Tenure Blues ... The Merits of Lecturing

In my last blog post, I tried to explain that lecturing is the font of much misunderstanding. Sure, some of it is really boring, but the fact that someone is in front of a lecture hall for an hour or an hour and a half does not mean that that is all there is to putting together a lecture. Moreover, I tried to argue that today's lectures are really quite different than the lectures many of us received when we were undergraduates a generation ago. They are complicated educational engagement that take a great deal of time to put together. There is no "teacher's text" book, out of which we crib notes (at least in the humanities and social sciences). My comments were in response to a comment made by Richard Gwyn to the effect that watching a video is more useful than lecturing.

Let us allow that I am right (not a big leap of faith for me but perhaps one you don't want to make so ... bear with me). Let's allow that the point I made in the previous blog are, more or less, accurate:

• Lectures are conceptualized as one part of an educational process that includes a range of media, discussion, student input, etc.
• That good lectures are time consuming to put together 
• That faculty would likely lecture even less if more resources were available to have smaller classes

I don't see these as radical perspectives, but you can check them out for yourself if you doubt me.  This said, these points do not exhaust what should be said about lectures. I have a number of other points to make, which I will try to keep briefer than my previous blogs relating to lecturing. These other points, I hope, go to the heart of any discussion of lecturing. 

1. Is everyone a good lecturer? Clearly, no. Some of my colleagues (as I said in my previous blog) seem superlative. Others are not. Much of that can be chocked up to personality, as opposed to preparation. Some people are just livelier in front of a room than others. Some subjects admit of a more lively presentation than others, as well. This goes, I will take it for granted, for any particular job. I am certain that there are more entertaining lecturers than I. But, that misses the point: should everything we do in the classroom be entertaining? Should the liveliest lecturer be considered the best?  Should we even compare education to watching videos? I watch videos periodically. I like youtube and watch Jon Stewart "best of" clips. Should we compare that ... to education? Would Stewart compare that to education? 

I think one of the problems with talking about the value of lecturing and comparing it to videos (even instructional videos) is that we run the risk of a false comparison. Sometimes, learning things is less than exciting. There, I said it. Some of my less lively lectures to my intro class involve matters that are remarkably important, say constitutionally guaranteed rights. This is tricky legalistic stuff. To understand it as something more than a sound bit ("I support the Charter!") can require care and deliberation. There are lectures that I give on other subject that are, frankly, far more entertaining or even far more user friendly, but this subject deserves a serious treatment in a way that allows student to fully engage the subject. It moves slow and, in my view, rightly so. There issue of whether or not someone is a good lecturer or not might be more complicated. I don't stack up well compared to a video (it can have high production values, a team of researchers, great camera work, interviews -- tracked down by the team of researchers or agreed to by public figures because of potential audience size -- and other "hooks."). But, is that the test of a good lecture? Moreover, as I said in my last blog, the specific lecture in question is, for the faculty member, never the last word on the subject. We design assignments for students to articulate their own views, have follow up or preliminary readings, discussion groups, etc. I am not at all convinced that we should castigate supposedly boring lectures simply because they appear to be boring because education is just not as much fun as comedy. But that is not the test. If it were ... well ... we would turn out post-secondary education systems over to Dane Cook. And, lest my point be lost, the lecture itself is just one part of an engagement with a subject and so comparing my lecture on the Charter to Cook's "atheist sneeze" (if you have not seen it, it is really funny, look it up) is comparing apples and oranges and we are sending the wrong message. Sometimes learning takes time and energy and is less exciting than the things we do for our past times. Does that make it not worthwhile?

2. Why lecture? If there are other options available ... why give lectures? First, because other options are not always available, at least in the form of videos. We would want our post-secondary educational system bound, as it were, to youtube? Videos, to be sure, can be very helpful as part of an overall educational programme. No one is shooting them down or saying "don't use them." But, if one were to just use videos ... would that not make educational a prisoner to what videos existed? What if the video that does exist is out of date? Or, what if is it is wrong? I actually liked the old The Valour and the Horror videos about World War II, but are they all there is about World War II?

