Comments on: Improving Teaching One Class at a Time

By: IronLaw

IronLaw — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:24:53 +0000

"… if the motivation to change only comes from a colleague or an external threat, then teaching and learning will continue to improve at a very slow pace…"
Who's measuring the "improvement?" And how?

By: Anthony

Anthony — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 19:53:55 +0000

"No one is saying that lectures should to be abolished. They just shouldn’t be the default instructional strategy."

Says who? Most of the progressive education "active learning" instructional practices are, in fact, a waste of time (and most of the "research" that promotes such practices is bunk). A more valuable discussion would focus on the differences between engaging and interactive lectures versus the stereotype of endless monotone lecture (a la Ben Stein's performance in Ferris Buehler's Day Off).

An engaging and interactive lecture can be exceptionally effective. Often times when instructors succumb to the pressure to incorporating more active learning activities, they gut educational value to glut engagement. Instructional method should be determined by the content. If the objective is to help students build a knowledge base, lecture is not only efficient but also quite effective.

Using active learning techniques for their own sake is a poor method of determining the appropriate instructional method.

By: Daniela

Daniela — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 23:15:33 +0000

This is a great topic. In a few words, a combination of teaching methods or tools used is key to maintain interest and engagement. The learning will follow once it is absorbed through active learning.

By: cognitioneducation

cognitioneducation — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:39:14 +0000

Another hindrance to changing format is time. It takes significant time to provide students with the kind of feedback they need to keep working actively when less lecture and more engagement is happening. I have implemented what I am calling a partial-flip in my Intro class this semester, where I do lecture some, but students also do a variety of engagement activities each class period (I vary the kinds of activities with where we are at in the chapters and with the nature of the material). I couldn't keep up with the evaluations if I didn't have an amazing support-person working with me (a highly motivated graduate student). Without her, I would have to do less active engagement. To echo another commenter too though, I think it is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater in such considerations – lecture need not be equated with passivity, nor with bad teaching. A good lecture CAN engage and can help students understand finer points of information. I find that students often do not read their texts correctly, or perhaps do not always connect all the dots when preparing. So lecture is necessary for more complex material. Case in point – the method I've implemented in my Intro class is working like gangbusters, but I am doing something similar in my upper-div cognitive psych class and it isn't going as smoothly. Not only are the students not accustomed to the process of active engagement, bu the material is more difficult and that makes the discussion/application more tricky.

By: cognitioneducation

cognitioneducation — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:32:22 +0000

I agree! Students also play a role in making a transition work. Last year my Intro students just wouldn't get on board, so I threw in the towel halfway through the term and went back to lecturing. This year, I completely revamped the presentation of my expectations and the way I introduced their in-class work though, and it is working much better. I do still lecture some, but only part of each class period, where students engage in application, extension, and review activities for the remainder. With the fresh start (and an agreeable group) it is going well this term. Another recent experience of mine that occurred this year, to your point above, took place in a class where I had all levels present – frosh to senior – and I did no lecturing at all. The upper-classmen are the students who had a hard time at first, since their habits were already set. But with the enthusiasm of the less advanced students, they eventually came around and the class was a roaring success.

By: Mira

Mira — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:45:35 +0000

I'm interested in the "list of 18 instructional strategies". What were they?

By: Tom L

Tom L — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:48:18 +0000

You're suggesting that when students are active, the instructor isn't sharing his/her expertise. That's a false dichotomy. I share my expertise with students as they are working on the activities, but it's done in a "just-in-time" format. I'm still conveying the information that they need, just in smaller chunks and in the context of a real world situation.

By: An Educator

An Educator — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:24:06 +0000

Nothing wrong with a lecture, as long as it is presented dynamically and it engages students to think. How else does one present their expertise and personal experiences in their field? All too often I see instructors touting student activities as a 'better form of teaching/learning,' because they personally have nothing to contribute and/or are unable to deliver a dynamic lecture session. The instructor was hired for their expertise — the students have the right to benefit from such and the institution has the right to expect them to provide such in the classroom. Learning from student activities is for 'after the classroom.' Sure, questions, student presentations and discussions are also part of a well rounded classroom session, but an instructor who simply facilitates student learning without sharing their knowledge, calling it innovative better methodology, is just that — a facilitator, not an instructor. Students have the right to have an expert in their lass room sharing their knowledge — not just organizing student activities.

