Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 10:36:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Frank Conlon <conlon@u.washington.edu>
Dear Colleagues
The indictment of lecturing is challenging and quite interesting to me. I do some lecturing and some seminars in my own instructional program.
I am very innocent of educational theory so I will have to ask you, my colleagues on H-TEACH, to explain to me why we should accept the premise that no learning should be accomplished in a setting which has been labeled here as "passive". I am not sure I understand what "passive" means. When I go to a talk or listen to a guest lecturer, I listen. Listening is not an inherently passive activity. Taking notes and trying to grasp the ideas presented do not strike me as passive activities.
I have had plenty of experiences of students who are passive in lectures; but many of them are passive in seminars, passive in just about every aspect of what we are pleased to call their higher education. Their apparent capacity to read and integrate texts has seemingly declined since when I first began teaching. But there were plenty of passive folks in my classes the late 1960s as well.
It may be that our students could be taught how to take advantage of the lecturing process. In particular, I am thinking about the very real life survival skill of listening to what someone has to say and assimilating the important points. This is not just a question of power relations. An acquaintance in the business world has complained to me that many recent graduates are very inept at an important aspect of sales and service work--they seem incapable of interviewing a customer and distilling and writing up what the customer wants. May be we ought to try thinking about lecturing from the other end of the telescope?
When will we relax and recognize that good lecturing can be an effective educational strategy, just as poor seminar facilitating can be totally unproductive.
In a society which officially now has a boiler-plate rhetorical flourish about treasuring diversity, isn't there someone willing to let me get on with teaching college and stop dissing my evolved educational culture?
(Just kidding guys, I don't mind you trashing my approach to teaching-- the comments have been very thoughtful. But my reaction to them has been, well, sort of passive.)
Cordially yours,
Frank Conlon
University of Washington
Co-editor of H-ASIA
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 13:53:05 MST7MDT From: Skip Knox <ELKNOX@topgun.idbsu.edu>
Regarding Frank Conlon's comments: hear, hear! This business about passive learning and such is largely nonsense. Lecturing is indeed an effective method of teaching and is used in lots of settings besides the school classroom precisely because it *is* effective. In fact, one of its great strengths is that it is highly efficient.
I recall a number of professors who were excellent teachers, and I recall a (smaller) number who were awful. Their strengths and weaknesses were quite unrelated to teaching styles. All that I asked of my teachers was that they knew their subject thoroughly and that they were excited about it. The good ones filled these two criteria; the poor ones failed in one or both.
Everything else is pretty much irrelevant or outside our power to affect.
Skip Knox Boise State University Boise, Idaho
elknox@bsu.idbsu.edu elknox@topgun.idbsu.edu
One way to stop a runaway horse is to bet on him.
5073 for H-TEACH@MSU.EDU; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 17:55:36 -0400
Apr 95 17:53:53 EDT
1995 16:53:24 -0500
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 16:46:43 -0500
From: Eileen Walsh <walsh@atlas.socsci.umn.edu>
I would like to address Frank Conlon's concerns about educational theory, passive learning, and the status of lecturing. These are issues I often address in my work as a "teaching consultant" at the University of Minnesota, a job that I held while finishing grad school in History and while on the job market this year (just establishing credentials here).
The desired goal is effective teaching, by whatever means that can be achieved. Effectiveness is measured differently by different professors, departments, and institutions, in ways familiar to all - the amount of information students retain and display for the exam and over longer periods, or the complexity of argument in written work, or comprehension sufficient to allow the formulation of interpretations in discussion, and so on. Active learning (which CAN happen in lectures) engages one with the material differently than does passive learning (which CAN happen in discussions--but that's for another posting). Active learning techniques tend to generate something new, such as a hypothesis or synthesis. A useful example of its benefit can be observed in noting the difference between listening or reading in a new language (which aids learning but is passive) and speaking or writing in that new language. You engage with the material in a completely different way when you USE the language to converse, which is why so much language instruction depends on interaction and immersion techniques. I know when I was learning Spanish my heart always beat faster when it was my turn to speak because I found it challenging, even though I was quite calm and comfortable doing translations for homework. I learned in both ways, finding them complementary. The idea is to avoid a singular devotion to only one method of teaching and learning.
Why? Scholars in educational psychology have determined that a variety of learning styles exist, correlating with preferences for certain teaching methods or combinations of them. This is not about learning "disabilities," just styles. Traditionally our society's higher education practices have privileged those who prefer listening and/or reading, and of course we tend to teach the way we were taught since we know it works - or rather, that it worked for us - and so the practice is perpetuated despite its arbitrary exclusivity. The theory gets much more complex than that, but that's the general idea. The best response to this awareness is to provide variety in our teaching approaches, accommodating a diversity of learning styles. Everyone gets a chance at the comfort of having their preferred learning style addressed, and everyone is challenged and prodded by the discomfort of having other learning styles addressed.
