42,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Bildung
- Sprache: Englisch
Tips and techniques to build interactive learning into lecture classes Have you ever looked out across your students only to find them staring at their computers or smartphones rather than listening attentively to you? Have you ever wondered what you could do to encourage students to resist distractions and focus on the information you are presenting? Have you ever wished you could help students become active learners as they listen to you lecture? Interactive Lecturing is designed to help faculty members more effectively lecture. This practical resource addresses such pertinent questions as, "How can lecture presentations be more engaging?" "How can we help students learn actively during lecture instead of just sitting and passively listening the entire time?" Renowned authors Elizabeth F. Barkley and Claire H. Major provide practical tips on creating and delivering engaging lectures as well as concrete techniques to help teachers ensure students are active and fully engaged participants in the learning process before, during, and after lecture presentations. Research shows that most college faculty still rely predominantly on traditional lectures as their preferred teaching technique. However, research also underscores the fact that more students fail lecture-based courses than classes with active learning components. Interactive Lecturing combines engaging presentation tips with active learning techniques specifically chosen to help students learn as they listen to a lecture. It is a proven teaching and learning strategy that can be readily incorporated into every teacher's methods. In addition to providing a synthesis of relevant, contemporary research and theory on lecturing as it relates to teaching and learning, this book features 53 tips on how to deliver engaging presentations and 32 techniques you can assign students to do to support their learning during your lecture. The tips and techniques can be used across instructional methods and academic disciplines both onsite (including small lectures and large lecture halls) as well as in online courses. This book is a focused, up-to-date resource that draws on collective wisdom from scholarship and practice. It will become a well-used and welcome addition for everyone dedicated to effective teaching in higher education.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 680
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
COVER
TITLE PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
PART ONE: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTERACTIVE LECTURING
CHAPTER 1: Lecture versus Active Learning
The Lecture
Active Learning
The Debate: Lecture versus Active Learning
Reconsidering the Debate: How We Frame It Matters
Conclusion
Notes
CHAPTER 2: Integrating Lectures and Active Learning
The Interactive Lecturing Model
Engaging Presentations
Active Learning
Conclusion
PART TWO: ENGAGING PRESENTATION TIPS
CHAPTER 3: Setting Goals
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 1: Big Why, Little Why
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 2: SMART Lecture-Learning Goals
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 3: Student Characteristics Analysis
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 4: Presentation Persona
CHAPTER 4: Creating Content
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 5: Sticky Note Diagrams
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 6: Brainstorming
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 7: Logical Patterns
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 8: Rule of Three
CHAPTER 5: Structuring the Session
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 9: Linked Lecturettes
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 10: Select-a-Structure
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 11: Bookends, Interleaves, and Overlays
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 12: Lecture Plan
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 13: Double Planning
CHAPTER 6: Leveraging the Language
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 14: Aristotelian Triptych
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 15: Signposts
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 16: Internal Previews and Summaries
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 17: High-Impact Language
CHAPTER 7: Designing Effective Audiovisuals
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 18: Template Temperance
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 19: Less Is More
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 20: Context Keeper
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 21: Invisible Slide
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 22: Slide Replacements
CHAPTER 8: Crafting Handouts and Supplements
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 23: Lecture Map
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 24: Content-Rich Handout
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 25: Infodeck
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 26: Annotated Reference Page
CHAPTER 9: Demonstrating Readiness
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 27: Out Loud
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 28: Lecture Supply Kit
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 29: Dress for Success
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 30: Book and Check
CHAPTER 10: Generating Enthusiasm and Interest
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 31: Lecture Preview
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 32: Meet and Greet
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 33: Icebreakers
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 34: Keep the Lights On
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 35: The Hook
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 36: Value Display
CHAPTER 11: Managing the Session
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 37: Terms of Engagement
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 38: Classroom Technology Policy
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 39: Silent Signals
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 40: Every Minute Matters
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 41: Extensions
CHAPTER 12: Presenting Like a Professional
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 42: To Script, or Not to Script?
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 43: Weatherperson
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 44: Pedagogical Moves
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 45: Voice Modulation
CHAPTER 13: Asking and Answering Questions
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 46: Write a Question
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 47: Echo Chamber
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 48: Wait Time
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 49: Right Means Right
CHAPTER 14: Signaling the Takeaways
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 50: The Synthesis
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 51: The Connector
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 52: The Power Close
ENGAGING LECTURE TIP 53: The Graceful Goodbye
PART THREE: ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUES
CHAPTER 15: Actively Preparing
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 1: Active Reading Documents
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 2: Know-Wonder-Learned
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 3: Two-Minute Question-Development Talks
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 4: Individual Readiness Assurance Tests
CHAPTER 16: Anticipating and Predicting New Information
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 5: Update Your Classmate
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 6: Sentence Stem Predictions
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 7: Guess and Confirm
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 8: Preview Guide
CHAPTER 17: Listening for Information
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 9: Advance Organizers
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 10: Lecture Bingo
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 11: Listening Teams
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 12: Live-Tweet Lecture
CHAPTER 18: Taking Notes
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 13: Guided Notes
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 14: Cued Notes
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 15: Coded Notes
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 16: Note-Taking Pairs
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 17: Sketch Notes
CHAPTER 19: Rehearsing Information
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 18: Translate That!
