Lecture Me? Really....?

Lecture Me? Really?

I came across an article the other day from the New York Times. It was an Op-Ed piece from Sunday the 17^th of October 2015. The title was “Lecture Me. Really.” I was astonished. The opinion came from a university professor in the humanities. She was defending the use of lecture, particularly in the Humanities. Seriously? In 2015? But before you jump to conclusions yourself, let’s think this through.

First, Ms. Worthen we can agree to disagree. She freely admits some of the shortcomings of lectures and also some of the larger systemic issues that threaten the humanities. Some of those are related. However, some are not. A lecture can be a mode of knowledge transfer. Whether it’s history, literature, chemistry, or computer programming, lectures can pass on knowledge to the recipients. That said, it’s only one form of knowledge transfer. You can transfer knowledge in a conversation. On a video. In a book.

The major issue with lecture isn’t with the concept as a mode of transfer. Yes, many educational tech companies will tell you it’s bad – try our video conferencing platform. Many politicians will say it’s bad because bashing lecture and the humanities and arts gains political points. As Ken Robinson the well-known TED talk giver said – no one ever argues against teach math or science on the grounds that most people won’t go on to become math professors or leading scientists. Yet we steer people away from the arts & humanities for that same reason. The real issue with lecture is that it represents only one part of proper instruction.  But knowledge isn’t deepened without practice, it’s forgotten if not used, and it’s not transferred from our heads to life if all we ever do is think.

Knowledge Transfers is step 2 or 3 in the learning process. Actually, according to theorist Robert Gagne – one of the early leaders in modern instructional design and training – it’s actually step 4 in his “9 Events”. Think about it. Is knowledge transfer important? Yes. And not just in traditional “learning” spaces. Doctors or nurses rotating shifts or passing on charts from one office to another – that’s knowledge transfer. Given today’s demands on our time, the speed of business, and the overall frenetic pace of our lives, knowledge transfer – that’s accurate, contextual, and goal oriented – is more important than ever. But lecture is just that – one step in the process of learning. And…it also can become too rote and an easy fallback for teachers on any level (more on that in second)

Secondly, I contest the author’s point about lectures giving people “attention”. Perhaps her point is true on a theoretical level. However, the point of a lecture should not be to test your attention span. I’m a big history and political science buff and still enjoy listening to folks lecture. But I can fall asleep listening to a lecture that’s badly given – even on a topic I’m thoroughly interested in. Likewise, while they help people build critical thinking skills, they do so only in context. What I mean is as a mode of presenting information, lectures can help a person gain deeper or wider understanding. But they have to be matched to your current knowledge base and skill level within the given area. Put me in a lecture on the defining characteristics of communicable diseases and the biological functions that drive them and allow certain ones to spread quicker than others and I guarantee you I will not be as well served by that as medical school student on their rotation through the comm disease department.

Lectures test your reasoning inside of a given discipline. If the goal is to give you listening skills as she suggests, then you should have lecturers lecturing on football, rap music, etc. You can build the same skills no matter what the content.

So, while lecture can help transfer knowledge – it’s not the only mechanism to do so and it does not get used appropriately

However, I have two additional points of contention with her argument that while less important theoretically, are more important practically. First, lectures do not help you find your place in the world. Again, anyone can benefit from developing sound listening and verbal reasoning skills. However, – we need to disavow ourselves of this idea that the most important thing in the world is academic ability. Lectures do not make firefighters more brave or smart. They do not make teachers more passionate or caring. They do not make nurses more accurate or doctors more approachable.  And they certainly do not make students get in touch with their own skills more and give them opportunities to showcase their own talent – which is what teaching on any level is all about – right?

On top of that, lectures only promote the understanding of the lecturer, not the student. And…it often comes at bigger universities or in graduate programs in the shape of promoting the lecturer’s own work (i.e. publishing or research). As Mr. Robinson related in one of his famed TED Talks – lectures solved an administrative problem in the pre-digital age – that is how to disseminate information to large groups of people and provide some sort of “training” for them. With today’s technology you can do it quicker, faster, and even more accurate via other tools. So administrative or organizational issues don’t have to be presented as epistemological truths.  The lecturer learns a lot by preparing their notes. More so than the student.

 The issue is that we’ve grown accustomed to a fast food, industrial model of education and we don’t know how to break free from that or the other assumptions we’ve made over the years.

So – where does lecture (done via a podium, a webcam, or a youtube video) belong? As part of a process of “learning” First off, get students to read or do something before the lecture. Then, ask them what they learned. Then, give them an outline of the lecture. Then lecture. Boom – step 4! After the lecture is over, they need to do something with it – discuss it in small groups or critique it the next day, or come back later that night or week and post questions after doing more research and comparing their notes to their original reading. Then, they should have to do lectures themselves – they can video tape them (perhaps 5-10 summaries) and submit them and have other people critique/grade them. But that of course, makes more work right? Yes – and that’s the other issue with lectures and why having this discussion is important. Every level of education suffers from content overload – k-12, higher-ed, and even in the business world (I’ve worked in 2/3). In k-12 it’s the linearity and pure academic focus that pushes people either out of the system or lost and confused. In higher-ed it’s a number games. While the ideal class is 18-20 doing it 5 times a day for a HS teacher is tough enough. They get paid to teach (and while it’s not fair compared to their impact and workload, teaching multiple classes with 18-20 students is totally outrageous for professors who also have to research and publish to earn more money, gain tenure, and advance their careers. So what suffers? Is the students. I guarantee it. Again, I’ve been through it myself. I’ve been a HS teacher and now work in corporate training. I see it from both ends.

Lecture is a tool. You don’t have to defend it. It has its place in the process, but it’s the process that’s broken not the lecture.