Finding Bridges between Today‟s Students and Yesterday‟s Lectures
Tracy Russo September, 2009
1|Page
“My job was primarily to walk around and make sure the students were awake. You know, I‟d make sure they turned their cell phones off, that they weren‟t Facebooking, and that they were taking notes,” said my new graduate assistant in reply to my question on his past job responsibilities.
I‟m not sure what I expected
him to say, but I know that wasn‟t it. Prior to this meeting with my department chair and GA, I was excited about the possibilities in teaching a large lecture instead of the smaller classes I had been teaching. In my own educational background, I had vague memories of sleeping through large lectures but had assumed that with so much new information on brain research and engagement strategies along with the technology available in our lecture halls, things would be different today. The picture of becoming a „boring old prof‟‟ droning on until students escaped into sleepy oblivion in comfortable seating didn‟t match my expectations of myself as an instructor. Is the problem of student disengagement with traditional lecture pedagogical style caused by qualities inherent in lectures themselves or is it caused by a change in the type of students in classrooms today, or both? Considering the upcoming three months I was about to share with 200 students in our overview of Human Development and its foundations, I felt it was in my best interests to find out some answers to this question. As most universities are facing budget cuts simultaneously with rising costs of providing higher education today, finding ways to reduce teaching expenses is increasingly important. A lecture hall can seat hundreds of students with one 2|Page
experienced faculty member responsible for instruction, using lower-cost graduate assistants for support to meet individual needs making it far less expensive than using smaller class sizes with a faculty member teaching each section. Many experienced lecturers have been giving the same lecture for year after year with minimal changes due to new discoveries, while freeing up the faculty member‟s energies for other university pursuits such as research, writing, and working on obtaining grants for areas of special interest. Lecture courses can also lend themselves quite well to being taught by adjunct staff, which reduces costs even further. For example, at Western Michigan University my contract for two lectures comprising 200 students equates to a cost per student of $30 covering my stipend and leaving $770 of each student‟s tuition (and excluding other university fees) to finance overhead costs for the lecture hall, a graduate assistant, technology, university administrative support and general university costs. This cost/benefit alone is motivation enough for universities to retain lectures as a part of their instructional offerings. Lectures have been used extensively for knowledge transmission since the medieval universities and before, indicating that this style of pedagogy merits further examination before making the assumption that the lecture itself is responsible for student disconnect. “Good lectures convey new terms and concepts, delineate historical context, demonstrate function, and draw complex connections between ideas. Well-organized, vibrant lectures offer efficient ways to explain important detail to large groups of diverse learners.” (Designing Smart Lectures 3|Page
Overview) Large lecture halls provide excellent forums to use in providing extensive and detailed background information, ensuring that all listeners have access to the same educational foundation of thought. Lectures also allow instructors to model for students how to expound on a text or a theory and apply details of a theory to specific examples. As a student, all the above possibilities appear beneficial and desirable; leading to the conclusion that frequent disengagement of students in lectures is not something inherent in lecture pedagogy itself. If lecture goals themselves appear worthwhile and have stood the test of time, then perhaps how lectures are experienced lie in today‟s students‟ own perceptions and expectations of lectures. Prior to changes in information delivery that technology has brought such as affordable, mass-produced books, personal computers, and phones that can combine all of those functions, the primary method of teaching and learning at all ages and cultures was oral in nature. Formal education itself was also a privilege not available to all due to economic realities of life in past centuries, and so those who obtained formal knowledge were sought out and respected for their words. As recently as colonial American times, “Most children started to work as either a servant or an apprentice in other people‟s homes around the age of 7. By puberty, children knew how to farm, to cook, to care for children, and so on….Children of wealthier parents was sent out of the home to attend boarding school at the age of 7 and most received the equivalent of a college education before the age of 18.” (Daniels and Meece 16) In contrast, today‟s 4|Page