Some references:
P.B. Guild & S. Garger. Marching to Different Drummers. Alexandria, VA: Assn for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1985. [a general overview of the theory and practice of learning-style preference]
Bottom line: lecturing already is part of the diversity of teaching styles. It just isn't sufficient by itself.
Eileen Walsh
walsh@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
University of Minnesota
1778 for H-TEACH@MSU.EDU; Wed, 26 Apr 1995 12:39:20 -0400
Apr 95 12:39:05 EDT
11:38:35 -0500
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 09:41:01 -0500
From: jmw1@midway.uchicago.edu
In regard to lecturing, one strategy at least to consider is to focus each lecture not to a "topic," but on a problem that needs solving. We (a couple of us try to teach in this way) try to open each lecture by describing a state of affairs that seems unproblematical, then disrupt it by pointing out that what we thought we understood or knew we in fact do not understand or know as well as we thought. We then try to explain the consequences of not knowing or understanding as well as we thought -- in other words, we exlain why the problem is important, what its significance is, what the solution would do to our understanding of the issues we are addressing. Then as we try to work through possible solutions, we try to work in the substance we are concerned with, but all in the service of solving the problem. For example, instead of "Today we are going to talk about wage distributions of craftsmen Elizabethan London," we try to make it clear that
No guarantees that this makes any huge difference, but it motivates the topic and promises a payoff in understanding something better. It also presents a model of problem solving, expert thinking, etc.
Joe Williams
English
U of Chicago
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 95 10:29:27 EDT
From: William Cutler <WCUTLER@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
LECTURE v. DISCUSSION
Mitch/Ramsden identify an important problem when they point out that students (especially undergraduates) sometimes complain about class reports by other students, saying that they are a waste of time. Is this because many student reports are not well done or because many students refuse to listen to their peers? After all, the teacher makes the tests; hence only his/her words are worthy of their attention.
Lecturing reinforces the student mindset that the teacher is THE authority, because he/she has both more knowledge and more power. Of course, it is true that in most cases, teachers possess more knowledge than their students and in all cases that they possess more power. But how do we get past these realities? How do we encourage students to take some control over their own educations? How do we induce them to listen to each other? Surely, this is not possible if we don't create opportunities for them to speak, not just to the teacher but to the class. This is not to say that lecturing is always inappropriate. But it is to say that we should ask students to prepare for most class sessions and make it clear that we expect them to share what they have learned.
William Cutler
History
Temple
wcutler@vm.temple.edu
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 14:25:09 -0400
From: MITCH@UMBC2.UMBC.EDU
In responding to my previous posting about lecturing as a teaching format, Richard Sutch noted (quite rightly, I would concede) that although I used the phrase "pitfalls of lecturing", I did not actually identify any specific pitfalls, nor did the summary I offered of Gibbs critique of lecturing identify specific pitfalls.
I probably used the specific phrase "pitfalls" of lecturing because of the statement in the book by Paul Ramsden, Learning to Teach in Higher Education that "These, then, are some of the pitfalls into which a belief in the inevitability of lecturing can lead even specialists." (p.154 of Ramsden). Let me return later to summarizing these pitfalls as Ramsden sees them.
Based on my own teaching experience, I have encountered what I regard as at least two major difficulties with the lecture format. The first difficulty is finding that any learning on the part of at least one significant segment of my students has been of the passive rather than the active variety. This despite the use of graded problem sets as well as questions both to and from students interspersed throughout the lectures.
The second difficulty is that of thinking that throughout the semester I have been giving very clear and engaging presentations and even seeming to have substantial segments of a given class concur with that view and yet also finding at the end of the term based on both exam results and on student evaluation comments that a larger proportion of the class than I would like "didn't get it"; was not engaged in the material; and found presentations complicated and/or unclear. I suppose that problem sets and mid-term exams gave me some sense of who was not getting it. But then one faces the issue, that if a certain percentage of students do poorly, to what extent does one assign fault to the students and to what extent does one assign fault to ones teaching?
I should also probably add that in recent years, I have found this to be more of an issue in teaching principles and intermediate theory courses than in teaching economic history. But those are the two basic problems I have had with the lecture format -- the promotion of passive rather than active learning (i.e. not having students truly mentally engaged with the material) and not getting reliable feedback during the term as to who is getting it and who is not.
I am certainly willing to allow that these two problems may reflect more on my lecturing technique than on inherent limitations on lecturing as a format. The appropriate response may well be to look for ways to improve my lecturing rather than to abandon lecturing altogether. But then I would like to know what are the best ways to deal these two issues when using a lecturing format. Hence my original query.