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 19: Think-Pair-Share
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 20: Snap Shots
CHAPTER 20: Applying Information
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 21: Thick and Thin Questions
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 22: Support a Statement
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 23: Intrigue Journal
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 24: Real-World Applications
CHAPTER 21: Checking Understanding
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 25: Pre-Post Freewrite
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 26: One-Sentence Summary
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 27: 3-2-1
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 28: RSQC2
CHAPTER 22: Reflecting and Metacognition
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 29: Punctuated Lecture
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 30: Post-Lecture Knowledge Survey
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 31: Lecture Wrapper
ACTIVE LEARNING TECHNIQUE 32: Lecture Engagement Logs
REFERENCES
NAME INDEX
SUBJECT INDEX
END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
List of Tables
Chapter 1
Table 1.1 Lecture Duration and Interactivity
Table 1.2 Examples of Active Learning Methods
Chapter 2
Table 2.1 Contrasting Transmission and Interactive Lecturing Presentations
Table 2.2 Engaging Presentation Elements Correlated to the Engaging Lecture Tips
Table 2.3 The Active Learning Continuum for Several Key Learning Tasks
Table 2.4 Contrasting Learner Stances and Roles in Transmission and Interactive Lectures
Table 2.5 Active Learning Phases Correlated to the Active Learning Techniques
Chapter 5
Table 5.1
Select-a-Structure
for Interactive Lecturing
List of Illustrations
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 Interactive Lecturing
Figure 2.2 Engaging Presentation Elements
Figure 2.3 The Four Phases of Active Learning during the Interactive Lecture
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 Presenter Archetypes
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 Idea Group Labeling Example
Figure 4.2 Order of Importance Example
Figure 4.3 Chronological Order Example
Figure 4.4 Sequential Order Example
Figure 4.5 Chronological Order Example
Figure 4.6 Rule of Three Content Chunks Example
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 Presentation Slide Signpost Example
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1
Template Temperance
Presentation Slide Example
Figure 7.2 Takahashi Slide Design
Figure 7.3 Kawasaki Slide Design
Figure 7.4 Lessig Slide Design
Figure 7.5 Godin Slide Design
Figure 7.6 Too Much Text Slide Example
Figure 7.7 Too Much Text Slide Example
Figure 7.8 Minimal Text Slide Example
Figure 7.9 Minimal Text Slide Example
Figure 7.10
Context Keeper
Slide Examples
Figure 7.11 End-of-Lecture Use of the
Invisible Slide
Figure 7.12
Invisible Slide
Example
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 Simple List Lecture Map: Physiology of Respiration
Figure 8.2 Graphic Organizer Lecture Map: Emerging Technologies
Figure 8.3 Visual Representation Lecture Map: Cartography
Figure 8.4 Lecture Slides
Figure 8.5 Handout
Figure 8.6 Sample
Infodeck
Chapter 14
Figure 14.1 Synthesis Graphic
Figure 14.2
Connector
Graphic
Figure 14.3 American Music
Connector
Figure 14.4 “The Lost Cell Phone”
Figure 14.5
Graceful Goodbye
Example
Chapter 17
Figure 17.1 Semantic Map
Figure 17.2 Main Idea and Detail Chart
Figure 17.3 Assertion and Evidence Organizer
Figure 17.4 Venn Diagram
Figure 17.5 Sequence Chain
Figure 17.6 Zone of Relevance
Figure 17.7 Brace Map
Figure 17.8 Cycle of Events
Figure 17.9 Blank Template for Prewriting Activity
Figure 17.10 Cycle Organizer Example
Figure 17.11 Cycle Organizer Example Filled In
Figure 17.12 Sample Tweet
Chapter 18
Figure 18.1 Sample Graphic Organizer
Figure 18.2
Sketch Note
Tips
Figure 18.3 What Makes a Good
Sketch Note
Figure 18.4 Two Types of Knowledge Needed for Teaching
Figure 18.5 Interplay between Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Knowledge
Figure 18.6 Surface-Learning versus Deep-Learning Approaches
Figure 18.7 Introduction to Leadership
Sketch Note
Example
Figure 18.8 World Music
Sketch Note
: Music of South Africa
Figure 18.9 World Music
Sketch Note
: Music of India
Figure 18.10 Template for Storyboarding
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
C1
iii
iv
v
xi
xiii
xiv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
E1
INTERACTIVE LECTURING
A Handbook for College Faculty
Elizabeth F. Barkley and Claire Howell Major
Copyright © 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by Jossey-BassA Wiley BrandOne Montgomery Street, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94104-4594—www.josseybass.com
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax 978-646-8600, or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, 201-748-6011, fax 201-748-6008, or online at www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Readers should be aware that Internet Web sites offered as citations and/or sources for further information may have changed or disappeared between the time this was written and when it is read.
Jossey-Bass books and products are available through most bookstores. To contact Jossey-Bass directly call our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at 800-956-7739, outside the U.S. at 317-572-3986, or fax 317-572-4002.
