Does the lecture have a future?
About a year ago a research group involving four Australian universities published a report entitled The Impact of Web-Based Lecture Technologies on Current and Future Practices in Learning and Teaching. One of the key findings of this report was that students on the whole were enthusiastic about web-based lectures – i.e. lectures delivered in the traditional way but recorded for transmission on the internet – while faculty were on the whole more cautious, and a sizeable minority actually hostile. This raises the question of whether traditional teaching methods – the lecturer standing in front of a class wielding chalk and delivering talk – are still sustainable.
There is a debate to be had in this about the value and appropriate use of elearning, but that is maybe for another post. My purpose here is to ask whether we need to re-consider the usefulness of the lecture in particular as a teaching tool. When I was a student a good few of my lectures were entirely expository – essentially they were the source for a ‘good set of notes’ which, if properly remembered, were the passport for a good examination result. While some were given by gifted communicators, a good few were a perfect cure for insomnia; very few were interactive in the way that we would understand that concept today.
Nowadays there is very little need (if ever there was any) for expository lecturing. There are good materials everywhere, on paper and online, that can provide the basic information, whatever that may be. So one conclusion would be to say that the lecture as a teaching tool is redundant, except perhaps when contained in an online resource on the web, to be consulted or used by students as they see fit.
On the other hand, I tend to think that a carefully constructed lecture that is interactively delivered and challenges the students is still valuable. But to allow students to experience that consistently requires us to provide better training for lecturers, and also to maintain an ongoing dialogue with students to ensure that their needs and expectations are being met. But the idea of the lecture as a formal device for distributing basic information is probably no longer of any real use.
Explore posts in the same categories: higher education, university You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
March 31, 2009 at 2:55 am
Instead of the same lectures being held each year they should be recorded and put on YouTune. Students could then be told to watch the lecture at a specific time and discuss the video in the comments (do they update live?). The students’ discussion would provide excellent feedback for what was required in tutorials and the lecturer could spend the time saved lecturing on more tutorials or more course content.
March 31, 2009 at 7:19 am
I have to say that I disagree with the idea that the lecture is ‘over’. Of course it depends on subject matter, but an enormous amount of undergraduate learning is best communicated in lectures.
It’s simply not true that an expository lecture can be replaced with written equivalents, because prose doesn’t have the same flexibility. One reason I suggest that lecturers are hostile to the idea of a recorded lecture played again and again to any potential audience is that lecturing is a responsive process; you watch (and listen to) your audience carefully whilst you’re lecturing, and you reiterate points you sense aren’t fully understood, you pick up or slow down the pace, you test out different explanatory analogies, all until you sense that most if not all of the audience have understood and are ready to move on. Because of this, even with topics which I’ve nominally taught at least once a year for ten years, I’ve never even come close to giving the same lecture twice.
Of course undergraduates won’t usually be aware that you’re doing this; yet one more reason to suggest that undergraduates themselves are not always (often?) the best judges of what’s pedagogically good for them.
This is an issue that’s really close to my heart – I see a lot of attacks on the concept of the lecture these days, and I don’t accept the vast majority of the charges laid against it. I actually think that lectures are usually MORE useful than seminars or other forms in many cases, and that a good lecture is one of the most powerful teaching/learning mechanisms there is. After all, there may be a reason why it’s survived for centuries as a mode of teaching…
March 31, 2009 at 7:24 am
Whilst I agree that as a means of delivery of notes and information, the lecture is limited if not redundant, it is still valuable to have scheduled class time when students on a programme are brought together. Perhaps thinking of lectures as ‘large group meetings’ would help, giving more scope for discussion, focusing on conceptual difficulties and key concepts. Particularly in the early stages of undergraduate programmes when, in this country especially, the students are relatively young and fairly underdeveloped as autonomous learners, then there is value in class sessions. They also set a pace for the semester, keeping students on track and helping overcome procrastination or “night before the exam” syndrome. As for scope to inspire ? Again a valuable but often missed opportunity.
The combined or blended approach that uses a range of media and approaches is of course likely to be best, and we’ve been piloting, for example, automatic lecture recordings here and students find them very useful for recapping, for focusing in on difficult topics, etc, rather than as a primary source of ‘delivery’.
