The title of my Writing 5 was “View from the Balcony: Learning How You Learn”, and that was exactly what we did: throughout the term, we asked and answered questions about our own learning. In addition to reading texts on recent research on learning and examining how learning is impacted by socio-economic factors, we used our writing to clarify our thinking, to explore what we value about learning, and to analyze, summarize, and report our research findings.
For our first assignment, we were asked to respond to a New York Times Article written by Professor Molly Worthen, who advocated for the use of lecture over active learning in the classroom.
To Lecture or Not to Lecture
Education is both a uniting and divisive force. People have come together to teach and learn from one another for centuries, with the lecture serving as one of the oldest instructional techniques. As education evolved, proponents of “active” learning approaches began to challenge this traditional method of instruction. The debate over the merits of lectures versus active learning has become an increasingly polarizing issue in the discussion about education. Those who support active learning often depend heavily upon scientific evidence for support, while those who lecture generally argue from a traditional standpoint.
In her article “Lecture Me. Really.”, Professor Molly Worthen establishes the lecture as the vehicle for teaching in humanities courses rather than “today’s vogue for active learning.” Worthen asserts that lectures teach essential skills of comprehension and reasoning. She argues that people who are against this method do not truly understand the purpose of a lecture, which is to build an argument by linking individual facts. According to Worthen, lectures also serve as “an exercise in mindfulness and attention building, a mental workout that counteracts the junk food of nonstop social media.” She underscores the importance of educating students on the worth of lectures and their ability to teach students how to listen. Worthen argues that lectures are far from “passive” learning experiences because note-taking strengthens students’ ability to “synthesize as they listen,” an operation championed by supporters of active learning.
However, it is not helpful to frame this discussion as a binary debate over which method is better. Supporters of lecture rarely depend solely upon this method, while active learning methods generally involve moments of lecture. Because teaching found its roots in storytelling, I agree that lecture is an irreplaceable teaching method. However, I believe that many of the benefits that Worthen points out are not exclusive to the lecture. Alternative methods of learning can also provide benefits that lectures cannot. We should focus on how to structure teaching in a way that effectively fuses method and context.
I am a firm believer in the idea that you learn by doing. There is a difference between hearing about something and experiencing it first-hand. Lectures allow students to amass concepts necessary for building a strong foundation of knowledge in a subject. Alternative learning methods utilize this foundation as the basis for further development, cultivating the critical thinking skills sowed by lectures. Active learning allows students to apply ideas bestowed upon them during lectures and develop their own opinions. Teachers become facilitators of a conversation rather than providers of information. By discussing and writing about the material, students transcend their role as spectators and make the learning part of themselves.
My first term of college provided me with both ends of the spectrum. My English class was an eclectic mix of instructional methods. It was grounded in discussion, with instances of group work woven in throughout the term. We had at least one moment of lecture during every class. I believe this mixture was the most effective out of all my classes. While I was introduced to the underlying concepts through the moments of lecture, the discussion and group work broadened my exposure to the material by allowing me to engage with my peers. Rather than relying on one mode of teaching, the professor provided multiple pathways. Going beyond information delivery allowed the students to enter the dialogue. These active learning methods gave me opportunities to interact, talk, write, read, and reflect on the content. Not only was the experience more intimate, engaging with the material actively gave it more depth.
On the other side of the spectrum, my Chemistry class relied solely on lecture. The only time anyone spoke was to ask a clarifying question, and even those were sparse due to the speed with which the material was being delivered. There was no direct, prolonged interaction with my professor or my peers, which made me feel disconnected from the class. All the students spent the entire sixty-five minutes hunched over their notebooks, frantically attempting to catch all the information being thrown their way. The lecture-only style was confining and made me feel like there was no way to engage with the material and the professor during class. While grappling with the material in English class increased my comprehension, my struggles to even capture all the information during chemistry lectures only resulted in less retention.