Wiley publishes in a variety of print and electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some material included with standard print versions of this book may not be included in e-books or in print-on-demand. If this book refers to media such as a CD or DVD that is not included in the version you purchased, you may download this material at http://booksupport.wiley.com. For more information about Wiley products, visit www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Barkley, Elizabeth F., author. | Major, Claire Howell, author.Title: Interactive lecturing : a handbook for college faculty / Elizabeth F. Barkley, Claire Howell Major.Description: San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass ; Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index.Identifiers: LCCN 2017046228 | ISBN 9781119277453 (pdf) | ISBN 9781119277446 (epub) | ISBN 9781119277309 (pbk.)Subjects: LCSH: College teaching–Aids and devices. | Lectures and lecturing–Handbooks, manuals, etc.Classification: LCC LB2331 .B365 2018 | DDC 378.1/25–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017046228
Cover Design: WileyCover Image: © saicle/Shutterstock
We dedicate this book to Maryellen Weimer. She is a teacher-scholar who has been a great source of support and encouragement for us over the years and a generous advocate of all of our books in the College Teaching Techniques series. She also offered us sound advice and guidance that pushed our thinking during the development of this book.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to several individuals who supported the work of this project. We thank Shonteria Johnson for her assistance during the initial research phase. We also thank Carla Blakey for her help with bibliography development, manuscript management, and proofing. Thanks are also due to our three anonymous reviewers, who offered in-depth and thoughtful comments and suggestions that helped us shape the manuscript. We learned after the review process that these three reviewers were Kevin Kelly, Mark Maier, and Michael Palmer. Ted Major was a great support throughout the process but particularly during the final stages of the work; he read and edited the penultimate draft and offered practical suggestions based on his own classroom experience. Additionally, we continue to be grateful to K. Patricia Cross, whose pioneering work with classroom assessment and handbooks for college teachers laid the foundation for—and now bind together—the entire College Teaching Techniques series.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Elizabeth F. Barkley is professor of music at Foothill College, Los Altos, California. With over four decades as an innovative and reflective teacher, she has received numerous honors and awards, including being named California's Higher Education Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, formally recognized by the California State Legislature for her contributions to undergraduate education, selected as “Innovator of the Year” in conjunction with the National League for Innovation, presented with the Hayward Award for Educational Excellence, and honored by the Center for Diversity in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. In addition, her “Musics of Multicultural America” course was selected as “Best Online Course” by the California Virtual Campus. She was also named a Carnegie Scholar in the discipline of music by the Carnegie Foundation in conjunction with the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Beyond her academic discipline of music history, her interests include engaging students through active and collaborative learning; transforming face-to-face and online curriculum to meet the needs of diverse learners, especially those from new and emerging generations; contributing to the scholarship of teaching and learning; and connecting learning goals with outcomes and assessment. Barkley holds a BA and MA from the University of California, Riverside, and a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley. She is coauthor with Claire Howell Major of Learning Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty (Jossey-Bass, 2016). She is coauthor with Claire Howell Major and K. Patricia Cross of Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty, 2nd ed. (Jossey-Bass, 2014); author of Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty (Jossey-Bass, 2010) and several music history textbooks, including Crossroads: The Music of American Cultures (Kendall Hunt, 2013), World Music: Roots to Contemporary Global Fusions (Kendall Hunt, 2012), Crossroads: The Roots of America's Popular Music, 2nd ed. (Prentice Hall, 2007); and coauthor with Robert Hartwell of Great Composers and Music Masterpieces of Western Civilization (Kendall Hunt, 2014).
Claire Howell Major is professor of higher education at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. She teaches courses on college teaching, technology in higher education, reading research in the field of higher education, and qualitative research methods. Her research interests are in the areas of faculty work, pedagogical approaches, technology for teaching, and online learning. She also focuses on issues of higher education in popular culture and higher education as a field of study. She typically draws on qualitative methods to answer her research questions. Major holds a BA from the University of South Alabama, an MA from the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and a PhD from the University of Georgia. She has authored and coauthored several books, including Teaching Online: A Guide to Theory, Research, and Practice (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015); Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty, 2nd ed., with Elizabeth F. Barkley and K. Patricia Cross (Jossey-Bass, 2014); The Essential Guide to Qualitative Research: A Handbook of Theory and Practice with Maggi Savin-Baden (Routledge, 2013); An Introduction to Qualitative Research Synthesis: Managing the Information Explosion with Maggi Savin-Baden (Routledge, 2011); and Foundations of Problem-Based Learning with Maggi Savin-Baden (Open University Press, 2004). Major also publishes her work in leading education journals and presents at national and international conferences.
PART ONEA CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTERACTIVE LECTURING
Introduction
In classrooms around the country, college teachers work hard to engage students in the kind of learning that will prepare them to meet the demands of an increasingly complex world. Some professors lecture, others use a variety of approaches that fall under the banner of active learning. All want students to learn. But what is the most effective way to help students learn? For decades, many educators have been caught up in a debate arguing which approach is best, but what if we reframed the debate and instead looked for ways to maximize the benefits of both pedagogies?
What if college teachers who lecture used a little more active learning? Would instruction be more effective if students spent some of their class time participating in discussions or engaging in group projects instead of spending all of their class time listening? Alternately, what if college teachers who now use only active learning strategies spent a little more time in engaging modes of telling? Would instruction be more effective if students spent some of their class time listening to professors directly share knowledge about the disciplines and fields that they love instead of students having to discover everything on their own? We believe that the answer to all of these questions is yes.
In Part 1 of this book, we present the conceptual framework for blending engaging lectures and active learning methods. In so doing, we lay out the key assumptions, concepts, and research related to the interactive lecturing model. It is a representation of the essential elements of the model and relationships between them. We have organized our framework into two chapters:
Chapter 1
. Lecture versus Active Learning: Reframing the Debate.
Here we describe the ongoing debate between educators who are at odds with each other over whether lecture or active learning is the better instructional method, and we suggest that we reframe the issue.
Chapter 2
. Integrating Lectures and Active Learning.
In this chapter, we present our model for interactive lecturing and share the research that underpins the model.
CHAPTER 1Lecture versus Active Learning: Reframing the Debate
Educators today would be hard-pressed to identify a teaching technique more heartily maligned than the lecture. Lectures are boring: “Some people talk in their sleep. Lecturers talk while other people sleep” (Albert Camus1). Lectures are ineffective: “A lecture is a process in which information passes from the notes of the lecturer into the notes of the student without passing through the minds of either” (Mark Twain2). Lectures are pointless: “Lectures were once useful; but now, when all can read and books are so numerous, lectures are unnecessary” (Samuel Johnson). Lecturing is currently considered to be so bad that one author imagines a future when universities are required to issue a warning to students that “lectures may stunt your academic performance and increase risk of failure” (Dawson, 2016). The list of criticisms continues and includes charges such as old-fashioned, overused, obsolete, and even unfair (see, for example, Abrams, 2012; Jensen & Davidson, 1997; Lambert, 2012; Paul, 2015; Segesten, 2012; Wieman, 2014).
