GATEways to Teacher Education

A journal of the Georgia Association of Teacher Educators

1. What are the perspectives of pre-and in-service social studies teachers who are enrolled in a graduate teacher preparation program about lecture as an instructional method in social studies?

2. Did the COVID-19 pandemic impact the views of pre-and in-service social studies teachers who are enrolled in a graduate teacher preparation program about lecture as an instructional method in social studies?

The purpose of this study is to examine the views of in-service and pre-service teachers who are in a graduate teacher preparation program about lecture as an instructional method in social studies. Moreover, we seek to find whether the COVID-19 pandemic impacted these teacher education students’ decisions to lecture, particularly when schools shifted to emergency remote teaching. Gaining understandings of pre-service and graduate teacher education students’ perspectives of lecture is critical if colleges of education are going to effectively support teacher preparation and pedagogy in social studies during and after this pandemic.

The following literature review highlights the definition of lecture, the benefits and concerns with lecture, and the impact of COVID-19 on social studies instruction. Existing scholarship is outlined in order to demonstrate how this study can contribute to the growing body of research on how preservice and in-service social studies teachers can make wise pedagogical decisions with regard to the implementation of lecture for social studies instruction in online, hybrid, and in-person settings.

There are debates over the exact definition and purpose of lecture. Assanova (2018) defined lecture as “a teaching method that involves, primarily, an oral presentation given by an instructor to a body of students...as long as there is an authoritative figure (in any given context) at the front of a room, delivering a speech to a crowd of listeners” (p. 14). Kuntz (2019) argues that lecture may be more effective than constructivist methods, saying “‘small group work’ha[s] become something of a pedagogical reflex utilized as a matter of course without much thought and that the lecture, though often maligned as the province of stodgy professors of old, could be a creative and engaging teaching device” (p. 27). Overall, Kuntz andAssanova define lecture as a traditional instructional style that is planned out thoughtfully that can lead to powerful learning among an audience of listeners.

Conversely, there are definitions of lecture that emphasize the need for dynamic interactions between teachers and students. Stacy (2009) defines interactive lecture as the use of “problem-centered, comparative, and thesis-driven lessons [that allow] the teacher to present the factual framework essential to analyzing the historical record and [demand] that students actively engage the material in the process” (p. 278). Active and experiential learning opportunities like debates, role-playing exercises, and use of digital documents and documentary films can be paired with lecture to promote engagement (Vess, 2005; Luckhardt, 2014; Lane, 2014; Gregory, 2013). Interactive lecture derives from constructivist approaches that focus on the process and product of student learning. With these premises in mind, we define lecture for this study as an example of direct instruction where teachers engage in formal teachertalk as a means to convey information to students. We acknowledge that lecture can be implemented either from a behaviorist or constructivist approach. However, we seek to find whether students in a graduate college of education can make these distinctions with how and why they lecture,