify experiences in a structured manner and replicates many aspects of the real world. Business simulations are designed to create "microworlds" that enable students to see the impact of their decisions on the firm's performance with effects between competition and the environment. MBA education requires students to be equipped to take cross functional decisions in the real-world and a business simulation is an instructional tool which is capable of giving students an experience of decision making by replicating the functional world of business. MBA programs across the world typically have large sized classes. Large sized classes reduce engagement. This paper explores co-teaching as an instructional method to increase engagement. Co-teaching experience of the instructors in professional education along with its benefits and issues are discussed as an innovative instructional method to address large sized classes.

Introduction
MBA education has long been considered a stepping stone to a bright career, but a debate has also developed about the value of a two-year degree. Critics believe that most MBA courses are analytical, quantitative and lack an action orientation (Whetten & Cameron, 1983). From this perspective, students gain a little experience with implementation issues or exercising judgment when required to apply knowledge to practice. However, graduates will need these skills to thrive in the dynamic, contemporary marketplace (Datar et al., 2010). Business simulation-based learning is a practical pedagogy to train management students to apply conceptual knowledge, make judgments and take decisions in an environment that mimics the real world (Vos & Brennan, 2010).
A second growing concern in management education is the prevalence of large classes. Significant disadvantages of large classes include inadequate interactions between students and the instructor, strained impersonal relations, limited teaching methods, discomfort among instructors to teach large classes, and lower student engagement (Cuseo, 2007), leading to less effective teaching outcomes. The challenges of large-class teaching are real and here to stay; hence, effectively meeting these challenges with the context in mind is the need of the hour (Mulryan-Kyne, 2010). Creative ways to solve specific challenges such as those related to interaction and low engagement can be resolved by co-teaching as an instructional method with more than one instructor being actively involved in the delivery of the course (Ferguson & Wilson, 2011). When two instructors are responsible for course with a certain class size, the most evident change seen is that student-teacher ratio is cut into half, thus allowing an opportunity for more individual or small group discussions. Higher interaction between instructor and students leading to more engagement and better understanding of student responses and behaviour is another major advantage of co-teaching (Sweigart & Landrum, 2015). Co-teaching requires commitment from coteachers to design and facilitate a robust learning experience while maintaining a collaborative relationship between them. Literature does show evidence of advantages in support of co-teaching in higher education (Lock et al., 2017).
The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how engagement can be increased in a large class of management students while co-teaching a business simulation-based course. The paper is built on the teaching experience of the authors. The literature review section connects issues of large classes, engagement, simulation-based learning, and co-teaching. A segment on the design and implementation of the course, which highlights essential aspects of engagement with co-teaching principles in action and business simulations as a pedagogy, follows. Next is the experience of the instructors, including what can go wrong with co-teaching. We close with a contribution in coteaching a large class of management students and recommendations for future research.