Most of us have experienced listening to a lecture in which the speaker droned on and on; our minds wandered, our bodies fidgeted, and we would have dashed for the door had that been an option. One student expressed a similar sentiment: “I was so bored, I feared all the blood had left my head and I would pass out in the aisle” (El-Shamy, 2004, p. 24). Despite the surfeit of disparagements, research indicates that most college and university faculty members still lecture.3 Lectures have remained popular for many reasons, including that they serve several important instructional purposes. Furthermore, lectures don't have to be dreary and mind-numbing. We—and students—have encountered situations in which we sat transfixed as we listened to a particularly captivating lecture. Indeed, a colleague recently shared that these kinds of lectures were the transformative events of his undergraduate education.
Although most college professors continue to lecture, researchers have also found that few today rely on the lecture entirely;4 instead, they use lecture in combination with a variety of other teaching techniques, such as small-group work, case studies, discussion, and problem-solving—strategies that fall under the banner of “active learning.” Active learning is a pedagogical approach that puts into practice over a half-century of research that demonstrates that, to truly learn, we need to make new information our own by working it into our personal knowledge and experience. As attractive as active learning is conceptually, however, many college teachers struggle with promoting it in practice. For example, assigning students to group work is a popular active learning pedagogy, yet teachers know that it is not safe to assume that students who are talking to each other are learning and that it is equally risky to conclude that students are learning when they are listening to other students talking. Furthermore, although lectures can leave some students disengaged, active learning strategies can engender full-blown resistance. We once overhead a student passionately protest, “Today was awful! My teacher . . .” [with our curiosity piqued, we waited for her to complete her complaint so that we could hear what terrible thing the professor had done] “assigned us to group work!”
Thus lecturing and active learning strategies have potential pitfalls, and although neither method is perfect, neither is despicable. Yet currently there is a fierce debate that sometimes intimates otherwise. This either-or dispute sets educators against each other in ways that we propose are unproductive. In this book, we aim to move past the premise that instructors must choose one or the other approach and suggest instead that faculty members can combine lectures with active learning to create a vibrant instructional environment that capitalizes on the benefits while minimizing the constraints of each. Our approach, a form of interactive lecturing, helps professors navigate the process of integrating lectures and active learning into a seamless whole that promotes deep learning.
We begin in Part 1 of this book by establishing our conceptual framework, which is grounded in research evidence. In this chapter, we answer the following questions:
What is a lecture, and what is it good for?
What is active learning, and what purposes does it serve?
What are the main points of contention in the lectures versus active learning debate?
Why is this debate problematic? And how can we reframe the basic proposition?
The Lecture
The word lecture comes from the Latin word lectare, which translates roughly into “to read” aloud, whereas the term lecture means “that which is read.” To ancient Greeks, a lecture was the primary method of transmitting knowledge and information (Brown & Atkins, 1988), and this understanding served as the foundation for later developments. About the sixth century CE, scholars traveled hundreds of miles to European monasteries to hear monks read a book aloud from a lectern; as the monk read, scholars copied down the book verbatim (Exley & Dennick, 2004). With the establishment of universities in the Middle Ages, lectures persisted. Lecturing continued to be a core pedagogy as European higher education expanded during the subsequent centuries, and these traditions were transplanted to the colonies. By the mid-nineteenth century, lecturing was firmly established as the primary method of instruction in the American college classroom (Garside, 1996). But what exactly is a lecture?
Definitions of the Lecture
Bligh (1999) suggests a working definition of a lecture as “a more or less continuous exposition by a speaker who wants the audience to learn something” (p. 4). The literature is replete with similar definitions, such as the following:
A lecture is an educational talk to an audience, especially to students in a university or college (
Oxford Dictionary,
n.d.).
Lecture is a method of teaching in which the instructor gives an oral presentation of facts or principles to learners, who are responsible for note-taking (Good & Merkel, 1959).
[A lecture is when] a teacher is talking and students are listening (Singh, 2006).
These definitions rely on a view of the lecture as a method of transmitting information. This model of lecturing became the prevalent pedagogy because it provided an essential method for conveying and spreading knowledge, especially in the centuries before the printing press facilitated widespread publication of books.
Purposes of the Lecture
Lectures have remained popular because they serve several important purposes. We summarize those purposes in Exhibit 1.1.
Exhibit 1.1 The Purposes of Lecture
Teachers use lectures to . . .
Present information otherwise unavailable to students
Present a synthesis of information from across multiple sources
Organize information into a logical structure
Share important background and contextual information and ideas
Highlight similarities and differences
Clarify confusing concepts, principles, and ideas
Help learners consolidate information
Model higher-order thinking strategies and skills
Convey enthusiasm for the content
Communicate why content is worth learning
Active Learning
Despite the trend of describing it as modern, active learning—similar to the lecture—has a long history in education. In 1852, John Henry Newman proposed that true learning consists “not merely in the passive reception into the mind of a number of ideas” but rather “in the mind's energetic and simultaneous action upon and towards those new ideas . . . and making the objects of our knowledge subjectively our own” (from Idea of a University). Page (1990) traces the origins of active learning back to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as found in the work of Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Dewey, Kilpatrick, and Piaget. She describes four common themes associated with active learning, including rejection of traditional teaching methods, belief in the cognitive learning paradigm, faith in the ability of the student, and belief in the importance of the relationship of school to society. Although active learning's roots run deep, the actual term active learning wasn't popularized until the late twentieth century with the publication of Bonwell and Eison's (1991) ASHE-ERIC Report titled Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. But what exactly is active learning?
Definitions of Active Learning
Whereas definitions for the lecture seem relatively focused and straightforward, descriptions of active learning are broad and imprecise:
Anything that involves students in doing things and thinking about the things they are doing (Bonwell & Eison, 1991)
A process whereby students engage in activities, such as reading, writing, discussion, or problem-solving, which promote analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of class content (University of Michigan, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, 2016)
A method of learning in which students are actively or experientially involved in the learning process (Weltman & Whiteside, 2010)
A process of learning through activities and discussion in class, as opposed to passively listening to an expert; it emphasizes higher-order thinking and often involves group work (Freeman et al., 2014)
Thus active learning is typically characterized by attempts to clarify what it is—a process or method of doing—as well as by what it is not—listening to a lecture.
