To Lecture or Not to Lecture

Anyone who has either been a teacher giving a lecture or a student listening to one knows that lectures on their own do not equate to either teaching or learning. Most educators and students advocate for a mixture of pedagogical styles because students’ differing learning styles require it. A recent article in eSchoolNews makes this point well: “Educators need to transfer information,[. . .] but students also need to do something with this information to make it stick—not simply parrot it back during a test, but actually assimilate it and take ownership of it, so they can apply this knowledge in a different context. If students can’t do that, [. . .] then they haven’t really learned anything.” This point lies at the heart of NCTAF’s STEM Learning Studios initiative, which aims to infuse STEM education with real-world questions that prompt teams of teachers, scientists, and retired educators to work with students on project-based learning modules. The article also highlights an emerging software tool, called Learning Catalytics, that is designed to help teachers “flip” the classroom most efficiently.

This piece also raises some grave questions. The first is the logistical and economic feasibility of making something like Learning Catalytics mainstream. With budgets in arrears and teachers being fired, where would the money to purchase such a product come from? And perhaps more importantly, how would teachers learn to use the tool effectively without sustained professional development opportunities? If we want teachers to flip their classrooms, no amount of cajoling from a Harvard professor will do the trick because teaching differently requires teachers being given the time to learn new skills. America is notoriously impatient with its teachers—this may be our biggest disservice to educators, and the students they serve—while the raw materials (reasonable salaries, appropriate professional development, and time for collaboration) that are the lifeblood of other successful professions remain elusive for teachers.

The second line of inquiry that this article raises is about listening. As mentioned above, application of concepts in new contexts is tantamount to what the policy community often refers to as deeper learning; but part of deep learning is deeper listening. One of the most important skills a student can learn, especially in this age of information overload, is the ability to cull useful data quickly from massive amounts of information, presented in different types of media. I would argue that learning to listening to a well-presented lecture is still fundamental. Listening to something that is not recorded and accessible later offers the opportunity for teachers and students alike to take responsibility for that information transfer in an active way. Of course this only works if the lecturer engages students with information in a presentation that draws them in.

My “defense” of the lecture is not, however, a defense of teaching as an artisan practice. Why not, as in STEM Learning Studios, have teachers work together to prepare content that connects disciplines. Why not have teachers deliver lectures together sometimes? It is great for students to actually see their math teacher interacting with their science teacher, their history or English teacher. Students seeing teachers together and listening to lectures delivered by teams “physicalizes” the connections across subject matter. It would be a shame though to abandon the lecture because when there really is a dynamic interplay between speaker(s) and listeners, an exchange takes place that no video or software, no matter how interactive, can fully replace.