By: LLappin

LLappin — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:30:24 +0000

It takes time to develop engaging group work that accomplishes learning objectives. It takes some trial and error in setting up the groups so they participate equally. Even though the content of my classes is all the same, the morning class is more likely to engage and the afternoon students seem zapped of energy. I have composition classes–really challenging to make the work exciting. Grammar, sentence structure, citation, I mean riveting stuff! What I mean to say here is that there are no simple teaching tricks to make every class hour a mindstorm. When I got into this I thought my love of reading and writing would carry the day. It helps, but there are so many variables, so many off days for both the students and the faculty. Percentages don't begin to get at the scope of this challenge.

By: Martha

Martha — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:48:09 +0000

For the last 2 semester, I have stopped lecturing. Instead students are given a set of pre-class assignments to be completed before our next class meeting. In class students are given a chance to ask questions about the assignment, and I clarify and provide additional information. Next, we do some more work in class and additional homework is assigned. Every class meeting is designed this way. Challenges: students do not come prepared, or they are still waiting for me to lecture. I think that students are the ones that need to be trained differently not just the professor. Students are programmed to be lectured from a young age and sometimes is difficult for them to change just like teachers.

By: RobertVM

RobertVM — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:14:44 +0000

I am in the agree camp with this overall and think also that the "lecture" format is still a fallback one for sure (especially in the large lecture hall environment), but also do wonder a bit about this finding:

"Over 90% of the respondents said they lectured for four or more class sessions with more than 50% of those saying they lectured during all 10 class sessions."

And my gut-reaction guess is that yes this means most of the session is devoted to the lecture format, but as I stood back from that reaction I wonder if since they also replied that felt hands-on application was the best way to learn if maybe there is a bigger story here of mixed methods going on? I mean I need to "present"/"lecture" content to some extent for a lot of the meeting times, so I would if asked how many sessions do I have some lecture component I would be above 50%, but also this is a smaller component of an overall session where I also incorporate large group discussions, small group discussions and projects, individual journal work (both written and drawn work), and so on (scaled to the size of the class of course). I try nowadays not to "present" more than 25 minutes in a block but do present at various times throughout the entire session.

So I guess my takeaway from this question of mine above is I hope maybe that there is a large choir out there to preach to and that more than we realize are at the least mixing methods, and those who aren't are hopefully looking for strong models of practical application of all the theories about mixing proper levels of lecture with student focused activities on which we write a lot about.

By: Dr. Asit K. Saha

Dr. Asit K. Saha — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:29:07 +0000

In appropriate teaching: we should focus this synergetic formula.
Information sent —> Information Received —-> assessment (generates feedback loop) that creates the process again as
Information sent —> Information Received —-> assessment, one can continue this process until the difference between
|Information sent – Information Receive| has minimum differences.

To stop the the feedback loop quickly we need to identify appropriate stretegies based on individual student intelligence. A Smart teachers get it very quickly. In my teaching I try to develop my learning tree based on individual students strongest skills (it could be any thing) – I empowered students to come out maximum outcomes using minimum inputs. If you use this technique you may find that students immediately identify what inputs required for what outcomes.

Your judgement to understand students strongest area (intelligence) and/or skills is very important. It varies.

Dr. Asit K. Saha, Associate Professor, Central State University, Wilberforce, Ohio, United States

By: Tom L

Tom L — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:44:22 +0000

Thank you for writing this! I keep hearing that lecture is the most "efficient" way to teach, but in reality it's only the most efficient way to convey large amounts of information in a given time. The problem with that definition of "efficiency" is that it assumes that information that's conveyed is learned, and obviously it isn't.

Even more frightening is the fact that many young faculty members who want to use more active techniques are often criticized by their tenure committees for "wasting time" with active learning approaches. "Is that really an effective use of class time?" Actually, the research says it is.

To me, however, the most important point of that article is that TEACHERS can drive the change. So what are we waiting for?