Large classes and engagement
There is general agreement that large classes have adverse consequences for both students and instructors (Broadbent et al., 2018;Cuseo, 2007). There is little agreement on what constitutes a large class; some term a class with more than 50 students as a large class while others consider a class with around 100 students and more as a large class (Carbone, 1998;Cuseo, 2007;Marcus, 2017). The dependence on the lecture format as a method of instruction is high when the class size is large, leading to limitations on the effectiveness of teaching and learning. Mulryan-Kyne (2010) points out that students' engagement is likely low with less active involvement in the learning process with any large class lecture. Kuh et al. (2011) define engagement as students' participation in the educational process both inside and outside the classroom, leading to measurable outcomes. According to Cross (1998) active involvement (engagement) is the "grand metaprinciple" of student learning. With many peers around, students may feel intimidated about asking questions leading to low interactivity in class. Nunn (1996) suggests that large classes reduce participation, an essential factor for learning. Arvanitakis (2014) highlights that due to inadequate opportunity to focus on individual needs of the students in a large class, the instructor may choose to focus on the "middle" of the cohort and may leave behind those students who are struggling or disengaging with those who may be above average. This could eventually impact the quality of education. Lower levels of academic achievement (learning) and academic performance (grades) could be a result of factors mentioned above, including lesser time with the instructor to close the learning loop (Isbell & Cote, 2009). This, in turn, impacts grades leading to lower satisfaction with the learning experience in the student's mind. Lower satisfaction leads to lower student ratings for the course instruction, which creates dissatisfaction for the instructor (Cuseo, 2007).
To overcome these issues related to large classes, many instructors have started using breakout rooms, classroom response systems, online posting of lectures, peer-led team learning, and experiential learning pedagogy to increase engagement (Allen & Tanner, 2005;Stanley, 2013). Qualters (2002) highlights that experiential learning as a pedagogy can reduce the impact of large class issues. It creates a learning environment where dependence on the instructor for the acquisition of knowledge is reduced. It moves the focus of learning on the students as it offers students an opportunity to engage in reflection, analysis, synthesis, and communication in the context of their learning needs, thus making them active constructors and transformers of knowledge (A. J. Faria et al., 2009;Fink, 2013). Woo and Reeves (2007) state that while students are engaged in a learning task along with peers and experts, they go through a process of generating ideas, working on tasks, sharing perspectives, and synthesizing their thoughts. Often, they face disagreements, conflicts, or confusion that require internal and external negotiations to resolve the problem. Such meaningful interactions are necessary for learning to happen in a social world. Social constructivism with a high level of interaction between students helps develop effective classrooms (Farrell, 2020;Kalina & Powell, 2009).
While past work has acknowledged experiential learning as a way to address engagement in a large class, there is a gap in research on how business simulation-based learning, which is experiential, when combined with co-teaching as an instructional tool, can deepen engagement in a large class. This paper details a pedagogy that combines co-teaching and business simulations for innovative outcomes in a large class.

Business simulation-based learning
A business simulation is an interactive, immersive learning pedagogy that helps amplify experiences in a structured manner and replicate many aspects of the real world (Salas et al., 2009). Anderson (2005) describes simulation-based learning as "learning by doing." A virtual environment is created in which participants take decisions for a firm, individually or as a group. The group interaction, which is experiential, intense, and high on motivational aspects, can make learning through simulations superior to other learning activities (Xu & Yang, 2010). Business simulations are designed to create "microworlds" that enable students to see the impact of their decisions on the firm's performance with effects between competition and the environment (Anderson, 2005; D. C. Kayes, 2002;Romme, 2003). Participants are required to apply their knowledge in an integrative manner with evolving business conditions (Cadotte et al., 2013). Simulations allow the learners to construct their knowledge by raising questions, building their models, and organizing their experiences rather than following the instructor's words (Springer & Borthick, 2004). Petranek et al. (1992) bring out that simulations provide three levels of learning through participating, debriefing and writing. With experience in the simulation, students learn through the route of discovery. The issue of low engagement in a large class can be reduced by the active involvement of students in the simulation. Faria and Wellington (2004), while examining the penetration of business simulations as a learning pedagogy, found that the perceived time for preparation of simulations usage was the main barrier for adoption by instructors. In their study, Lean et al. (2006) also concurred that the time and resources available for developing simulation-based teaching are often constraints for adoption. This barrier can be even higher where a single instructor has to handle a large class. In a large class with many student teams, keeping track of student activities can be daunting for instructors. A non-linear pedagogy like simulation-based learning is an open-ended learning activity where students work in groups to solve a complex problem, with emphasis on self-directed learning and experimentation. This needs tailored guidance and scaffolding which is challenging for instructors (Härkki et al., 2021). Students need guidance in learning the rules of the simulation and in analysing their performance as they make decisions across rounds. This could be another barrier to the adoption of simulation-based learning for a large class. Co-teaching in an evolving pedagogical environment like simulation-based learning can help overcome this barrier by bringing in co-instructors as team members to collaborate on the course. Faculty-student teams working together on a simulation-based course for undergraduates has been attempted (Bernstein et al., 2002). However, a literature scan does not include a collaboration between two faculty members on a simulation-based course for post-graduate management students. This paper describes how co-teaching was adopted in the simulation-based course for a large class of postgraduate management students. We also believe there is a need to identify positive underlying collaborative processes that might be valuable to other teaching contexts.