Richard raises the further queries, what are the efficient alternatives to lectures and would reading, discussion and learning take place if lectures were dropped.
With respect to these two queries I would argue that there definitely are meaningful alternatives to lectures (whether efficient or not I suppose depends how efficiency is defined -- but I would think these alternatives can at least be deemed "effective") and reading, discussion, and learning can take place if lectures were dropped.
I base these answers on having recently taught two terms at the London School of Economics where I was asked to teach a master's level seminar on North American Economic History and an experimental Ph.d seminar based on readings chosen by the students. I was given strict instructions to avoid lecturing to the students. Class size was small -- only 5 to 7 students. In the case of the North American History course, a detailed syllabus, along with a list of specific questions related to specific readings for each meeting of the seminar provided the structure and guidance that the lecture would normally be expected from the lecture. One could argue about effectiveness of the seminar format versus the lecture. But I did find that reading, discussion, and learning took place despite the absence of lecturing. One of my biggest challenges in doing these courses was in allowing the students to do most of the talking and resisting the temptation to drift into the lecturing mode.
Can a seminar style format or other type of non-lecturing format be employed with larger classes and a less-selective group of students? I attempted this last fall to incorporate some elements of a seminar style format with a class of 30 students in a European Economci History Course at University of Maryland Baltimore County (where SAT's of entering students are below 1100). I assigned each student an issue and accompanying set of readings to report on to the class. I assigned about 10 minutes per student presentation. I asked each student to prepare copies of a typed summary of his or her presentaiton to circulate to the class. Each student did one presentation at some point during the semester. For most of the rest of class time, I employed a traditional lecture format. My general impression was that the student presentations worked and many of students on the receiving end found it useful, interesting, perhaps even empowering, to be learning from their fellow students rather than from me as teacher. However, some students did comment both to me personally and in written evaluation comments that they found the presentations of other students a waste of time (though even these students said they got a lot out of their own presentations.) O.K. I suppose one could argue that what I have just described is lecturing in another guise. Perhaps so -- but it seemed to get my students more involved in the material than simply straight lecturing on my part.
Finally, let me return to Ramsden and his "pitfalls into which a belief in the inevitability of lecturing can lead even specialists."
As I understand it, Ramsen's pitfalls are as follows:
"Arguments against lecturing are likely to meet the same withering replies that other arguments which cut across tradition in higher education meet: it is not realistic to abandon or even substantially to modify it; it is not economical to change it; it might reduce standards if we tampered with it."
"We take lecturing in higher education so much for granted that we easily forget just how powerful its hold is. The conventional one-hour lecture represents a rigidly quantitative conception of teaching and learning. The producer is the source of wisdom: the teacher is an authority by virtue of the quantity of information or knowledge he or she possesses. The information transmitted and the learning that takes place are simply unproblematical; they cancel out of the equation so to speak. "
"It is all too simple to identify naive beliefs, sometimes thinly veiled by quasi-scientific jargon, that is supposed to reflect expert opinion on the subject of lecturing" (this is Ramsden now, not Mitch :)).
"Getting information into students' memories discloses an interesting thory of teaching and learning. Learning, in this view, plainly stands in a direct relation to teaching, is measurable on a single quantitative scale, and consists in portions of information transferred from the lecturer's mind to the students." [The view of recent advocates of distance learning? :)]
I am sure that is enough of Ramsden and Gibbs for the moment and certainly enough from me. I am with Richard. I would like to hear what others experiences and views are on lecturing and the possibility of other teaching formats, especially in teaching economic history.
David Mitch
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 17:15:45 EDT
From: kwolf@racer1.mursuky.edu
Re previous posting on Frank Conlon's defense of lecturing. Your point that passive learning can be learning and does involve active understanding, ability to take notes, digest and (even to some extent) analyze material is well-taken. In addition, some difficult concepts are better explained via lecture, and, in any case, most historians of my generation (Ph.D 1972) are not about to give up a technique which worked well for us as students.
However, studies do indicate [no, don't ask me to quote them] I'm told, that students do generally retain more and for a longer period of time if they talk about the material with other students or with the teacher, or engage themselves with the material through the writing and research process involved in papers. My daughter told me that the only thing she remembered from her college courses was those topics on which she wrote papers. She was a diligent (Grade-motivated) student at a good college--Earlham.
This is why I, after over 20 years of "straight lecture", am now moving in my teaching to a combination of lecture, small group discussion, more papers (some in the form of take-home exams) and the like--even with freshmen. Just as there are differences in teaching styles (discussion does not come naturally to me, for example), there are differences in learning styles. In addition, students like discussion classes better than lecture classes, for the most part and this too is worth something in there appreciation of the subject, especially if the course I teach (World Civ) is required.