I lecture for a number of reasons but one of the reasons that I do lecture is that I can convey information effectively. Among the things that I tell my students is this: you can get the information I obtained to give this lecture; you can read the books I have read. Over the years, I've read ... dozens of books on the Charter and rights, court cases, scholarly articles, public opinion polls, newspaper articles, watched dozens and dozens of interviews ... in addition to the constitution. And my students could replicate this work; there is no doubt about it. But, why should they? If they find the subject important, they can and should research it themselves and, perhaps, write a paper on it. They can and should build up their own expertise and I say this as well. But, for the students who are really being introduced to the subject for what is really the first time ... I can save them a lot of time. I can synthesize all the different sources of information for them, explain the history, draw in comparative perspectives, indicate areas where lawyers or scholars or politicians disagree; flag the key arguments, clear away myths, etc. In other words, my lecture can save them a lot of time. That being the case ... why not make use of it?

What is more, I can use the lecture to set our discussion of the Charter in a broader framework. I can refer back to subject we have already discussed (say, national identity) and forward to subjects we will address (say, diversity issues). In addition to saving the students a bunch of time, I can also contextual information for them and show who it is connected to other aspects of Canada. A lecture, in other words, as one part of a multifaceted educational engagement can be a very effective way to bring students up to speed on important issues relating to their subject matter, while providing background information, facts, and context.

3. A lecture can do something else as well. It can provide students with a model of argumentation that they themselves can use to (a) develop their own ideas or (b) contest the ideas that I am setting before them. In other words, one can use a lecture to show students what a good argument entails. Lectures convey information but, as anyone who has attended a lecture recently knows, they do more than that. They engage important issues and suggest ways of addressing problems. For instance, imagine we were talking about the "democratic deficit." My lecture might provide important information for students -- trajectories of voting, party memberships, key attitudes toward democracy on the part of Canada, the institutional matrix that supposedly realizes democracy in Canada, etc. -- but I will try to include a specific argument in that information. My argument might address this question: why are Canadians opting out of voting? In mobilizing history, polling data, discussions of institutions, etc., I strive to answer that question. Ultimately, I might be wrong but what I am trying to show students is how one puts together a good argument that addressing this issue. In Canadian Studies we, then, take this a step further (not everyone does; it depends on  the discipline). We ask: what can be done. By showing the constituents of a good argument and the moving to another forum (say, class discussion or brainstorming) we can start to apply the same model of good argument to discard weak argument, understand complexity, and -- ideally -- the students will arrive at both a better understanding (something more than, say, youth don't vote) and a potentially better solution.

4. Do students like lectures? The assumption behind Gwyn's comments is that they really don't. But is that the case? I can understand why some people don't like lectures. They are not for everyone. Different people do learn in different ways (some people learn very well independently and like correspondence courses because of that. I don't. It is just a matter of personality and skills). My general sense is that as students go along in their education, they like lectures less and less and rightly so. Having mastered the background information (or, know how to get the background information), they are now looking for ways to articulate their own views (this is why we move from lecture/discussion to seminar courses).

But, not all students dislike lectures. A number of years ago, I raised the idea of video-taking my lectures for a class and then posting the videos on the web (this was one of the academic issues I periodically raise  with classes to get student views). What surprised me was the general rejection of the idea. There were a bunch of reasons students rejected this idea and it still would have been a lecture through a different medium. What surprised me was that students had a lot of good things to say about lectures. Some might have been patting me on the back to win brownie points but I doubt it, and if you knew our students, you would doubt it too. What they liked, they said, was the ability to get information in a concise way and that a video did not "do it" for them the way a live person did. They also said that they liked the ability to stop a lecture by asking a question for clarification or interrupting the lecture before it got going to ask for further information on something I had said in a previous lecture. A live human being and interaction, in other words, were, for them, important components of a lecture.

Each year I lecture to a large intro class. This class has students in it who will major or minor in Canadian Studies but it also has students in it to take electives or distribution credits. When I ask them about lecturing, I get an interesting response. Since this is not their major or minor, they tell me, they are quite content to let me do the work (that is, lecture). They learn from it (or, don't, as they want). But, they tell me, they have more than enough work to do in their other classes and are looking for a way to approach a subject that interests them (which is why they take my course as opposed to someone else's), but in a way that allows them to keep their focus on their major. Lectures, they tell me, do this form them more than, say, a discussion-based format.

