Is the
traditional lecture the best method to filling our students’ minds with
valuable knowledge? Or, is it our role to provide the tools for students to
discern knowledge? Is there a way to integrate both methods?
Chapters three
through five in James Lang’s On Course
discusses a peaceful cohesion between the lecture and class discussion methods.
I found his analysis practical, at the same time, engaging. Lang seems to allow
for both lecture and discussion approaches in the classroom placing a greater
emphasis on the context of the particular class.
He begins his
discussion on lectures by referring to research to suggest that students’
retention of the information in given lecture drops 10% every ten minutes of
class. While I do not disagree with the studies he references, I am interested
in knowing what students are paying
attention to and how they associate
what they are learning in the class. For instance, I conducted a small informal
study based on Thomas A. Angelo’s description of “punctuated lectures.” Here, I
paused every 20 minutes to allow students to respond to the lecture. During
each pause, students were asked to honestly describe their attentiveness at
that moment. I found that students were paying more attention when I discussed
information that they thought was relevant to either the major paper or the
upcoming test. After this assessment, I now constantly remind students of the
relevancy of the information being covered.
In no way am I suggesting my measly anecdotal study be measured against mounds of
professional research about how much information students actually retain from
lectures. At the same time, I think it would be interesting to see how these
retention rates are influenced by students' awareness of the relevancy to either high stakes or low stakes grades,
or even making them aware that the information being covered does not have a direct relationship to the paper or the test. Perhaps there is already
research out there on this?
Along with Lang’s
observations I am also interested in Tim Blackmore’s essay, “Play Your Cards
Right: A Narrative of First –Year Students’ Reader-Responses.” Blackmore describes
his use of the notecard strategy to gauge student responses and help them
develop discernment for the literature along with awareness of the interpretive
community to which they belong.
Here, Blackmore
describes how his notecard strategy finds theoretical basis in Stanley Fish’s
work in reader-response criticism. In this case, Fish places emphasis on the
reader in the interpretative process allowing for moments of indeterminacy
between the re-reading and reinterpretation of the text. Rather than operating
from a stable concrete meaning, the text is always in flux privileging meaning
to what Fish describes as the text’s "interpretative community."
Blackmore describes how the use of the
notecards allows students to respond personally to the text; at the same, this
strategy allows students to respond openly and honestly to what they are reading. By the end of the semester, his students are more apt to develop critiques
with a greater sense of complexity and awareness of how to “perform” their
critical academic voice. He writes, “when students come to realize that the
more they preform, the less afraid they are, the more they are competent, the
more they feel able to consider their surroundings, and then they begin to preform
with gusto (60).”
Out of the examples he provides, the ones that had the greatest impact
on me was the example of the student’s response to Roethke’s “Once More, the
Round,” the student’s response to what Blackmore describes as, “course material
about identity in a Fordist world,” and finally, the student's interrogation of the
purpose of movies. These examples illustrate students using the text to not only problematize what they were reading, but also problematize the world in which
they live.
As a
writing/reading teacher, I have to constantly remind myself that my students do
not all enter the classroom with a stake in interpreting literature and that
it is my job to develop their stake in this process. While many of the
methods discussed in the aforementioned titles have proven to be beneficial, I
find the larger challenge is not sticking to one method but rather, knowing how to use
varied methods depending on the dynamics of a particular class.
What do you think about this? An effective way to lecture? Or complete chaos?
What do you think about this? An effective way to lecture? Or complete chaos?
Joe, I'm intrigued by your own micro-study and your reflections on what you learned. You say, "when I discussed information that they thought was relevant to either the major paper or the upcoming test. After this assessment, I now constantly remind students of the relevancy of the information being covered." You then go on to reflect that "it would be interesting to see how these retention rates are influenced by students' awareness of the relevancy to either high stakes or low stakes grades, or even making them aware that the information being covered does not have a direct relationship to the paper or the test." I'm wondering what you think might be useful as a method to get them to think beyond the test? (Unlike the very last student Blackmore mentions.) This would seem to have a direct connection to your later point that "students do not all enter the classroom with a stake in interpreting literature and that it is [your] job to develop their stake in this process." I'm wondering if it is even possible for students to develop a sense personal stakes or engagement when just listening to a lecture or whether this can only be developed when they have time to engage themselves, more directly, whether through the (misleadingly) simple cards Blackmore uses, or small group discussion, low stakes writing, etc. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteOMG! This guy is scary!
ReplyDeleteI could understand his approach if his class room was full of ADD students who had serious problems maintaining their focus and this was the only way to keep their attention and I'm sure there are students who might enjoy his style. But there are probably more who would live in a state of fear of being picked on to parrot back his information and would develop gut aches just from the stress! Can you imagine being hammered like this three classes in a row? And when all the students are talking at once, who the heck knows what they are saying and whether it makes sense. In addition, the amount of energy needed to lecture this way would exhaust most normal teachers.
However, as with any technique that seems to be effective, it is worth considering and adapting it to one's own personality. There is a buzz of electricity in the class because the instructor has obviously charged them up and certainly this provides more of a learning atmosphere than some old boy up front droning on and on about dead philosophers. So what can we take away from his performance? We can see that this type of teaching requires plenty of energy from the teacher, that he demands student involvement, that both parties are physically active, and that there is also a certain intimidation factor that probably triggers fear of failure among the students. All of these qualities are useful, though I think it would be more realistic to tone it down to avoid burn out for both teacher and student.
Hi Lisa, Yes. I think small group discussion is one of the best ways to get students engaged beyond the lecture. I think students feel more empowered when they make sense of the story in small groups. Most of the time, they are more comfortable admitting that they did not understand something or missed something, then they are able to talk it out with their peers. After small group discussion, I have students report out to the class. Most of the time, speakers of the group begin their statements with "we thought…" I love this because I think when students are able to begin with "we thought…" they do not feel alone in the their ideas. In a way, the small groups affirm the way they are thinking about the story.
ReplyDeleteHi Betty, I agree. This seems chaotic at first, but there is a "buzz of electricity" in the room. I have tried this in the classroom, with my own tweaks of course. My approach was a bit more structured. The first couple of times were very scary to do, but that "buzz" appeared in the classroom, so I have tried it a few other times. It is not my favorite approach to lecture, but it keeps students on their feet and it breaks the monotony of lecture by spicing up the traditional approach. I also begin with telling students that this is a "recitation activity," so they know that they are going to have to recite information.
ReplyDelete