Keep on lecturing, especially if you are very good at it, but remember that for many students in the American culture of the 1990s, active learning might be more lasting and effective than passive learning. Perhaps the bottom line comes in this comment from one of my colleagues who himself is an excellent lecturer: "A good lecture is better than a bad discussion...and vice-versa."
Ken Wolf, Murray State University
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 95 21:14:39 -0500
From: Philip Jones <pdj@bradley.bradley.edu>
Right on, Frank Conlon! The way other academics pick up on educationese coming from schools of education is amusing. The most amusing thing is how they are always very late in picking up on the latest fads. Admittedly, one has to be quick to keep up with them. I have the advantage of having a wife in elementary education. I even used to take them seriously. Anyone remember "contracts for learning?" How about "individualized instruction?" I'm afraid "passive learning" and "learning styles" have already become old-hat in education circles. Watch for "teaching portfolios" soon. That is their latest bandwagon.
Lecture or discussion . . . it hardly matters. While sitting in a colleague's calculus class a couple of years, it dawned on me that teaching is really letting students see how one's mind works, how one tackles problems. The extent of discussion in that class was "Can you work number 14 for us?" Seeing how the learned one organizes thoughts, uses techniques, etc was the real demonstration and the real source of learning.
A person who is enthusiastic about his or her subject, who knows the subject, and who can effectively communicate is going to be a successful teacher -- whatever the technique.
Philip Jones
Bradley University
pdj@bradley.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 07:44:02 -0500 (CDT) From: SIMSG@BELMONT.EDU
Seems to me that our discussion of lecturing and other teaching styles is tending toward a false dichotomy--that it is lecturing vs. discussion or lecturing vs. collaborative learning, etc.
Every course, I think, has a range of objectives--things we want our students to know and to do as a result of the course. Some of those objectives are best achieved (most efficiently achieved) by lecturing or some form of instructor-presentation. Some of those objectives are best achieved by students in response to the reading and writing assignments we make. Some of those objectives are best achieved by having students speak and listen to each other or by stimulating conversations on substantive course-related issues.
In addition to knowing our subject and demonstrating enthusiasm for it, we need to be able to articulate what we want students to know and to do as a result of our courses AND we need to match those objectives to the kind of instructional activity that is most likely to enable the students to achieve. And to make a good match between objectives and instructional moves, we need to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each instructional move.
In the service of this last effort, then, I think it is valuable for us to assess candidly the problems and the promises of each kind of instruction. If we recognize the pitfalls of lecturing, large-group discussion, smallgroup discussion, collaborative projects, etc., etc., we will be better prepared to design courses that have the best chance of reaching our students.
--G. Sims
Belmont Univ.
simsg@belmont.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 08:52:43 MST7MDT From: Skip Knox <ELKNOX@topgun.idbsu.edu>
With all respect for the practitioners of educational theory and consulting, what Eileen Walsh describes seems drastically divorced from both classroom and life in general. To take the latter first, I have yet to find an employer who was concerned about accomodating different working styles. I presume there are such. I pity the poor student who is catered to throughout her educational career, only to enter the job market to find that no one really gives a damn that she's a visual learner, she's been hired to read stock quotes (or whatever). Put another way, I believe there is a certain virtue in placing the bar at a certain height and encouraging the student to clear it. It does neither the individual nor society much good to ask whether the student is comfortable with jumping and perhaps invite them out for a brisk jog instead. Even if I'm wrong, the rest of society certainly does not behave that way.
Nor do I find this is what happens in the classroom. While there may be such a thing as learning styles, this is a factor that -- in my subjective experience -- is overwhelmed by other factors. What affects my students' learning most are things like their maturity, their personal life, the level of their prior education, and their desire to learn. All that comes first, and beside these factors, learning styles appear insignificant.
And what about teaching styles? If it is legitimate and even beneficial to take into account my personal psychology when I am a student, why am I suddenly denied this when I become a teacher? If my teaching style is to lecture, then I should be encouraged in this and not told that I cling to outdated methods that are not effective. Yet this is the message that "old-fashioned" teachers hear all the time.
I know there have been studies. I remain unconvinced. I suspect those who believe in the studies are simply people who love discussion groups and who like to push students up the front of the room, to encourage students to take risks. I've seen teachers like that and they are really exciting to watch, though a little exhausting! If a teacher feels himself going stale and wants some inspiration or to experiment with new approaches, then by all means call in a consultant. But I resent the prescriptive tone of much of education theory that says, in effect, we have discovered universally better ways of doing things and those who do not adopt these are hopelessly archaic, probably enamored of power, egotistical, and doomed to extinction.
I do believe in "active" learning. It's called doing history. That's the fundamental divide between my survey class and my upper division classes. In the survey, students hear about history. In upper divisions they do history -- that is, they write papers. But I certainly am not going to sacrifice class time to watch everyone read books.