Purposes of Active Learning
Active learning provides a means for students to apply knowledge in ways that achieve a variety of learning goals, as summarized in Exhibit 1.2.
Exhibit 1.2 The Purposes of Active Learning Methods
Teachers use active learning methods to . . .
Reinforce content, concepts, and skills
Help students deepen their subject matter knowledge
Help students develop higher-order thinking skills
Provide students with the opportunity to think about learning
Provide students with an opportunity to apply learning through discussion and other activities
Improve student engagement in learning
Increase enthusiasm for a topic
Improve student motivation
Improve classroom climate and sense of community
The Debate: Lecture versus Active Learning
The debate over which method college instructors should use—lectures or active learning—is intense, with both sides claiming to have the correct claim. The key proposition in the debate is this: professors should not lecture; they should instead engage students in active learning activities. Let us explore the fundamental assertions of each side of this debate.
Arguments against the Lecture
Lecture critics proclaim that “the lecture is dead” and argue that the development of new theories of learning, new instructional approaches for engaged and active learning, and new learning technologies can (and should) take their place in college classrooms (see, for example, Abrams, 2012; Allain, 2017; Gross-Loh, 2016; Lambert, 2012; Segesten, 2012; Talbert, 2016a, 2016b). Critics of the lecture are united on several core contentions.
Contention 1: Students Are Passive Learners in Lectures
Perhaps the most common reproach to lecturing is that students are passive. This critique is so pervasive that educators have dubbed the lecture a “passive learning” pedagogy. The teacher stands in front of an audience of students and delivers a formal, structured presentation while students listen and take notes. Lecture critics suggest that students are passive in these lecture-based classes because teachers spend too much time lecturing, have too much back-to-the-class and face-to-the-board time, miss opportunities for student activities or engagement, and neglect to provide sufficient ongoing assessment, which means in turn that students receive little feedback on their learning.
Freire and others call this the banking model. In his Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968, p. 58), Freire describes the banking model in this way:
Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiqués and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the “banking” concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits.
Thus in this view of lecturing, faculty members try to deposit information into the minds of students who store it so that they can call the information up later, when the bill comes due in the form of a test.
Contention 2: Lectures Do Not Offer Students Authority and Control over Their Own Learning
Lecture critics suggest that to truly engage with their own learning, students need to have some say in what they do and how they do it. Some educators argue that lecture is too teacher-centered and that we should allow students to have some input into the way in which they learn. The concern is that lecturers are too taken with their own roles as the center around which the rest of the classroom revolves to allow students to take control of their learning, whereas active learning provides students this opportunity. As Weimer (2015), a teaching and learning expert, puts it:
Those of us who shake up the classroom with active learning see value in teacher and student activity. We're committed to students asking questions, attempting explanations, and testing ideas. We want them doing the hard, messy work of learning while we're there to help, support, and yes, correct. We don't feel that our expertise is eroded when teaching and learning happen elsewhere in the classroom. Rather, this dynamic fills the learning space (physical or virtual) with more promise and possibility than we can provide on our own.
Contention 3: Research Documents That Lectures Are Not the Best Approach
Lecture critics have been emboldened by a host of research studies that indicate the lecture is not the most-effective pedagogy for improving student learning. There have been hundreds of experimental and quasi-experimental studies over the past couple of decades that document this finding (see, for example, the well-known study by Deslauriers, Schelew, & Wieman, 2011). Several authors have written excellent research reviews describing these works (see, for example, Hake, 1998; Michael, 2006; Prince, 2004). Moreover, through a process of combining results from several meta-studies to determine an effect size, researchers have confirmed that transmission-based lectures are not the best approach to improving student learning in a college classroom. In particular, a widely publicized, useful meta-analysis by Freeman et al. (2014) compares student outcomes in lectures versus active learning in undergraduate STEM courses through a meta-analysis of 225 studies. The researchers found that when instructors used active learning strategies, student exam scores increased significantly and student failure rates decreased significantly when compared to instructors who used lecture methods alone. Educators have been quick to pick up on this particular meta-study, declaring active learning the “winner” of the pedagogy contest and questioning the very integrity of those who choose to continue to use lectures in the face of such evidence (Felten, 2014). Eric Mazur, the prominent Harvard physicist and educator, for example, stated, “This is a really important article—the impression I get is that it's almost unethical to be lecturing if you have [these] data.” Mazur goes on to state that the meta-analysis presents “an abundance of proof that lecturing is outmoded, outdated, and inefficient” (quoted in Bajak, 2014). Nobel laureate Carl Wieman argues further that “lectures are about as effective as bloodletting” (quoted in Westervelt, 2016).
Contention 4: There Are Too Many Challenges to Learning in Lectures
Critics of the lecture also cite research related to challenges to student learning in lectures, pointing out the multiple potential problems researchers have identified. First, students often are not sufficiently prepared to participate in a lecture. They may come to learning with misconceptions that influence their ability to learn and that are resistant to change during direct instruction (Dunbar, Fugelsang, & Stein, 2007). Alternately, they may have such novice understandings of the content that it negatively influences their ability to integrate new learning (Hrepic, Zollman, & Rebello, 2007; Schwartz & Bransford, 1998). Second, the human attention span is limited, which interferes with attention during full-length transmission lectures. Critics of the lecture refer to several studies that have found that student attention wanes after a time during a lecture (Farley, Risko, & Kingstone, 2013; Risko, Anderson, Sarwal, Engelhardt, & Kingstone, 2012; Scerbo, Warm, Dember, & Grasha, 1992). Moreover, students who engage in task-switching behavior (sometimes called multitasking), particularly when using computers and especially when choosing unrelated tasks, lose attention as well (Aguilar-Roca, Williams, & O'Dowd, 2012; Hembrooke & Gay, 2003; Kraushaar & Novak, 2010; Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014; Wood et al., 2011). Third, the limits of working memory can be a challenge for student learning in lectures. If the cognitive load of the information is too high and not been managed appropriately, students will not be able to process the information in ways that result in learning (Hattie, 2016). The constraints to working memory also can affect student ability to take good notes, which deprives them of a valuable record to refer to after the lecture. Fourth, student motivation can be a challenge to lecture learning, and students with lack of interest in the lecture will learn less (Bolkan, Goodboy, & Kelsey, 2016). Furthermore, students are motivated by varied instructional strategies, and teachers who only lecture are not able to capitalize on such motivation (Komarraju & Karau, 2008). Exhibit 1.3 summarizes the challenges to learning using transmission lectures.