Co-teaching as a way to increase student engagement
Co-teaching has been widely used in inclusive and in special education. In co-teaching, individual instructors get their skills and competencies together to create stronger instruction outcomes. In higher education, faculty working together on research is common, but collaborating in teaching is less common (Lock et al., 2017). Co-teaching is beneficial for students and for courses that require different perspectives, collaboration in a group activity, and the development of students' cognitive skills (Kerridge et al., 2009). In their study, Bacharach et al. (2008) concluded that the collaborative nature of co-taught courses creates an environment conducive to class discussion and higher student participation, leading to higher engagement. Better student-to-teacher ratio and increased availability of instructors also positively impact students in the class. With a better student-teacher ratio, students can have an opportunity for in-depth discussions with the instructor, which helps mitigate the issue of lower levels of academic achievement and performance (grades) due to lesser time with the instructor. Roth and Tobin (2004) find that co-teaching can change teaching practice at all levels of education. Using the co-teaching format in higher education allows teachers to experience the strengths and weaknesses of working collaboratively. While it allows the growth of instructors by reflecting and seeing different styles in action, it provides students with a variety of effective instructional methods (Ferguson & Wilson, 2011). Research has indicated increased use of coteaching at the university level by special education teachers but is notably absent from literature outside the special education domain (Bacharach et al., 2008). In the university context, co-teaching has not been explored to a large extent, and hence it remains unclear how this teaching practice of co-teaching might apply in higher education (Nevin et al., 2009).
The collaborative effort of two instructors has the potential to resolve many issues, including teaching large classes. Co-teaching partnerships become effective and attain symbiosis when interdependence, personal differences, and strengths are in action (Pratt, 2014).
Six co-teaching practices have been documented that are responsive to student learning needs and foster purposeful instruction: One teach, one observe; Station teaching, Parallel teaching, Alternative teaching, Teaming and One teach, one assist (Friend & Cook, 1992). These are described in Table 1.

Approach Explanation
One teach, one observe One instructor takes the lead role, and the other plays the role of an observer. The observer instructor can gather behavioural and academic information, which can be helpful for the course. With an intent to address the limitations of engagement in large classes and to induce action orientation in management students, we designed and conducted a simulation-based introductory course in business. This case experience is shared in the following sections.

Methodology
This study is an outcome of shared experiences and reflective discussions between the authors who are co-teachers in a business simulation-based course. Their co-teaching experience spans across twenty plus simulation-based courses taught across ten years in different graduate programs. Reflective conversations provide an opportunity for reconstruction of shared meaning and has the potential to change practices (Crow & Smith, 2005). This case study presents data and analysis as a shared experience from course design, to implementation followed by reflective discussions, with a potential to resonate with the readers and encourage them to embark on coteaching as an instructional practice. In each one of the twenty courses conducted during the period 2010 through 2019, quantitative and qualitative feedback was formally obtained from students. These were large sized classes where co teaching with a business simulation was adopted. Each course benefited from the feedback and instructor reflection from the earlier course. This paper which covers things like course design and student feedback is based on the course delivered in 2019.

Context-Course design and the cohort
The broad objectives of the course were to help students develop integrative thinking, appreciate the cross-functional nature of business, and build team skills. The business simulation used in the course CAPSTONE (www.capsim.com) required students (in teams) to make functional decisions for the firm they managed over several rounds. Nine industries were created, and each industry had six firms (five student teams and one computer run firm) competing with one another. The course was spread over a month, with each student spending 25 hours in class. The cohort of 240 students (average age of 24 years, 40% women, 90% with average work experience of two years, 70% with STEM background and 30% from humanities, business and finance backgrounds) was divided into three sections of about eighty students each. Each section had three industries and 15 teams comprising 5-6 members each.

Approach Explanation
Station teaching Students are divided into groups. Teaching/Instruction is also divided into parts, which different instructors take. Students move from one instructor to another (also called instruction stations) non sequentially and finally work independently to collate information.
Parallel teaching Different instructors teach the same content to independent cohorts as the class is divided into two cohorts to increase student participation and offer differences in instruction styles.
Alternative Teaching One instructor is responsible for teaching, and another is responsible for working with small groups of the larger class for assessment, enrichment, or any other activity required to enhance the course's learning.