Skip Knox Boise State University Boise, Idaho
elknox@bsu.idbsu.edu elknox@topgun.idbsu.edu
One way to stop a runaway horse is to bet on him.
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 09:19:55 MST7MDT From: Skip Knox <ELKNOX@topgun.idbsu.edu>
Re previous post:
> Every course, I think, has a range of objectives--things we want our students > to know and to do as a result of the course. Some of those objectives are
I'm afraid I don't have those objectives. One of the great delights and perpetual surprises for me is that I can never predict what my students will learn. I regard what I do as akin to writing a book or creating a painting. Some students will come in, look around, shrug, and walk out with a grade. Others will come away with misconceptions, despite my best efforts. And some will carry away with them lessons or insights of a quite personal and unique nature. What happens in the classroom is a dynamic and a dialogue, even when only one of us is talking. This sort of thing is not measurable, and the kinds of things that can be measured are either trivial or downright misleading. That's why so many of us wish we did not have to assign grades.
> In addition to knowing our subject and demonstrating enthusiasm for it, we > need to be able to articulate what we want students to know and to do as a > result of our courses AND we need to match those objectives to the kind of
Again, I have a real problem with defining what I want the students to know and do. When I was in school, I went into a history class knowing that the only thing promised was that I would have the chance to learn some stuff about the particular topic. Had the teacher come in and told me the educational objectives of the class, I would have dropped pretty fast. The only course where I think this approach has some validity is in methods classes: historiography, numismatics, historical demography, that sort of thing.
Skip Knox Boise State University Boise, Idaho
elknox@bsu.idbsu.edu elknox@topgun.idbsu.edu
One way to stop a runaway horse is to bet on him.
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 12:05:26 -0500
From: Eileen Walsh <walsh@atlas.socsci.umn.edu>
Re previous posting:
> With all respect for the practitioners of educational theory and
> consulting, what Eileen Walsh describes seems drastically divorced
> from both classroom and life in general.
I guess I should have noted in my first posting yesterday that I have been practicing what I consult about - I've been teaching part-time for 11 years, first in Composition and for the last 7 years in History, at 3 different universities in the area. And I will reiterate my point that learning "styles" are different from learning "disabilities." Addressing various styles is not the same as lowering standards or bars over which people must jump. It is we instructors acknowledging that WE miss a good portion of our students (all of them our responsibility) if we teach to only one style. And regarding life after college, if we teach to that particular subset of students that learns best from being talked to, are we not limiting their exposure, their experience, and their sense of what is normative? Life is not a lecture course. Informal conversations with business executives here in the Twin Cities tell us that the most important skill they want in a college graduate (whether or not specific training in the field is required) is ability to work with other people on project teams, in decision-making groups, and in general. So by Skip Knox's vocational standard, active learning techniques are useful, at least in this metro area but I strongly suspect elsewhere, too.
> What
> affects my students' learning most are things like their maturity,
> their personal life, the level of their prior education, and their
> desire to learn. All that comes first, and beside these factors,
> learning styles appear insignificant.
Maybe we agree, then, that there are things we cannot control or influence. >From that point, though, I go on to work on those things I can control or influence. Most colleges I've seen offer students support services in the areas mentioned in the previous paragraph, acknowledging the importance and variability of these things. I don't take responsibility for those things. I do take responsibility for challenging students with a variety of teaching activities - NOT including "sacrific[ing] class time to watch everyone read books." That would be passive learning, best done outside of class. I'm in charge of constructing a course that effectively teaches History to people who join the class. I assess that effectiveness in a number of familiar ways, and feel confident that I hit much more often than I miss.
> And what about teaching styles?
> If
> my teaching style is to lecture, then I should be encouraged in this
> and not told that I cling to outdated methods that are not effective.
> Yet this is the message that "old-fashioned" teachers hear all the
> time.
I guess I can't speak to what you've heard from others, but having been in on a lot of conversations similar to the one we're having here, I wonder if the argument isn't really against BAD lecturing, rather than lecturing in general. I do encourage you in lecturing if you find that to be effective for your students - not because it's what you like. I do a fair amount of lecturing myself, because I find it effective within certain parameters. There was a nice reference in another posting to a good lecture being better than a bad discussion - and vice versa. I think that said it all - I'll let this go now on the list. Thanks -
Eileen Walsh
walsh@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 95 06:47:00 EST
From: David Fahey <DFAHEY@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Over the past five or ten years I have drastically changed the way that I teach My motives have been many. History as a discipline has changed and the kind of research that I personally do has too. Consquently it makes little sense for me to teach, say, Victorian England, as political history plus "extras." Also I have learned from others about teaching (for example, from faculty and doctoral students in a departmental history teaching portfolio group). Most of all, I have been forced to change by thinking out the relationship between my teaching objectives and what I do and what my students do in courses. For instance, as I accept the consequences of my low ranking for memory, I have moved to mostly open-book, take-home exams. My main teaching project (and worry) at present is a course that I won't teach until January 1996: a survey of modern world history with about 240 students, one 75-minute "lecture" and, in groups about 30, one 75-minute "discussion." What actually will be the teaching methods are yet to be seen.