Exhibit 1.3 Challenges of Transmission Lectures
The challenges with these lectures are that they . . .
Imply that they function as a complete learning experience
Rely on professorial presentation skills
Require the teacher to make assumptions about students (what they know or don't, what they have or haven't experienced, what they might or might not find confusing)
Rely on student preparation and readiness to attend to and understand information
Rely on the limited human attention span
Rely on student working memory
Rely on student intrinsic motivation and interest in the topic
Create opportunities for students to be passive
Function as if all students learn at the same pace
Prevent personalized instruction, which may be of particular benefit to marginalized learners
Arguments in Support of Lecture
Just as there are lecture critics, so there are lecture proponents. Lecture advocates argue that if the lecture were so terrible, it would not have endured as the dominant pedagogy for almost a millennium and that well-done lectures can be a powerful pedagogy. Proponents propose that educators imagine if orators such as Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., or Steve Jobs had assigned audience members to gather in groups to talk to each other instead of giving some of the greatest speeches in history. Defenders of lectures also point to the phenomenal success of TED Talks as evidence of the enduring appeal of good lectures. Proponents also suggest that although students understandably deplore poor lectures, they also recognize the value of good lectures. Strauss (2009), for example, notes that in the many course evaluations he has read, “students love pointed, provocative well-delivered lectures. They appreciate and respect a master narrative . . . .” Some proponents of lectures even see active learning as just “another in a long line of educational fads” (Prince, 2004, p. 1). Defenders of the lecture base their arguments on several key contentions.
Contention 1: Students Can Be Active Learners during Lectures
Proponents point out that a good lecture is not simply the recitation of facts but rather can take any number of valuable narrative formats that inspire and engage students in learning. For example, a lecture can be a careful construction of an argument that skillfully connects facts and captures the content and critical thinking of the discipline. Or it can provide students with a model of expert thinking or problem-solving. It can also be a captivating story or even a performance, and use tone, emphasis, and pacing to communicate an emotional vitality difficult to convey through other mediums. Live lectures also provide the opportunity for teachers to check in with students “in the moment” and clarify, delve deeper, or change direction as needed.
Lecturing also helps students learn three important ancillary skills, all of which require them to be active learners during lectures. First, students listening to lectures can learn to take good notes. Good note-taking skills involve not simply recording verbatim what one hears but also learning to be attentive and analytical as one reduces what is being said to its essentials. Second, paying attention for a sustained amount of time is a skill that students need to learn. Helping students move beyond the habit of multitasking and instead learn to focus attention teaches them mindfulness and how to “be present,” abilities that are recognized as increasingly important in a culture in which many of us feel distracted and overwhelmed. Third, listening to good lectures requires students to grapple with complex, challenging ideas. Being able to invest the mental energy to absorb a long, intricate argument is hard, active work, and practicing this skill helps students learn to listen more critically. This struggling with multifaceted, substantive content teaches students to be wary of the seductive simplicity of sound-bites and tweets. This, in turn, prepares them to be more responsible and thoughtful workers, citizens, and community members.
Contention 2: Professors Are Experts and There Is a “Time for Telling”
The idea of a professor assuming the role “sage on the stage” rather than “guide on the side” (King, 1993) has been taken to task so vigorously that the very idea that professors might tell students anything rather than letting them discover everything for themselves has almost become taboo. Worthen (2015), for example, suggests that “in many quarters, the active learning craze is only the latest development in a long tradition of complaining about boring professors, flavored with a dash of that other great American pastime, populist resentment of experts.” Proponents of the lecture, however, argue that the professor is an expert. They also believe, as Schwartz and Bransford (1998) suggest, that there is a “time for telling.” These times include when students need direct answers, when they lack prior knowledge and need to be told what they need to know, when there are conflicting cases and they need information, and so forth. Furthermore, they argue, not all college professors have the skills, especially in terms of facilitation, to ensure active learning assignments are effective, whereas after years of training in their disciplines or fields, they do have the knowledge they need to offer a lecture.