Teaming
Both instructors are involved in lecturing on a particular topic and making class discussion richer by demonstrating different ways to deal with a problem or opposing views. The student sees collaboration and experiences an invisible flow of instruction.
One teach, one assist. The lead instructor is responsible for teaching or lecturing, and another instructor assists by individually guiding students in a class (or outside class).
Each team had a deliberate mix of students with diverse work experience, gender, and educational backgrounds. The team size and the composition were decided, keeping in mind the quantum of work and roles the team members could take up in the simulation. The simulation had three phases-practice, competition, and an individual component. The practice phase (rounds) was designed to familiarize students with the simulation environment. In the competition rounds, teams competed with one another for superior performance. There were eight rounds of decisionmaking in the competition phase, where each round represented one year in the firm's life. Finally, each student applied learnings from the initial phases to run a firm independently for four rounds in the individual component. The simulation is designed to allow students to learn in teams and later apply their takeaways individually.

Managing Team Experiences for higher engagement
A large class leads to a large number of teams. With diverse educational backgrounds, prior work profiles, and gender, teams need to be managed for even experiences. Thoughtful team formation, as described above, can help in diversity, but team dynamics need to be identified and resolved while the course is underway. Torrente et al. (2012) suggest that supportive team climate and coordination within teams enhance team performance. Teamwork can be a great learning opportunity. However, it can have pitfalls such as social loafing, groupthink, high dependence on a domineering leader, over-commitment of goals, and diffusion of responsibility (A. B. Kayes et al., 2005). We personalized team interactions during the course to reduce the impact of these factors and enhance engagement in teams. While the team was engaged in making decisions and working together, we spent considerable time identifying progress and conflicts with each team. This helped to develop a safe, open environment within teams for discussions. In order to foster higher levels of participation, we sought responses from different team members about their team performance. This reduced dependence on a dominant leader and allowed individuals to discuss points different from the group view. During periodic debriefing, different game plans adopted by teams were discussed to bring out the diversity of thought and emphasize that "there is no one cookie-cutter way to succeed and that different, distinct approaches can lead to superior performance." Students were encouraged to play different roles within their teams, from being functional experts to the organization's head. This aided the students in appreciating the responsibilities that each role entails.

Debriefing for guided reflection to integrate experiences
Debriefing can encourage critical thinking as it encompasses interpretation, analysis, explanation, and inferences. As business simulations are operating models of the real world, analytical discussions called "debriefing" around the experience in the simulation can be used to bring about similarities between the simulation world and the world outside the class (Lederman, 1984). Debriefing is often referred to as guided reflection with an opportunity to discuss performance with others, learn and modify actions or behaviour as a result (Fanning & Gaba, 2007). The goal of debriefing in the course context may be viewed as "to facilitate an understanding of what has happened, find out what the student learned, and test that against the instructor's learning objective" (Lederman, 1992).
The broad objectives that we wanted to achieve through debriefing were: • Broaden thinking and application of different concepts in a business setting.
• Appreciation of the cross-functional nature of business.
• Link learning from the simulation world to the "real world." • Clarity of thought with a critical analysis of performance. Fosnot and Perry (1996) emphasize that there is learning even from "mistakes" made. As disequilibrium facilitates learning, errors need to be perceived as learners' conceptions and should not be avoided. We used the different debriefing techniques described below to help students organize and generalize their experiences with challenging open-ended questions.