We shouldn’t forget the isolation and anxiety that many first year students experience, and the benefits of meeting together with the lecturer is essential in building up a sense of a learning community that can help steer through the cacophony of information and the crazed pace of Eriksen’s ‘fast time’ (Tyranny of the moment’, http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Moment-Fast-Slow-Information/dp/074531774X).
March 31, 2009 at 11:56 am
Lecturing is a bit like Electronic Voting. The “old fashioned” way of doing things turns out to be superior to the new fangled method, primarily because the subtleties of the old fashioned way (as pointed out by Jilly in the context of lecturing) are not fully understood, and hence not adequately replicated with the high tech approach.
March 31, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Interesting comments. As my last paragraph in the post indicates, I also think there is scope for the ‘traditional’ lecture, but only if it is well done. What Jilly describes and Mike supports is good, but it is, frankly, not the norm. I have seen too many lecturers just read out their notes, or deliver their material, with no interaction and no perception of how students are responding and therefore, none of the subtleties that Mike refers to. For the lecture to work the lecturer needs to be a good communicator, or else very carefully trained.
One of the reasons why, on the whole, small group teaching works better in our system is because it is almost impossible to do it without that kind of interaction. Standing in front of 100, or 250, people is a much more anonymous affair.
March 31, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I like the idea of both i.e. instead of web-based recordings of lectures, web-based material backed by expository lectures. I’ve been trying this in the form of a blog course on cosmology this semester. Each week, a lecture is posted on the blog in advance (http://coraifeartaigh.wordpress.com), and the lecture then summarizes the contents and deals with questions and discussions. So far, it has proved popular with students…regards Cormac
March 31, 2009 at 1:34 pm
So there is scope for the ‘traditional’ lecture, if well done– but what about the crap ‘seminar’? I’ve seen great lectures, poor lectures, great seminars, poor seminars. In any of these cases the person leading the class would need training to improve the session– so I don’t quite see the argument as to why one is better than the other on training grounds. To my mind these pedagogical forms serve different purposes and ends, and should complement one another rather than jockeying for supreme position.
Also it sounds a bit like you’re assuming that all lectures have some kind of written or published equivalent– that clearly isn’t true of many disciplines and subjects, where a lecturer is often drawing on his/her own expertise and knowledge to communicate what might be a difficult subject to apprehend through pure text (or groups of texts). Additionally the use and explanation of images is very difficult to do in any other forum than the live one. I wouldn’t be a fan of web-based lectures for many reasons: the importance of developing social/intellectual skills and diligence, the concentration skills one develops when learning through live lecture, and simply that the live experience is usually more involving than a passive online experience (or just reading the same material). For example, I’ve seen the same lecture given live and then broadcast online, and there’s no comparison which is more engaging and compelling.
Also just as a provocation– from the lecturer’s perspective, isn’t improving one’s ‘anonymous lecture skills’ often more important professionally than perfecting the small group seminar format? If you are a research-engaged staff member, rewarded and promoted on the basis of your research output and ability to make your work known across your discipline (as many in the universities are), becoming a better ‘small group’ communicator is a bonus but certainly not what you will usually practice outside the university walls.
March 31, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Just to continue this discussion – I’m not convinced by the apparent truism that while some lecturers give ‘good’ lectures, many more don’t. Over the years, and for one reason and another, I’ve had cause to sit in on many of my colleagues (in several different disciplines) lecturing. And I’ve always been impressed by them. I’m not suggesting that ALL lectures given in universities are good, but I do believe that the average is higher than is often suggested.