Contention 3: Support and Research on Active Learning Is Based Primarily in the Sciences
Many proponents of the lecture point out that the research demonstrating the efficacy of active learning is predominantly based in the sciences and not in other disciplines, such as arts, humanities, or social sciences. They question the inherent assumption that a pedagogical approach that works well in the sciences necessarily works well in other disciplines. Defenders of lectures point out that lectures are part of a time-honored tradition in disciplines other than the sciences. For example, lecture combined with discussion is essential for teaching the basic skills of the humanities. These skills, which include comprehending and then creatively and critically thinking about big, complex ideas, have been at the heart of a liberal arts education since ancient Greece because their value extends beyond the classroom and prepares learners to be good citizens. Lecture advocates further suggest that we educators acknowledge and value different instructional methods, so why not acknowledge the value of lecturing as an important tool in an expanded repertoire of teaching strategies? Worthen (2015), particularly, is critical that the push for active learning in all disciplines is an attempt “to further assimilate history, philosophy, literature and their sister disciplines to the goals and methods of the hard sciences—fields whose stars are rising in the eyes of administrators, politicians, and higher-education entrepreneurs.”5
Contention 4: There Are Cognitive Benefits to Lecture-based Learning in Comparison to Active Learning Methods
Countering the claim that there are too many challenges to learning in lectures, some educators argue that the lecture provides important cognitive scaffolding for students. Specifically, as a form of direct instruction, lectures can be particularly helpful to novices by providing them with the cognitive structuring they need to stay alert and active. Lecturing can help learners acquire foundational knowledge in efficient ways that prepare them to apply this knowledge productively. However, “minimal guidance” instructional methods, they argue, are not the most-effective instructional approach. The basic premise is that active learning ignores human cognitive architecture, the limits of working memory, issues of cognitive load, and expert-novice differences (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). For example, students with limited prior background on a topic simply do not have the knowledge they need to participate effectively in active learning assignments such as discovery learning, small-group discussion, or casework. As a result, they waste time and energy on unimportant details or, worse, learn or reinforce inaccurate information. Furthermore, attempting to participate in activities that ask them to apply concepts they don't yet even understand leaves them bewildered and frustrated. Thus active learning methods are not without their challenges, as we illustrate in Exhibit 1.4.
Exhibit 1.4 Challenges of Active Learning Methods
The challenges with active learning methods are that they . . .
Do not
guarantee
high levels of student engagement in learning
Can hinge on professors' pedagogical knowledge to do well
Can rely on professors' facilitation skills to get students to higher levels of engagement
Can depend on students' existing knowledge, which can vary by student
Require student willingness to participate
Can rely on student engagement in the activities
Challenge student expectations of what being taught means
Can make some students anxious, particularly if they are unprepared or unable to participate
Can be more challenging to promote in large classes
Can be less efficient than “telling”
Reconsidering the Debate: How We Frame It Matters
It appears that those who favor active learning are against lectures and vice versa (Paff, Weimer, Haave, & Lovitt, 2016). But is this really the case? If you look more closely at the arguments, you see that those who argue for the lecture almost always talk about the activities they incorporate into their lectures. Alternately, you see that almost all of those calling for the death of the lecture admit that they do some “telling” in their classes. If you examine surveys and observations of faculty practice, you find that most faculty members are incorporating varying degrees of lecturing and active learning (see, for example, Eagan et al., 2014; Ebert-May et al., 2011; Goffe & Kauper, 2014; Hora, 2015; Macdonald, Manduca, Mogk, & Tewksbury, 2005; Mathematics Association of America, 2013; National Survey of Student Engagement, 2015; Smith & Valentine, 2012). Finally, if you drill down into the research, very few of the research studies are of 100 percent lecture compared to 100 percent active learning. Rather, they are investigating classes with almost continuous exposition by an instructor compared to classes with some active learning to some exposition.
Thus, part of the problem with the current debate is that we have not yet settled on a common language to describe what happens in a college classroom, particularly when it comes to these two pedagogies. We say that active learning is better than “the lecture,” but that ignores that “the lecture” is not a single monolithic thing. Bruff (2015), for example, proposes that there is a challenge in the terminology because lecture does not mean the same thing to all people; however, he notes that to many, it implies continuous exposition by the instructor. We agree with this contention and suggest several different dimensions across which lectures can vary, which we describe more fully in our Tip 10: Select-a-Structure. The two most important variables for this discussion, however, are how long a lecture lasts and how interactive it is, as we illustrate in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Lecture Duration and Interactivity
Duration
Full-session lecture.
The full class period in continuous exposition of content
Lecturette.
Approximately fifteen to twenty minutes, often linked with other lecturettes
Mini-lecture.
A brief, focused content presentation that lasts about five to fifteen minutes in length
One-minute lecture.
Approximately one minute of focused content; also termed
micro-lecture
when designed for online delivery
Interactivity
One way.
Little interactivity, with questions entertained at the conclusion of the lecture
Two-way, limited.
Occasional interactivity initiated by instructor
Two-way, negotiated.
Occasional interaction initiated by instructor or students
Participatory.
Students involved in varied exchanges, initiated by instructor and students
Thus lecture formats can vary, but researchers have not delved deeply into the different approaches to lecture. What we do know is that a full-length, one-way lecture is not as effective as a mix of lecturing and active learning. For this reason, we argue that researchers need to be asking more nuanced questions about the lecture. When is a lecture useful? How much lecturing is too much? What kind of lecture is best? What supports are most effective?
Similarly, educators also have a tendency to talk about “active learning” as if it is a single monolithic thing. Yet educators include a host of instructional activities or techniques as well as more elaborate pedagogies under the banner of active learning. We illustrate just a few examples drawn from a very large pool of techniques and pedagogies in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2 Examples of Active Learning Methods
Active Learning Technique Examples
Active Learning Pedagogy Examples
Think-aloud pair problem-solving.
Partners solve problems aloud to try out their reasoning on a listening peer, which emphasizes process (not product) and helps them identify process errors.
Three-step interview.
Partners interview each other and report what they learn to another pair, which helps students network and improve communication skills.
Think-pair-share.
Students think individually for a few minutes and then discuss and compare their responses with a partner before sharing with the entire class, which prepares students to participate more fully and effectively in whole-class discussions.
Snapshots.
The instructor poses a single question or two, and students respond individually. They then try to convince their assigned partners that their responses are correct. The instructor provides the answer so students can assess whether they were correct.
Cooperative and collaborative learning.
Students work together to solve a problem, complete a task, or create a product.
Team-based learning.
This is a specialized form of collaborative learning teaching strategy designed for units of instruction, known as
modules,
which are taught in a three-step cycle: preparation, in-class readiness assurance testing, and application-focused exercise.
Problem-based learning.
This is an approach in which students learn about a subject by working in groups to solve an open-ended problem.