Intermediate debriefing through class discussions
This form of debriefing helps students improve performance in subsequent rounds when supported with analysis and suggestions for improvements. When general mistakes are identified and discussed, alternative courses of action can evolve (Peters & Vissers, 2004). We examined performance reports (non "confidential" parts) with the students in the class to showcase interlinked consequences of decisions. Teams were invited to critique a particular decision, analyse its impact across functional areas, identify alternate strategies for doing business, and focus on competition analysis. Teams whose reports were not being discussed were asked to analyse and comment on performance, which helped get the entire class involved. The team being discussed could contribute by sharing their rationale for the decisions taken. Such a discussion was structured to promote reflective learning, and our role was to help teams apply the broad findings to their situation. Students analyse their assumptions, think about developing new experiences, improve their decision-making skills, and reflect on their future actions during such discussions.
Instructor-led debriefing dwelt on forecasting techniques, strategies for growth, and financial decisions across firms. Some frameworks that were discussed in the class in relation to the simulated world were as the BCG growth-share matrix to decide the right portfolio mix of the products for their firm, Porter's generic competitive strategies to decide the position the firm could take to gain a competitive advantage, six-sigma and TQM initiatives to improve internal efficiencies and the balanced scorecard to track performance at the firm level. As performance was assessed using the balanced scorecard across four perspectives of finance, customer and marketing, internal processes and learning and growth, a business graduate learns to appreciate interrelatedness of business decisions across perspectives. After each round, we used different metrics (e.g., market share, profitability, productivity) for the "leader board" as we recognize that positive emotions are essential for learning. Building an emotional engagement in students, a sense of belonging to their firm and developing a meaningful connection to their actions helps develop cognitive ability (Abbas et al., 2021). Negative emotions of anxiety can block learning if interest levels drop .

Intermediate debriefing through individual team discussions
As the simulation progresses, teams move in different directions, and the need for individual team discussion increases. We identified teams that were lagging in performance or conceptual understanding for discussions. It is essential to spend more time with teams that need attention early to not dampen their learning spirit due to the competitive environment or weak performance. At this point, we used "parallel teaching" as a mode of co-teaching. We divided the teams for discussion, which enabled us to have enough time to analyse their performance with each team. The debrief was now personalized to the team's needs. The discussion was around understanding the team's direction and getting them to think about options for improving performance. Getting the team to aggregate individual views into a common view helps each member reflect on experiences and identify gaps in thinking (Miller & Maellaro, 2016). Teams were encouraged to question assumptions and concepts applied in their earlier decision cycle to improve performance.

Final debriefing-to connect learnings to the real world
One of the business simulation course objectives was to connect skills and knowledge developed in the simulation exercise to the real world. This was achieved by joint reconstruction of knowledge with the students based on competition analysis with conceptual frameworks. The analysis showcased the impact of decisions, conflicts, and cooperation that emerged across firms within an industry. "Teaming" as a form of co-teaching was used by us at this stage for higher effectiveness. Examples of real-world companies were also discussed with the class as a whole.
We tried creating conversational spaces during the debriefing process, which required us to depend less on structured formats and be more spontaneous and emergent in our interactions. Baker (2004) recommends that instructors should take advantage of the teachable moments and let go of the control and structure to create an environment of multiple possible truths and encourage a spirit of inquiry rather than advocacy. While the benefit of debriefing is that it aids critical thinking through analysis, interpretation, and explanation, it can have a counter effect if students do not have an opportunity to ask questions to clarify their doubts or relate to the ongoing discussions. As we were two instructors working together with the teams, we were aware of all the teams' performances, which helped us steer discussions in class so that many teams could feel involved and participate.

Moving from critical thinking to reflexivity through assessments
Reflection is at the heart of experiential learning. Assignments, discussions, and debriefing can aid critical thinking and reflection, but it requires students to participate in the process actively. Students need to work in teams to gather evidence in their simulated environments to identify causal relationships in the ecosystem while analysing data, making inferences, and drawing conclusions Van Voorhis & Paris, 2019). Higher order thinking comprises both reflective and critical thinking (Kageyama et al., 2022) and simulation-based learning research shows that it has the potential to build critical thinking analysis and reflective thinking skills (Lamb et al., 2018). Gray (2007) underscores that moving from critical thinking to reflexivity is possible when a safe expression environment is created with space for questions, emotions and learning. Students were required to participate in various assessments at different stages to ensure that learning and reflection were also taking place at the individual level. The assessments were hence designed around individual and team effort.