students represent a much different demographic compared to even 30 years ago. The average student age is up, as is their confidence in their abilities, but their overall preparedness is down. More women and minorities are obtaining higher education, yet age, gender and minority status do not appear to correlate with any specific teaching strategy being more or less effective. However, if these basic demographic differences do not offer an explanation for today‟s disengagement in lectures, then perhaps examining the changing perspectives and expectations of today‟s learners might shed some light on the matter. Whether they are 18, 25 or 30, most of today‟s students are in the “Net Gen” also known as Generation Y, born between 1977 and 1997. “Eight characteristics, or norms, describe the typical Net Gener and differentiate them from their boomer parents. They prize freedom and freedom of choice. They want to customize things, make them their own. They‟re natural collaborators, who enjoy a conversation, not a lecture. They‟ll scrutinize you and your organization. They insist on integrity. They want to have fun, even at work and at school. Speed is normal. Innovation is a part of life” (Tapscott 6-7). Juxtapose those characteristics with the characteristics of a good lecture stated earlier and little commonality is easily evident. In fact, expanding on differences is their very identifier: “Net Gen” is indicative of a great cultural difference created by technology. Many in education and society as a whole would purport these changes in generational expectations as negative due to their newness and untested nature, but the older generation‟s perception does not change the basic university need to find cost-effective ways to 5|Page
reach this diverse population. Looking for ways to bridge these perceptual differences appears to be wherein the ability to engage today‟s students in high quality material and academia exists. For many university staff and faculty, computers, Power Points, Skype, Facebook, podcasts, webquests, SIMs, gaming, cell phones and more are all suspect as “new technology” while to the average Net Gen student, these are no more threatening than a bicycle is because they have never known a life without speedy, innovative technological advancements. Returning to lecture in the distant past, a few potential connectors stand out in allowing universities to keep scholastic effectiveness while applying new technological strategies to make the lectures more learner-centered. For example, Socratic lectures typically encompass a series of carefully framed questions followed by considered responses based on Socrates‟ belief that a didactic lecture was not an effective learning tool. He believed in creating a collaborative learning environment where the discussion of the group contributed to deepening the understanding of the group while allowing for the individual to process the information. At minimum, based on historical reports, Socrates believed 2400 years ago in at least three of the same learning characteristics of the Net Gen today. Aristotle is known for starting the Lyceum, and for creating the first grand scale school of organized scientific inquiry, yet his preferred mode of teaching and learning was to walk around while lecturing and discussing material with his colleagues. Similar to Socrates, apparently Aristotle as well also exhibited teaching strategies consistent to what Net Gen students also want today. 6|Page
As needs of the university, along with expectations of the students, are accepted as reasonable, the answer of how to engage students must address the pedagogy used within the lecture itself. Modern-day lecture situations do not allow for either walking around outside or lend themselves easily to small group discussion, but we now have a tools non-existent 2400 years ago encompassing possibilities for creating bridges between the best of what students want with the best of what universities need to deliver. Motivation of students also becomes a factor of the bridge building embedded in the engagement process. Professors and instructors today have many more tools for learning acquisition at their disposal than in years past. Although it does demand a certain amount of energy to continue keeping up with the Net Gen, many of these tools can actually streamline and improve effectiveness of any size classroom teaching. A search of various internet databases yields many articles in peer-edited journals in existence on multiple strategies to improve the interactivity level in today‟s lecture halls. The ease in locating articles and ordering related books via online resource links to university libraries statewide is in itself one example of how investing in acquiring technological skill can save time in other areas. The Net Gen tendency toward the Burger King mentality of „wanting things my way‟ does not upon first glance appear to lend itself well to being addressed in large lectures. However, brain research has confirmed that relevance to oneself is a key factor in material and concept retention. “Relevant connections are made more often, and that strengthens neural connections. Every thought you think increases 7|Page
the chances of your thinking that thought again” (Jensen 92). Given that large lectures often are considered weeder classes for different specialties in education, investing in strategies that would increase the pool of people who make the cut and are better prepared for future classes makes sense unless weeding out is the university‟s focus. Using technology for research of creative visuals and common experiences with the group being taught provides an easy way to connect the material to what the students already know. Most major universities have a full service tech cart in each lecture hall, with a document reader, DVD and video player, surround sound, large screens, wireless availability and a place to hook up a laptop. With this array of choices, professors have multiple options to create relevance for students using a minimal amount of effort. Many professors collect index cards from their students on the first day of school listing general information such as hometown, desired major, etc… Using this information as a database, a professor can find many ways that relationships between students and the subject at hand can be developed. For example, one of the first lectures in traditional Human Development addresses cohort groups. Having recently received a humorous email with “everything you remember from the „80‟s,” I chose to use this as a basis for a compare/contrast visual to explain what „cohort‟ group means. Microsoft PowerPoint easily imports web info and visuals into the main document, and with a small investment of time in web research I was able to engage the 200 students in a short trip down memory lane as they saw a three-minute slide show with Pink Power Rangers, Ninja Turtles, 8|Page