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 01:51:33 -0400
From: LeslieT500@aol.com
We had a consultant come to our place once to discuss new teaching styles.
Of course, she lectured us for almost 90 minutes because, as she said, she
had to get important information across and she had only a limited amount of
time to do that. She did discuss the "dangers" of learning that was not
"active," encouraged us to take notes-which I being a rebellious sort
refused to do, and listed several different "new" methods of "delivery."
Time was short at the end so only one or two questions was allowed. What
really made me bitter, however, was realizing that she probably made more
money for her 90 minutes than many of our part timers make for teaching a
15-week course. My conclusion: if you have a boring subject lectures
will be boring-and so would discussions.
Les Tischauser
Prairie State
Chicago Heights, Il
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 08:22:56 -0800
From: ROSS A BUSH <ASRAB@acad2.alaska.edu>
I have been following the pitfalls of lecturing line some interest. I have thought for a number of years now that lecturing was one of the least efficient methods of transmitting information to students. However, I feel that in history and other social science related fields, this inefficient communication is still one of the best. As teachers, I feel at least partially responsible for keeping up on the new developments and interpretations of history, and while I might supplement lectures with articles, I feel that addressing such changes in lecture or discussion form is important, if for no other reason than to help the students who can work only by rote memorizaton of notes. However, I think that the key word in the previous sentence is "discussion" without which lecture is pretty much useless.
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 10:48:48 EDT
From: Hughie Lawson, Murray State <hlawson@racer1.mursuky.edu>
Much of the discussion of lecturing follows the usual prejudice in teaching theory of preferring intensive education experiences and disparaging extensive educational experiences. From my own undergraduate education, the intensive experiences were the big papers I wrote, and I remember much about many of them.
Nevertheless, the more extensive educational experiences also have value. For example, in the science courses I took, I have a sharper memory of being in the labs (intensive), doing the assignments, than of the textbooks and lectures; nevertheless, the science knowledge that I remember when the situation requires it, for example in reading history of science, seems to be the text-and-lecture material (extensive).
I agree with E.D. Hirsch that both intensive learning (writing term papers, for example) and extensive learning (learning verbal knowledge for tests) are needed. The intensive learning teaches us how to do new things. But the extensive learning of fairly superficial knowledge leaves a residue in memory that can be activated when needed to understand what we read and hear. An example of fairly superficial knowledge is the science I learned in physics and chemistry classes.
A powerful bias against superficial knowledge as a legitimate goal of instruction goes unrecognized, and undebated, in discussions of teaching theory. This fosters the bias in favor of intense educational experiences as well as the disparagement of lecturing and of verbal knowledge.
Hughie Lawson, Murray State
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 12:30:26 +22305931 (CDT) From: James Robertson <robertso@beloit.edu>
I wonder if we can return to some of the more practical issues that were raised in the posting that started this thread. On bad days the lecture pro and con debate, with "obsolete since the invention of printing" at one extrema and "it was the way that I learned things as a student" at the other, seems about as easy to resolve as the quarrel over whether we should open our hard boiled eggs at the big or the little end. Of course it is very tempting to snipe at educational consultants and their jargon -- never mind their fees -- but, when this issue was raised a couple of days ago, I was far more interested in the prospect of a discussion of practical questions about what techniques can work for people when they endeavor to integrate small-group teaching techniques into lecture-sized classes.
Returning, then, to the issue of integrating student presentations into large classes without the rest of the class switching off during the student's talk, I have had some success in appointing one or two more students to give more polished reports and to ask questions. I have been trying to make student reports a regular part of some of my classes here and last term experimented for techniques to prepare the individual students
So, while we can all recognize that lecturing can have problems, what other techniques are people adopting to get past those potholes?
James Robertson from August '95: History History Department, Beloit College University of the West Indies, 700 College Street, Mona, Beloit, WI 53511 Kingston, e.mail: robertso@beloit.edu Jamaica
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 15:35:43 -0500
From: Eileen Walsh <walsh@atlas.socsci.umn.edu>
Regarding the question of integrating student presentations into classes without the rest of the class switching off:
I have students respond to each other's presentations in writing. I explain that I do grade the presentations but also want to give substantive feedback so they know what they are doing well and what they need to work on. However, since presentations are brief and move quickly, I cannot take a lot of notes. So I provide all students with "worksheets" on which I ask two questions about the presentations. Currently I am asking what they thought was the focus of the presentation (the point the presenters wanted them to get), and their response to the presentation (did they understand it? were they persuaded? did they learn something?). Providing the structure avoids useless responses such as "I liked it," "it was good," and "fine."
