The college lecture has taken a beating in education reform. As Wilner suggests, “… although even the most pedagogically enlightened among us find occasions for a brief lecture, we can no longer use this word without self-conscious acknowledgment of its political incorrectness” (p.181).
Certainly, there’s no place for dull, droning lectures in today’s classrooms. However, let’s not assume that the lecture is an inherently bad teaching and learning tool. The pendulum need not swing quite that far.
Mrs. Lyons was my favorite college literature instructor back at Rutgers in the 70s. I had the pleasure of studying two semesters of Shakespeare with her at a time when lecturing was a respected and popular tool for teaching literature. I learned a ton studying with Mrs. Lyons. And I say that with absolute certainty today, even though Mrs. Lyons exemplified the very kind of teaching that Blau argues against. Mrs. Lyons told us how she interpreted Shakespeare, pointing out what was interesting in the text, reading passages aloud that she felt were noteworthy.
I see where Blau is coming from. He argues that learners must construct their own meanings. That’s what scads of education theorists advocate in a movement called constructivism. At the same time, Wilner is on the money that lectures are not PC today. But stirring those facts together in a pot still won’t explain the magic of Mrs. Lyons. If lecturing is so bad, how did I learn so much by studying literature with a lecturer? Yes, Mrs. Lyons’ interpretations were hers and those of her colleagues, not my own. But ‘zounds, could Mrs. Lyons make Shakespeare sing! She was a gifted tour guide in a foreign land, opening up fantastic possibilities for me in Shakespeare.
I argue that the lecture is still a valuable learning tool and that we don’t need to throw this baby out with the bath water. Change it? Yes, to make it more interactive. Use it judiciously and along with other teaching strategies? Yes, absolutely. But abandon the lecture altogether because it no longer works? I think not.
Lecture naysayers will say that whatever is accomplished through lecture can be put in print or online. That way class time can be devoted entirely to the constructivist types of activities that Blau models in his workshops. However, in defense of the lecture, I argue that lecturing has its merits. Most other learning tools cannot give a live and polished voice to Shakespeare’s sonnets or to Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Most learning tools cannot seem as personal and approachable to students as a living, talking person they know and respect. Most tools are hard-pressed to make a group of students laugh out loud simultaneously and enjoy themselves as a group. Most can’t answer questions or give learners more examples on demand. Perhaps most importantly, few learning tools can give learners memorable same time, same-place learning experiences that help them feel that they are part of a living, breathing learning community that has a human face. A good lecture can do all of these things.
One might argue that Blau’s workshop strategies also do these things. True. Blau offers great ideas and I will try many of them. However, let’s not forget that I learned a ton through Mrs. Lyons’ lectures. And, to lock horns with Blau, I did not learn simply how to parrot what I heard Mrs. Lyons say and only as it applied to the texts at hand. Mrs. Lyons was a much better teacher than that.
Mrs. Lyons, like many good teachers, was a modeler. My piano teacher modeled arpeggios for me, my golf instructor models the golf swing for me, and Mrs. Lyons modeled literary analysis for me. Then, through instruction and practice (and with the loving guidance and feedback of a pro) I learned how to play fluid arpeggios, how to swing a golf club (well, still working on that one), and yes, how to do close reading of texts. The lecture provided me with an opportunity to see Mrs. Lyons (a pro) at work, modeling for me how it’s done, breaking her process into manageable steps, sharing her bag of tricks. Then through writing assignments, I tried my hand at doing what the pro modeled (literary analysis) and with thoughtful feedback, Mrs. Lyons helped me get better and better at it. Was that really so awful?
Let’s not apologize or be sheepish when we lecture. Let’s not shrink in horror at the thought of lecturing. Instead, let’s recognize that lecturing is simply a teaching and learning tool – and that’s all it is, one tool among many. Let’s agree not to overuse the lecture (or any learning tool, for that matter). Let’s not use the lecture (or any learning tool) badly. Most of all, let’s not toss the lecture out with yesterday’s trash. Let’s focus instead on how we can use lectures, when we might use lectures, and whether lectures will be effective in producing targeted learning outcomes. – Laura Hills
I appreciate your defense of lectures and your reluctance to do away with them altogether.
My own opposition to lecturing is mostly philosophical, and it boils down to this question: who should be responsible for the production of knowledge in a classroom, the teacher or the students?
There are also more practical issues to consider, including the wide range of learning styles people naturally have. Lecturing can successfully reach some pools of learners, but there are many other students who rely on visual learning or experiential learning, who can and do tune out the lecturer, no matter how entertaining or engrossing he or she is.
I imagine we’ve all had a teacher like Mrs. Lyons — who brings the subject matter alive with wit, clarity, and astounding depth of knowledge. But from my own experience of observing many, many teachers, these engaging lecturers are the exception not the rule, and their success depends on some inherent undefinable, unteachable charisma.
You are right, Laura, in that lecturing can be a valuable teaching tool. But I tend to side with Professor Sample, especially after my experience teaching three different ability levels of high school students. As Professor Sample pointed out, there are those rare teachers whose charisma and ability to entertain can truly hook a student audience. When coupled with students who learn well by listening and taking notes, this *can* be a winning combination.
The problem with lecturing, however, is that while modeling occurs in the process, it is a passive sort of modeling, one which does not engage most developmental or average learners. Lecturing to my general students proved to be absolutely fruitless: they would talk to one another, doodle in their notebooks, and perhaps worst of all completely shut down, putting their heads on their desks and falling asleep. After a few abysmal class periods in which all of us were frustrated, I adjusted my lesson plans to involve more active modeling – the kind Blau refers to as well as that which involved physical movement around the classroom (when analyzing textual passages, for instance, I would place extra-large sticky note pads on the walls with a quotation from the work we were studying. Then we would all walk around the room and add our comments to the quotation). Even the Literature or Writing Workshop itself should be modeled so that students know what is expected of them during the process (after all, how many response groups have been useless because all the students seem to want to say is, “It’s good” or “I like it”).
Ultimately, an effective teacher really has to take into account the learning styles of all students, then adjust lessons accordingly. Lectures can be included, as they are useful to some students, but they should most definitely not dominate classroom practices.
Laura is right that lecturing is a valuable tool. It should remain on the teacher’s toolbelt along with other techniques and approaches. Some of my most memorable and worthwhile courses involved lectures, and some information almost demands a straightforward lecture.