Assessment-1: analysis of performance in the simulation-at team level
The teams were required to submit an assessment of their performance in the business simulation at specific intervals (after practice rounds and mid-way in the competition rounds). The assessment required the students to analyse performance and suggest a way forward while evaluating their firm's strengths, weaknesses, and assessment of capabilities.

Assessment 2: quizzes-individual level
The first quiz was designed to test the ability to analyse the performance of a firm. This quiz was based on a report. The second quiz was designed to test the ability to connect learning from the business simulation to go beyond and apply the knowledge to the real world. Relevant business press reports were used as inputs for the quiz questions.

Assessment-3: Performance in the simulation rounds-At team and individual level
Students used their experience from the competition rounds to make decisions independently across all functional areas in the individual phase. Student performance in the simulation at the team level and later at an individual level was assessed using pre-discussed metrics.
Each assessment was designed to foster critical thinking. The group assignments were turned around with feedback, comments, or discussion points to refine their understanding. The feedback to the students was detailed, which could counter the concern of limited learning outside the classroom for large classes.

Analysis-our reflection as co-teachers
We used co-teaching as a mode of delivery throughout our business simulation course. It helped us in improving the student-teacher ratio, which is an area of concern in large classes. The co-teaching approaches that we used at different times were "teaming," "parallel teaching," and "one teach, oneobserve." Through parallel teaching, we could attend to team queries and have in-depth discussions with most of the teams as each of us needed to attend to fewer teams. "Teaming" as an approach helped us get different perspectives to the class to build an integrated cross-functional view of a business. One teach, one observe method was used to build collective knowledge of how the class was progressing by playing different roles, one being an observer and the other as an instructor, especially when we introduced concepts in the initial phase of the course.

Different perspectives, different styles
The class size, experiential mode of learning, and cross-functional nature of the course required diverse skill sets from us, such as probing students at the right time to critique their decisions and nudging them to apply learnings to enhance experiences. A business simulation is like running a firm with knowledge of different functions, and co-teaching can help get views from different domains on the same platform for integrative thinking. We brought in varying points of view from our functional domains during the debriefing sessions. Students got an opportunity to experience different styles of questioning and sharing of knowledge in class and individual team discussions.

Authentic partnership
Each of us had defined roles to perform in class and outside class. We updated and shared with each other about our student discussions, concerns, and other issues related to the course. When one of us was teaching, the other took on the task of observing the responses and behaviour in class. This helped us understand the students better and how they were taking in different levels of instruction being shared in class. While debriefing on simulation performance, we led the discussion as a team. Authentic relationship in co-teaching does take some time to develop. Previous partnerships in teaching and research can aid build this relationship. Successful collaborations showcase harmony characterized by transparency, honesty, mutual respect, and appreciation of constructive feedback. It seems like an interplay of cognitive and emotional processes (Jortveit & Kovač, 2021).

Student connect
Conducting an experiential learning course with a high number of teams can be exhausting for an instructor. In an experiential course, the aim is to help students reflect on their experiences and progress further with social constructivism. The role of the instructor moves from being a sage on the stage to that of a facilitator. To improve the student interaction and facilitation, we split the section into two smaller labs. As instructors, we took up one lab each for team discussions to improve analysis and assimilation of knowledge. Time outside class for discussing performance with teams was also possible as we were equally equipped to handle reviews and queries. Co-teaching thus helped us in developing deep student connect

Student team not doing well-loses interest
Due to large class size, if a team does not get quality time with the instructor for analysis of performance or if due to poor decisions, the performance of a team drops, it can demotivate the team and impact learning outcomes. Business simulations are based on competition within teams, and weak performance can lead to demotivation, leading to low reflection and reducing the impact of experiential learning.

The difference in instructor knowledge, preparation, and student connection levels
The foundation of co-teaching is built on the equivalence of skill and knowledge in conducting the course. Individual styles of instructors could vary, perspectives may well be different, but the knowledge required to conduct the course needs to be strong and at similar levels. If there is a variation in the knowledge base, students will automatically be drawn towards the instructor perceived to be more knowledgeable. Also, if the student cohort is exposed to one of the instructors in an earlier course, then familiarity can also disrupt the student-faculty ratio aimed for sound co-teaching.