I then collect all the forms and in the next class period give them to the presenting group along with their grades. Students pay attention to each other's presentations, and when they present they know others are paying attention. In fact, they are very curious about what their peers think of their work. If their peers all had different interpretations of the focus, it is quickly apparent that presenters have some real basic work to do in improving their presentations. If the focus was clear but not compelling, that indicates a different kind of work that the presenters need to do.
Eileen Walsh
University of Minnesota
walsh@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Returning, then, to the issue of integrating student presentations
> into large classes without the rest of the class switching off during the
> student's talk, I have had some success in appointing one or two more
> students to give more polished reports and to ask questions. I have been
> trying to make student reports a regular part of some of my classes here
> and last term experimented for techniques to prepare the individual students
> -- many of them first or second year non-majors -- to give polished reports.
> As I scheduled reports for every Wednesday morning I ran an extra office
> hour on Tuesday evening where the reporters could come by, talk through any
> problems that they had with the chapter or article and then be prompted on
> what they might want to prepare as a hand out or else as material to put up
> on
> the board. Clearly this last is more of an option on a residential campus,
> though I also managed to arrange other times for non-traditional students in
> the class. This term I have worked more on polishing the responses from the
> rest of the class. As I usually assign a short piece of background reading
> -- usually something on a par with an article from History Today -- I will
> then ask one or two students to make sure that they have done the common
> reading and then ask the first question. These have quite often raised
> different problems from the ones that I would have launched in on and have
> sometimes started more general discussions.
>
> So, while we can all recognize that lecturing can have problems,
> what other techniques are people adopting to get past those potholes?
>
> James Robertson from August '95: > History History Department, > Beloit College University of the West Indies, > 700 College Street, Mona, > Beloit, WI 53511 Kingston, > e.mail: robertso@beloit.edu Jamaica
>
I'd like to reply to Tony's point [see below] because for years I have felt trapped into a position where it seems that I approach syllabus building and classwork as I would a manager trying to construct a complete contract in which every margin is tied down with explicit performance. What a horrible analogy to constrain my teaching.
At the same time that I was nailing down the margins, I was avoiding a technique that I had long heard about,but which I steered clear of believing it it too intrusive. I have heard justifications for calling on every student whether they volunteer or not. The justification is that this encourages all students to realize that they are all contributing members of the class who have a duty to prepare themselves. I have this year employed this method with two refinements that make me feel more comfortable in its application. I have provided questions to students before hand, so they are not put on the spot in responding to questions that they have not thought about, and I have randomized my class list to ensure that everyone is called upon. I tell people that they will not be graded on right or wrong, but I do tell them that I expect to see that they have engaged the reading. Not surprisingly, I have been delighted, for the most part, that students come very prepared. My only problem is that with students so prepared and willing to engage their reading, that I sometimes it difficult to use the list I have prepared. I am now nearly persuaded that, by using a voluntaristic discussion technique, I have been abetting students who, though they really want to learn, have simply allowed anonymity to shelter them. I know that the method reminds most people of the austere Kingsly in the paper chase. In fact, my class has been considerably more fun.
Dan Jacoby
Tony wrote:
"I'm wondering how "Lectures often help to make the reading work." I have
trouble getting out of the following trap: If I discuss the reading
explicitly in class, students are inclined to substitute the class discussion
(or lecture) for their own reading of the material. If the reading is not
discussed in class, but the students are made responsible for it on exams,
then they read it, but they often miss (or misunderstand) the main
points. In the end what the great majority of students get out of my
courses appears to
be only what they have heard in class; they get little or nothing from the
reading."
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 06:29:38 +0500
From: Allan Mayberry Greenberg <amayberg@curry.edu>
I have a very opinionated view of lecturing, which began to develop when--as a graduate student--my peers and I talked about the lecturing "stars" (at the University of Illinois, Champagne) and compared them to the "others." We were by and large convinced that lecturing could work in a large institution with large courses, especially if the lecturer were careful of her audience and what the members of the audience might have brought with them, the physical nature of the lecture hall, the time of day, etc. These discussions were repeated at various times with different colleagues, and clearly there have always been the proponents and the opponents. As I see it now, despite the fact that I am at a small college where the largest classes have been team-taught and--excluding nursing courses--have always involved a lecture-discussion format (110 is the largest--and in any given semester there were only two of those at most), there remain arguments on both sides--and I'm not (yet) waffling. I personally find lecturing usually relatively useless, unless it is to provide certain information-- and this can in fact be done more efficiently and effectively through the use of computer and computer-related technology today (interactive programs, inlcluding on-going "testing" for understanding of the information and the ability to review material at any time--like recording the grand lecture, and cd-rom). This is especially well supported when a faculty member--or two or three--is available for questions and discussions at certain designated times in the facility--if there is a certain central facility --or in her office or by a telephone and able to communicate via some form of electronic mail. This I think is functional, especially if one seeks to both personalize/individualize AND minimize the amount of time spent with information--as opposed to interpretation, analysis, synthesis. Such a format--and in this instance I see the "computer" as the "lecturer"--must be complemented by discussion sections of some sort, where students have a chance to present and/or respond to interpretive hypotheses and the like.