Michael Jordan, and more as they described their cohort group. Capitalizing on the laughs from the visuals, students easily moved on to practice framing research questions and hypotheses with each other as part of the remaining lecture on research methods. Beyond trying to bridge simple differences in ages, multi-media techniques can also be used to address issues arising from the new diversity of the average college student. “When students and teachers came to university from the same privileged social backgrounds, they shared similar values and principles. So, there was no difference of perspective between teachers and studentâ€? (Hermida 9.16.09). Many texts are Euro-centric in viewpoint and illustration, tending to disenfranchise learners from other cultural backgrounds. No longer is the instructor limited, though, by what illustrations are being used in the course texts. Many services exist free of charge such as www.learnnc.org and AP Online, or are supported through the library system at each university that can supply images and media from all over the world in almost every subject imaginable. Whether discussing childrenâ€&#x;s play or bridge construction using new metal alloys, it does not compromise university scholarship to choose pictures from other countries or cultures to illustrate a point. With large amounts of information readily available to students on every subject, the concept of accepting expert opinion is also now under scrutiny. Information is posted on blog sites as facts, and fact-checking can become a 9|Page
nightmare. Respect is not automatic towards educators, and in fact a mistake in class whether personal or academic can easily lead to the instructor receiving negative feedback on sites such as www.ratemyprofessor.com. Once again, the world wide web and technical capabilities of lecture halls can be used to easily address this issue. With the ability to show what is on the computer screen on the big screen for audience view, modeling how to evaluate source reliability is easily done in any subject area. In addition, there is now easy access to visuals from around the world whereby an instructor can use as a background or introduction piece a photo, excerpt, or clip from an original source rather than relying solely on their own lecture capabilities to explain concepts. A picture is worth a thousand words, and with the big screen and world wide web in most lecture halls, bringing pictures in as supporting elements in student engagement has never been easier. If todayâ€&#x;s learners are natural collaborators who want to have a conversation, fitting also with how Socrates believed people learned best, then another tool making this easier to apply in the large lecture is the document reader and in some cases, a whiteboard. Although blackboards in the past made it possible for instructors to facilitate brainstorming sessions, concept mapping, and problem solving with group participation, in order for the audience to see the work on the board the instructorâ€&#x;s back was turned while writing. Only the instructor or a chosen few were able to write due to logistics and space. Although many instructors use document readers just as they would a black- or white-board, numerous possibilities open up as well. At minimum, the instructor is in a face-to-face 10 | P a g e
teaching situation modeling much more of a conversational approach. Additionally, the instructor now has the option to create collaborative small group experiences within the larger lecture, by virtue of the being able to collect each group‟s work and make it available to the whole instantaneously with the document reader. Again, there is no academic compromise needed, but what in the past might have been a relatively passive lesson with a few students calling out equations to solve a problem can now be transformed into a collaborative experience where the entire hall can not only participate, but become incorporated into much higher levels of learning. Students of today also expect to have fun, and unfortunately with a large lecture the possibility of learning while walking around town such as Aristotle once did simply isn‟t feasible. Sitting in a large lecture hall not only fails to constitute fun in most people‟s opinions, it also works against the brain‟s natural need for movement as a part of the learning process. Brain research findings suggest that 20 minutes is the maximum length of time an adult can be expected to hold focused attention without a drastic loss in learning. Also, while the body is in a relaxed, seated position the brain receives less oxygen thus reducing function than if the body was using physical energy in addition to the mental exertion. Technological advances make avoiding that brain-incompatible situation easier to avoid offering multiple options for building in student movement opportunities. In lectures past, inside of a lecture hall instructors were often tied to a sound system or blackboard. Although it doesn‟t compare with being able to go outside, simply capitalizing on the 11 | P a g e