Low university support towards co-teaching
Co-teaching is a collective responsibility where instructors not only plan the curriculum together but also deliver it together. It calls for respect from instructors to create space for each other by a willingness to step back sometimes and step forward at others. If the effort of co-teaching is not appreciated at the university as a method to improve teaching standards, then it can be discouraging for instructors. Recognition of giving credit to both instructors and considering co-teaching workload comparable to individual teaching is required. Bradford (2019) clarifies that sometimes even good debriefing may not catch all student emotions, but it can be mitigated by personal journal writing or reflection notes. In order to understand learning outcomes beyond scores in the simulation and in-class reactions, student feedback was collected from two sources, one, an open-ended reflective question on "learning from the course" and two, from anonymous course experience feedback. The experience feedback was measured on a Likert scale of 5, with 1 indicating strongly disagree and 5 indicating strongly agree. The results (n = 197) indicate that the element of valuing perspectives other than one's own was the most critical learning along with a sharpening of decision-making skills. The ability to work in teams was also an important takeaway for the students. Table 2 summarises the experience of the class on six dimensions. Social constructivism views learning as a social process. The feedback shows that it was achieved in this course, which suggests that if a conscious effort is made to improve team engagement and experiences, it leads to a higher level of learning.

Learning outcomes
Some select comments (from the open-ended question) also exhibit engagement in the course along with the elements of team dynamics, experience, and reflection.
There were times when there were differences in opinions of team members. I learned that we should listen to what others say with an open mind even if we feel very strongly about our opinion.
As a team, we learned that we need to trust one another and move ahead.
On the personal front, engagement was seen from the attachment of individuals to their firm, excitement when waiting for results or efforts put in the course.
The competitive spirit helped in increasing our group cohesiveness. We celebrated when we did well while we reflected on our mistakes when we did not do well.
We, as a team, were attached to our virtual company and used to wait for results after the rounds eagerly.
The reflection sought to be achieved through the debriefing sessions was evident in different forms in the feedback from the students. My most significant learning was to see how the different functions worked together and impacted one another. It is never a waterfall way of decision making where you do not revisit and revise the functions you have already planned. However, it is an iterative process where constant rework may be required to achieve your goals optimally.
The course gave me some insights into my style of decision-making in terms of being riskprone or risk-averse. It also improved my strategic decision-making skills.
Overall, the comments indicated that engagement was achieved in the course even with large cohort size.

Practical implications
In our paper, we addressed the problem of low engagement in large classes. We tried to mitigate it by using a business simulation as an experiential learning pedagogy with co-teaching as the instructional method. Experiential learning by design reduces the effect of large classes as it encourages social constructivism where students learn from peers and experts. The position of the teacher moves to that of a facilitator. We introduced co-teaching, which further helped enhance team experiences and engagement. Teams need to be steered in the right direction for higher team performances and engagement with effective debriefing and timely inputs. One instructor in a large class may be overloaded with handling many teams, assessments, and the responsibility of timely debriefing. This may force the instructor to make trade-offs, concentrate on some aspects considered necessary, and leave out others. If handled with trust, respect, and an authentic partnership, we saw that co-teaching could be a very effective instructional method to reduce large class effects.

Future directions and closing thoughts
Based on the scope of this work, a few areas emerge for additional study. Can co-teaching with another approach (project work, case discussions, traditional lectures) help with large class engagement? Similarly, one can evaluate the effectiveness of a single instructor using a simulation in a large class or another experiential learning tool to contrast the impact on learning.
A large class limits interaction and can have unintended effects on the learning process of the student. Various forms of teaching and learning pedagogies are being used to improve learning outcomes, and the importance of experiential learning is increasing. The impact of experiential teaching (with co-teaching) in a large class was visible in our case of "learning with a business simulation" in the student feedback, both formal and informal. Nevertheless, this needs to be validated with other forms of experiential learning. To make experiential learning successful for large classes, robust interventions need to be designed with high instructor involvement and cohesiveness. Our journey with experiential teaching in a large class suggests it can be made effective and engaging.

Funding
The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

correction
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.