In our higher level courses, which focus more on analysis and synthesis, I think the "lecture" or "in-class live" format wins the day. Most of our classes tend to be discussion-lectures, where more time is spent discussing the reading--often with the few who have done it--and complementary lecture-segments occur as it is necessary to fill in informational or linkage gaps (not just reading, but whatever materials have been assigned). This does have a tendency to force students to review materials from prerequisite classes in order to remind themselves of the information they have so carelessly forgotten and which is crucial for them to make sense of discussions--sometimes a good thing.
And, believe it or not, this is from someone who is essentially a Luddite-- of a certain sort: concerned with the constant and recurring abuse of technology, misuse of computers, uncritical use of inappropriate means with little consideration for how the means impact the goals sought, and how the means might occasionally (?) come into conflict with the values that might be supported by our educational system.
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 13:13:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Alana R Cain <acain@mailer.fsu.edu>
I am currently working on a syllabus for a 6-week summer term of the Modern World since 1815, and the comments on "the pitfalls of lecturing" have been quite helpful, except for one problem. The class I am teaching this summer has a cap of 225 and I have no assistants, so I have already determined to do a straight lecture format, with a question and answer period at the end of each class.
Two years ago I taught the same class to a class of 30 students and had lectures on Mondays and Wednesdays. Every Friday I had them turn in a short essay on a given question taken from readings, and would then spend the class discussion of the given question, raising other questions along the way.
This system worked so well--not only bright faces on Fridays, but very good grades for the term as well--that I decided to do it the next term when I taught an Ancient-Medieval civilization survey. What a bomb!! The students hated being expected to talk and there was hostility and resentment all around, especially from one student who said he liked taking history classes because he usually didn't have to talk. On Fridays I had two or three students who would contribute and the others sat in resentful silence no matter what, which I found depressing. The grades were much worse than any straight lecture class I had ever taught. I knew that different classes had different personalities, but I was floored and went back to a straight lecture (partly because the classes became much larger). Thank you for the comments about student presentations, etc. Although I won't try the presentations this summer because of class size and time frame, it does seem to me that we should be at least open to trying new things. Sometimes I think choosing a straight lecture format is simply choosing the path of least resistance--from my own experience, anyway.
Alana Cain
Florida State
Date: Tue, 02 May 95 08:14:38 EDT
From: Ted Lorah <LORAH@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
Our semester is ending at Temple. My last class meeting before the final was yesterday, and I did the obligatory asking for evaluations, using the form develped by a professor in the Religion Department. The course was "Death and Dying." We began by looking at the psychological and sociological aspects of the subject, did some historical work and comparative religions work, ending with articles on Vietnam and the wall and Masada and the Holocaust. Although I tried very hard to foster discussion, those discussions worked best that did not require the students to have actually read the material. Several of the students had done the work and contributed substantially, and those who didn't complained that they were bored by the material (especially the religious stuff although it is, after all, a religion course) and resented having the discussion dominated by a few. I lectured enough to explain the material and tried very hard to relate it all to parallels in other disciplines, e.g. literary criticism, history, etc. If the students are going to not read the material, there can obviously be no discussion worthy of the name, and a lecture that explains the material they haven't read will by nature seem confusing. I don't know how we get beyond this! (This is a 300 level course, and is a better class than normal.) Further, it is clear from the comments on the evaluation who did the work and who didn't. I don't believe the professor is responsible for doing the work for the students! Any comments? By the way, most of the comments were very favorable, and several came because I was recommended as a good instructor.
Ted Lorah, Ph.D. candidate
Temple University
Date: Tue, 02 May 1995 10:26:03 -0700 (PDT) From: SUNDSTROMR@axe.humboldt.edu
Ted-In my 26 yrs of college teaching I have come to the following philosophy: I will do the very best I can to make the course interesting and informative. If the students do not perform to a reasonable level, they pay the price. And they are so informed from day one. It is amazing how many make the adjustment. I refuse to play the "dumbing down" game. Roy Sundstrom Humboldt State U., Arcata, CA
Return to H-TEACH Home Page.
| ||||