Flipped classrooms.
This is a pedagogical model in which the typical lecture and homework elements of a course are reversed. Short video lectures are viewed by students at home before the class session, and in-class time is devoted to exercises, projects, or discussions.
Although there is some research comparing different pedagogies against the full-class lecture (e.g., project-based learning [PBL], cooperative learning, team-based learning [TBL], and so forth), we don't know the particular features of these approaches that improve learning most.6 Thus, what we don't know is what kinds of active learning are best for promoting what kinds of learning in what kinds of disciplines and fields. We simply need more research into what really works with which students in what educational contexts.
Conclusion
We propose that the debate between lecturing and active learning has become acrimonious and unhelpful, partly because it perpetuates a false dichotomy. Whether to lecture or not to lecture is not the question. Whether to use active learning or not use active learning is not the question. Teachers use lectures and active learning in their classrooms, and most don't stress over the distinctions between the two; they are simply teaching students. The real question is how to do this well. It is time to set aside our differences, adopt a common language so that we can better communicate, and get on with the art and craft of teaching students. In short, we need to reframe the current conversation and engage in a more-productive discussion about teaching and learning in higher education. We believe that a start to breaking down this fallacy is seeing that lectures and active learning can be combined in ways that capitalize on the benefits of each and minimize the challenges. The purpose of this book is to help our fellow college teachers find methods to integrate lecture and active learning in ways that best promote student learning and engagement.
Notes
1
According to
Harvard Magazine
(2013), the author of this adage is actually Alfred Capus, a well-known French journalist, and attributes the difference to a typo.
2
Some attribute this adage to Fulton J. Sheen, perhaps quoting Thomas Aquinas (Dawson, 2016). There is also a similar adage attributed to George Leonard: “[Lecturing is the] best way to get information from teacher's notebook to student's notebook without touching the student's mind” (Strauss, 2017).
3
In surveys of students in which they are asked about their classroom activities—such as the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) or those conducted by the Mathematics Association of America (MAA)—responses indicate that the proportion of faculty members who lecture is somewhere between 60 and 75 percent. Surveys of faculty members show a lower but still impressive percentage. For example, the Higher Education Research Institute's survey of faculty (HERI) indicates that over 50 percent of faculty members report that they lecture “extensively” (Eagan et al., 2014). However, direct observation of faculty teaching suggests that the percentage may be higher. For example, Ebert-May et al. (2011) surveyed faculty members after completing a weeklong active learning workshop and determined that although 89 percent of instructors reported that they were employing active learning, when observed, 75 percent were still heavily dependent on the lecture. Clearly many college professors continue to rely on the lecture as their primary pedagogical tool.
4
The Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) (
http://fsse.indiana.edu/pdf/2014/FSSE%202014%20Faculty%20Time%20-%20Teaching%20Related%20Activities.pdf
) estimates that faculty members spend nearly 40 percent of their time on lecturing, which in a fifty-minute class would mean about twenty minutes. Direct observation of instruction supports this report. Hora's (2015) observational study, for example, found that most faculty members lectured for periods of twenty minutes or less.
5
Although much of the research is based in sciences, there are some signs of change. Gasper-Hulvat (2017), for example, reviewed research on active learning in art history and found that active learning improves student-learning outcomes. Mello and Less (2013) looked across disciplines traditionally taught in arts and sciences and found gains of active learners to be significantly higher than their counterparts; in addition, active learners showed less variability in gains in academic performance than their counterparts.
6
However, there are some signs of change on this front. Strevler and Meneske (2017) have examined features of active learning that appear to be more effective. They have found that interacting with others and creating new information and content are related to even greater gains in student learning.
CHAPTER 2Integrating Lectures and Active Learning
Conceptions of what constitutes effective college teaching and learning have changed dramatically in recent decades, raising expectations for teachers and students alike. No longer are college professors expected simply to stand in front of a classroom and transmit knowledge to an attentive but passive audience. Instead, today's teachers are challenged to engage diverse learners while developing students' abilities to apply thinking and problem-solving skills to rapidly changing social and workforce conditions. No longer are students expected primarily to progress through a sequence of steps designed to help them master a relatively stable storehouse of knowledge. Instead, today's students must grapple with complex content, demonstrate their learning through increasingly proficient performance, and learn how to learn in more powerful and efficient ways.
This book, at its most fundamental level, is about good teaching that is intentionally directed toward improved student learning. It's about finding effective, efficient, and engaging ways to share knowledge with students. It's about creating an instructional approach that fosters interaction among students and instructors. It's about promoting students' sense of agency and helping them develop the skills and abilities they need to be successful in and beyond a single course. It's about communicating high expectations and providing students with feedback on their learning so that they can improve. In short, it's about how best to teach students in ways that enable them to manage the demands of today's changed workforce and cultural context and engage in deep learning. In particular, this book is about integrating lectures and active learning to create a “pedagogy of engagement” (Edgerton, 2001).
We have titled our particular approach interactive lecturing, which we see as a unified integration of engaging lecture presentations and active learning methods. We draw from research findings as we provide faculty members with a practical guide on how to combine the two seamlessly to create a dynamic learning environment that encourages students to invest the energy and attention required to achieve deep learning. In this chapter, we answer the following questions:
What is
interactive lecturing
?
How can faculty members make lecture presentations more engaging?
What active learning methods best support student learning during lectures?
The Interactive Lecturing Model
Interactive lecturing is the process of combining engaging presentations with carefully selected active learning methods to achieve intended learning goals. Our model builds on that of those who have suggested active and interactive lectures previously (e.g., Bonwell, 1996; Middendorf & Kalish, 1996; Silver & Perini, 2010; Sokoloff & Thornton, 1997; Steinert & Snell, 1999) but offers a more explicit approach of combining engaging presentation and active learning techniques. During an interactive lecture, the class session is structured into segments of presentation combined with and punctuated by