March 31, 2009 at 7:27 pm
i think the “traditional” lecture has long seen it’s day to be honest. instead, the “classroom” – virtual or otherwise – should be a forum for interaction and a platform for participation, not just between lecturer and student, but between students. in fact, in many ways, if set up properly, the lecturer could be dispensed with to a large extent too.
we’re moving from lecture 1.0 (publication of notes model) to lecture 2.0 (collaboration and participation). and, i think that’s a good thing. however, just like web 2.0, where all the evidence (Nielsen) is for a very low percentage of active participation (90% are “lurkers”) and other challenges to adoption, the issue for universities will be to how to faciliate the interaction from as many students as possible. also, some lecturers will clearly need some retraining and encouragement to maximize this participation and get away from the old handouts and “powerpoint karaoke”. i think it will be harder for students and lecturers to “get away with it” – which is welcome. it would be only fair that each “lecture” came complete with comments and feedback ratings!
that said, i really don’t know how this will pan out with the biblical scale amphitheatre audiences of some first year arts and business courses around the country. regardless, i’d really hate to see the bricks and mortar classroom done away with and it all done online. there’s a lot to be said for getting out and actually “going” to university and interacting face-to-face.
April 1, 2009 at 11:35 am
Jilly, I agree that a significant – maybe even overwhelming – majority of lecturers are ‘good’; but it does depend a little on what we mean by ‘good’. They are certainly good in that they work hard, prepare well, support (and genuinely care for) the students, and aim to communicate and to listen. But to deliver a good lecture, you need to do more than that, and some fall short not because they are not dedicated, but because they have never been given the necessary training and so don’t have the necessary skills. I am not commenting now about DCU, where I have seen some (but only a limited number of) lecturers in action; but in my 30 or so years as an academic I have witnessed some very mediocre lectures given by academics who mean well but haven’t really made use of the teaching opportunities that this type of class provides.
Ultan, I agree with you regarding the significance of participation; there should never be any teaching, in whatever type of group or environment, where communication is only one way. That’s what we need to achieve.
April 1, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Re “but to deliver a good lecture, you need to do more than that”, I absolutely agree. It always surprises me that few academics think of a lecture as a performance. As a former musician, this is exactly how I think of it – and it’s definitely a skill that comes naturally to some while others need to work on it.
One aspect of training might be attendance at public lectures of others. I attend as many lectures as I can, across a wide variety of disciplines, as I am always fascinated to see how others present their material…
April 1, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Cormac, I agree with that absolutely – performance is hugely important as a way of communicating.
April 1, 2009 at 6:03 pm
But performance is exactly what I was describing as a ‘good’ lecture: and exactly what I think is much more widespread than is frequently suggested.
I think there might be a significant generational divide here. For many reasons (too complicated to go into here), anyone under 45 with a full-time university job is not likely to be an ‘old-fashioned’ shrinking-violet scholar, and therefore quite well-attuned to the process of performance.
April 1, 2009 at 6:58 pm
I’ve just come from a lecture on Robert Boyle and the rise of the Royal Society. Instead of just listing off the historical facts, the lecturer interspersed the seminar with simple demonstrations of Boyle’s law and the discovery of the vacuum…it was highly entertaining and a really good description of the rise of the scientific method at the same time…
April 2, 2009 at 8:06 pm
My own experience would tend to agree with the Australian study. I am presenting a paper on this in the m-ICTE conference in Lisbon in a few weeks called “Back to the future: The power of traditional teaching methods online” As one who once agreed with the idea that the lecture could be dispensed with and tried to start an online distance learning course based on this idea, I soon changed my mind. We had to bring in live online lectures because of the problems we were having in teaching mathematical topics, but because they were so effective we also started using them for management and technology topics as well. They proved to be very popular with both lecturers and students. About half the distance learners attend the live classes, but all report that they much prefer listening to a recording of an interactive live class (warts and all) that to a highly prepared recording made without an audience. To those of you who prefer to teach live I would suggest that this will survive. To those of you who like to stand in front of your students I should let you know that even our local students prefer to watch online than drive in.
If anyone is interested in my paper, I think I can distribute it after the conference. However, if you are involved in traditional distance learning, multimedia development or educational research you may not like it as it suggests that these might be the people that are inhibiting the development of online distance learning in higher education.
March 5, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Lecturing is a bit like Electronic Voting. The “old fashioned” way of doing things turns out to be superior to the new fangled method, primarily because the subtleties of the old fashioned way (as pointed out by Jilly in the context of lecturing) are not fully understood, and hence not adequately replicated with the high tech approach.