www.emergingedtech.com: From time to time I’ve derided the long, staid lecture here on the site. That’s not to say that a lecture can’t be enthralling and highly educational, but too often, they just aren’t. I suffered through many of these (the long, boring ones) in the 80’s and early 90’s as I worked through a BS in Mathematics and then an MBA. I didn’t like them then, and I really dislike them as a staple in today’s classrooms and ‘lecture halls’.
4 comments:
I would agree with this except for the "Break It Up" advice. 20 minutes doesn't give you enough time to lecture or teach about anything. Maybe once an hour, but that's it. It's like how we are told that we should plan for 30 minutes to do each task. You can't expect a whole lot to get done in 20 minutes of lecture. 1 hour would be the perfect length. 2 hours would be okay, as long as the audience is actively participating in some way to keep them interested.
The lecturer definitely needs to be excited about the topic. I said this before in another comment, but if the person speaking is interested then I am interested. It could be about politics, and I would still be super interested if the guy speaking is not monotone-ing his way through the presentation. This goes for all manners of speaking. I sometimes fall asleep in the car while talking to my mom because she will just start talking and be complaining about her job, which is of no interest to me, and I will just be sitting there doing nothing. So when my body relaxes and goes into rest, I fall asleep.
This article started off strong but ended up not being as informative as I had expected. I agree with the ideas this author presented, but it didn't end up going into as much detail as I'd expected. I appreciated that she provided both advice on how to give lectures as well as advice on alternatives though. I think everyone has experienced engaging lectures and less engaging lectures and can see some of what makes a good lecture. Sometimes, the nature of a topic really only allows it to be taught through a lecture and not all topics are going to be as engaging as others, even coming from a good lecturer.
I wish this article has a bit more substance and a bit less links to other articles to fill in the gaps, but all in all i think it raises a good point. I think there has been a shift in education to not leaning heavily on the lecture as schools used to. However, along with this, I think there has been a good deal of lecture hating. Sometimes a lecture is the best, most efficient way to convey information to students, so I dont think it should be gotten rid of completely. I think lectures that remain should employ some of the tactics that this article suggest in order to make it more engaging though. In the end, i think the real point of the anti lecture movement should be to emphasize that any given topic should be taught in the way that best communicates it to the students, instead of just always defaulting to a lecture.
The way we exchange information is changing, so why shouldn't teaching? The list of "Common Themes of Good Lectures" is a great start. I want to focus on "Break it up" though. Literally, it can just be a stretch break or a change of topic or a change of teaching medium, switching from teaching to a video, to a problem set. Taking longer breaks put you at risk for not being able to focus when you come back. However, lectures are useful. I don't think we're going to get rid of them anytime soon. All in all, I wish there was more substance to this article and not just a bunch of links. I guess it's geared more to educators, but I'd like to see more about lectures and how to convey the same information in a different way.
Post a Comment