todayâ€&#x;s flexibility due to technology to walk around the lecture hall so that students have to shift in their seats to focus does increase attention span. Feedback for memory is most important in the first 30 – 60 minutes (Jensen, 2007) and using the document reader to project studentsâ€&#x; work for instant feedback and assisting with recognizing errors is another way to engage learners with multiple stimuli on a task. The document reader also simplifies the process of using small group work and opening it up to the large group, giving a nice transition of modality for students and again incorporating body movements. For those lecture halls equipped with clickers, the student benefits by both the kinesthetic response along with the immediate feedback allowing the instructor to scaffold learners to mastery of the material. Furthermore, as all memory is episodic, all of these strategies strengthen the connections between explicit, implicit and semantic memory therefore improving long-term recall and comprehension. One month into implementing some of these strategies, there have been some noticeable unanticipated outcomes. I first noticed that my GA has taken a much more active role in the coursework, engaging with the material itself instead of functioning as a class watchdog. His extra time is now used in assisting with research of appropriate supporting articles to the texts, increasing his personal knowledge pool along with maximizing the use of his skills and background already in existence. Extending this, he has now been able to assist in creating a technology support platform for my lecture sections, equipping himself in the process with some basic instructional design strategies that will serve him well in the future as 12 | P a g e
he obtains his own PhD. Not only did my relationship with my GA change to include more mentoring, but searching out new strategies also connected me with other professors within the department in a collaborative climate as ideas and experiences were shared and expanded upon. The questions of “What worked?” and “What didn‟t work?” have opened up wide-ranging conversations that bring together varied perspectives from multiple disciplines that isolated course material on its own did not. As traditional lectures do not allow for much feedback impacting personal growth, these types of conversations are imperative for improving personal pedagogy. In searching for answers to my original questions on the efficacy and applicability of lectures today, it seems that the saying, “The more things change, the more they remain the same” is relevant. As in the past, students continue to need information that instructors have in a constant supply/demand balance while simultaneously bringing their own experiences to the mix. Just as both Socrates and Aristotle worked to create effective ways to meet students‟ needs and chose methods different than tradition at the time, today‟s instructors are actively working to meet student needs as well in non-traditional means. Creating an interactive learning environment with students was a goal 2400 years ago, and remains a goal today. Perhaps building bridges to engage today‟s learners during lectures is a fluid process that can be examined from both sides: as instructors have expectations of learners during lectures and expect learners to adapt to the material, so do the learners have expectations of the instructor and expect the 13 | P a g e
lecture style to address their learning styles as well. Viewing the lecture as a dynamic learning tool inclusive of many possibilities for varied instructional practices geared to maximize mastery of subject matter, both instructors and learners benefit from interaction with each other during the process.
14 | P a g e
Works Cited Center for Teaching and Learning, “Designing Smart Lectures”. University of Minnesota, n.d. Web. August, 2009. Daniels, Denise and Meece, Judith. Child and Adolescent Development for Educators. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages. 2007. Print. Jensen, Eric. Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development; Revised 2nd edition. 2005. Print. Hermida, J. “Inclusive teaching strategies to promote non-traditional student success.” n.p. Retrieved from tomprofblog.mit.edu/. Web. September 17, 2009. Tapscott, Don. Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World. McGraw-Hill; 1 edition. 2008. Print.
Bibliography Denig, S., Dunn, R., & O'Connell McManus, D. Effects of traditional lecture versus teacher constructed & student-constructed self-teaching instructional resources on short-term science achievement & attitudes. American Biology Teacher, 65(2), 2002. 93-102. Web. August 2009. Federal News Service. New interactive teaching tool available for large lectures. n.d. Web. May 9, 2009. Fons, J. Student reactions to just-in-time teaching's reading assignments. Journal of College Science Teaching. , 38(4), 2009. 30-33. Web. August 2009. Puttee, C., & Mezzina, K. In defense of the lecture: strategies to assist in active learning experiences in accounting units. e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 2(02). 2008. Web. August 2009. Richardson, D. Don’t dump the didactic lecture; fix it. Advanced Physiological Education , 32(23-24). 2007. Web. August 2009. (2002). Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture. American Journal of Physics, 70(639), doi: 10.1119/1.1463739. Web. August 2009.
15 | P a g e