As with any learning method, quality is key. Worthen underscores the importance of a good lecturer who can ignite the students’ interest. My Public Policy class this term is similar to my Chemistry class, relying almost solely on lecture. However, the professor for this class incorporates more interaction than my Chemistry professor did. He often directs thought-provoking questions to the class and reinforces the connection between the material covered in class and our own lives. The professor gives us breaks from the difficult task of keeping up with a lecture and manages to hold our attention by engaging with us directly and prompting us to interact with the material. While I believe this method is far more effective than a lecture completely devoid of interaction, I continue to struggle with synthesizing the information during lecture, a key point in Worthen’s argument. I am constantly focusing on keeping up with what the professor is saying and copying what is written on the board. This focus interferes with my ability to respond to a question because I am usually still caught up in capturing and haphazardly organizing the previous idea.
Although I do not deny the benefits that Worthen defends, I believe that her presentation is one-sided and reinforces the divide between lecture and active learning methods. In her article, Worthen praises the value of lectures while only addressing the negative aspects of active learning. Instead of acknowledging and comparing the virtues of lectures and alternative methods, Worthen simply pits lecturing and active learning against one another. She foregoes the opportunity to refine our education systems by demonstrating how one method could fill in the gaps for the other.
Several of the arguments that Worthen supports could also be utilized to support alternative teaching methods. There are gaps in the lecture method that cannot be ignored. In many cases, another teaching method could supplement a lecture. Worthen states that lecture courses serve as a break from social media, but this is even more applicable for methods such as discussion and group work, which require active participation. She also asserts that lectures teach “a rare skill in our smartphone-app-addled culture: the art of attention.” However, this is true for non-lecture based classes as well. Participation in a group or class discussion engages the senses and demands the student’s attention to both the material at hand and the flow of ideas being exchanged regarding the material. Worthen claims that “absorbing a long, complex argument is hard work, requiring students to synthesize, organize and react.” However, lectures are not the only tool capable of teaching students how to organize, synthesize, and construct an argument. It is far more effective to learn these processes by experiencing them first-hand through small group and class discussions or peer review exercises. Also, while I believe that silence and listening are important, speaking and conversing with others is just as crucial. Worthen only focuses on one aspect of an academic conversation, one that stifles the voices of the students.
Through my own personal experience, I believe that lectures are only effective when used in conjunction with another or several other methods. Lectures can be beneficial if fashioned in a manner that holds the students’ attention, a sentiment that Worthen shares. I appreciated Worthen’s point about the lecture’s ability to prepare students for seminar discussion. She states that “a lecture course teaches students that listening is not the same thing as thinking about what you plan to say next.” This assertion supports the idea that lectures are most potent when combined with other methods. This statement also points out the distinction between listening in a discussion and listening in a lecture, a discrepancy that is often disregarded. While I also agree with Worthen’s statement about the power of good notes, I firmly believe that taking notes is not enough to fully comprehend the material. Most students, including me, struggle to absorb knowledge and understand complex arguments through listening and notetaking alone. To make connections and build arguments, students must be active participants in the process.When I first read the title of Worthen’s article, I was immediately prepared to criticize the lecture, a teaching method that I did not have pleasant experiences with. Hardly anyone I know would say that a lecture was the most meaningful educational experience they had. However, as I reflected upon my classes from
When I first read the title of Worthen’s article, I was immediately prepared to criticize the lecture, a teaching method that I did not have pleasant experiences with. Hardly anyone I know would say that a lecture was the most meaningful educational experience they had. However, as I reflected upon my classes from first term of college, I came to realize the value of the lecture in education systems. Lectures are integral to the learning process. Even courses that depend mostly on discussion involve moments of lecture, however informal or brief. While I still believe that lectures are not an effective stand-alone teaching method, I have since reevaluated my opinion of this method. As Worthen points out, lectures bridge facts together and form the basis for further development by preparing students for discussion.
Disagreements over methods of teaching allow us to refine our education systems. However, the question should not be to lecture or not to lecture. Rather, the focus should be on structuring instruction around the purpose of the subject, the time available, and the ability of the students. Implementation is crucial for whatever method we use, as how we go about doing something determines the outcome. To facilitate this shift in mindset we must broaden our acceptance of all methods of instruction and promote inclusivity. Simply praising one method while criticizing another only reinforces the divisive opinions involving lecture and active learning. The challenge is finding the right balance of lecture and alternative methods of instruction.
Works Cited
Worthen, Molly. “Lecture Me. Really.” New York Times. 17 Oct. 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/18/opinion/sunday/lecture-me-really.html?_r=3. Accessed 5 Jan 2017.