In today’s post, I want to share part of a paper that I am presenting today with some colleagues at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. I believe that one of the most pressing areas for future research is cities and higher education.
One of the biggest challenges for students is how to find good scholarly research. I have spoken with several of my doctoral students about this recently. Although the availability of electronic library resources are much better than in the past, I still find using library databases cumbersome and clunky. Instead, I recommend using Google School for finding research.
I want my students using empirical research to support their arguments when writing papers. However, I don’t want them to waste a lot of time trying to find research articles and books.
The lecture is one of the oldest teaching strategies in the world, yet it remains one of the most controversial. Some faculty passionately argue for the value and effectiveness of lecturing while others suggest that the approach is one of the biggest challenges for helping college students learn. This debate has been in the forefront lately thanks to a New York Times column by Molly Worthen, “Lecture Me. Really.” Professor Worthen’s piece, while thought provoking, misses the mark in several places particularly in describing active learning as not much more than a fad. Moreover, her pieces failed to consider the growing and substantial body of empirical research on lecturing—research that shows the strengths and weaknesses of lecturing. My recent book with Claire Major and Todd Zakrajsek (Teaching for Learning: 101 Intentionally Designed Educational Activities to Put Students on the Path to Success) explores the research literature on lecturing and in today’s post I want to describe some of the key findings to provide empirical information to the lecture debate.
The primary purpose of lecturing is to transfer content and information from an expert faculty member to novice students. Lectures take many forms from formal lectures to lecture-discussions that include student questions.
In our work, we identified the following advantages of lecturing:
The weaknesses of lectures are:
As with all teaching approaches, there are advantages and disadvantages of lecturing. So what should faculty do? In our review of the research literature, we identified five findings that can improve the effectiveness of lectures for instructors that desire to use lectures.
Additionally, much of the research that finds lectures as ineffective examined traditional, full class lectures. Recent studies suggest that lectures can be made more active and improve student learning if instructors can follow some of our suggestions below.
1. Use mini lectures with purposeful active learning breakouts to improve student learning.
2. Effective and guided note-taking during lecture can improve learning.
3. Focusing on the essentials can improve student learning, and help students figure out what is essential can improve learning
4. Frequent quizzing and testing can improve learning
5. Paying attention to style and pace of speech can improve learning
We go into more details on each of these in the book as well as providing specific activities to help instructors achieve these goals. Ultimately, what is most important is that faculty take the time to intentionally design their classroom activities whether lecturing or another approach.
No teaching strategy is perfect.
However, by learning from research and proactively planning, instructors can improve their teaching and student learning.
After a contentious and often fumbled search process, the University of North Carolina Board of Governors has named former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings as the next UNC system president. She follows President Tom Ross who was well liked within the university, but failed to make many friends among Republican leaders in Raleigh. I would have preferred a president with significant academic experience, but I also see Spellings in the mold of other nonacademic presidents particularly Erskine Bowles. Below is an open letter to Margaret Spellings with my recommendations for her upon taking over the system in March.
Although much of American politics today is frustrating and sad, I’ve been completely fascinated by the power transition occurring in the U.S. House of Representatives over the last few weeks. In particular, I have watched closely Paul Ryan’s role and change of position from I won’t run to I will if my demands are met. While I have fundamental political and policy disagreements with Representative Ryan, I have been quite impressed with how he has handled the situation roiling his caucus. In today’s post, I will share the four demands that Ryan had before agreeing to run for speaker and what Paul Ryan’s demands can teach higher ed administrators.
Almost immediately after John Boehner announced his resignation as speaker, Paul Ryan was suggested as a potential consensus candidate to bring together the Republican House caucus. Just as immediately, Ryan said he would not be a candidate. Over time, as no viable candidate came forward, Ryan softened his stance and said he would run if he could actually unify the party and if his conditions were met.
I found that situation remarkably similar to how many administrative positions in higher education are filled, particularly academic administration openings. Many faculty initially decline, but are eventually talked into accepting the post.