This jives with my own experience in discussion-based educational fora. In my intro course, as I've noted, we have both a lecture and a discussion component. As instructors, we are frequently told that students want to articulate their own views. I can understand that. It also important for education and self development. But, what I have also noticed is that not all students want to articulate their own views on all subjects. In other words, when provided with a discussion format, some students opt-in and participate; others opt-out and sit their quietly.

Let me summarize. No one is arguing that lectures are the be-all-and-end-all of education. They are part of a multifaceted approach to learning geared to adults that extends over a number of different courses and over a number of years. Lectures are one part of that process. To argue otherwise is to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of that process. There are good reasons for including lectures in that process. They concisely convey important information, model argumentation for students, and are appreciated -- indeed liked and favoured -- by some students. Education is not a "one size fits all." What is more, to easily reject lectures, or compare them to videos, is to make a false comparison. Sure, a lecture is not as entertaining as a video but is this the message we want to send our students: do it only if it entertains you? 

Tenured Blues or ... Lecturing

Over a series of blogs, I've tried to ask a series of questions for which there are not ready answers. In this blog I want to begin to address lecturing ... one of the concerns that people seem to have with faculty is their supposed reliance on lecturing which is viewed as an outdated, low energy, boring way of teaching. I'll do that but in order to keep this blog reasonable in length, I'll cut off and write a part II another day. I'd like to begin, however, before I get to lecturing, by recapping what this series of blogs is about.

It is about questions I have relating to what we might think of as some individuals' perceptions of what I do in my job. My questions are inspired by critiques of the professoriate that have been circulating in the popular press, largely in editorials. There critiques are not large in number and some of them can be dismissed out of hand and simply ill-informed and hence inaccurate. That is what I have done in the past. Why bother to write about -- or argue or discuss with -- someone who represents a tiny informed minority view? I elected to write a response to comments made by Richard Gwyn, a man I met years ago and for whom I have a lot of respect in large measure because I have a lot of respect for him.  In an op ed he wrote (linked in an earlier blog), Gwyn offered a series of harsh critiques of the work of professors. These don't amount to a logically coherent or consistent argument, unfortunately, but rather seemed more to recycle complaints that float about from time to time. In short order, some of his criticism included:

• Professors don't engage public issues
• Professors spend too much time researching and devote no time to their teaching 
• Student costs are too high and students have too much debt
• Lectures are a bad way of teaching and students get more out of videos

What I tried to show in my previous posts were that professors were, in fact, pretty ordinary people doing an ordinary job that took most of their work week. In other words, rather than shirking responsibilities to students, most of the faculty I know spend the majority of their time on educational matters (preparing for class, evaluating student work, meeting with students to offer supervision). It is not high profile work, but is is necessary. Papers don't mark themselves. I also tried to show that professors are not shrinking violets. A great number do engage public issues (weather with regard to literacy issues, immigrant settlement, tax matters, public history, environmental policy, etc.). Exactly how Gwyn missed all this engagement is a bit confusing to me and does not, in fact, bode well for his research, but ... the fact is that faculty are all over the place doing all kinds of things. Again, many of them might not be limelight things ... but so what? Moreover, engaging the public sphere takes time. The very research that Gwyn condemns, in fact, is precisely what makes for effective public engagement. I don't know about your or about Gwyn but I when I listen to someone ... I prefer to listen to an informed view; not an off the top or even passably "I watched the news last night" view. Informed views based on solid research don't necessarily make for good TV, but they also are what public policy needs. 

The other thing I intimated that we need to recognize is that faculty respect democratic processes. They are not looking to set themselves up as the font of all wisdom. They prefer to provide options and let the democratic processes of the country work. This amounts to a form of engagement that is based around providing information. My colleagues do it all the time. The fact that Gwyn or other commentators don't bother to read their views, however, does not mean that they are not doing it. 

I also suggested that the debt issue was a red herring. Most faculty think that student debt is too high.  In other words, they agree with Gwyn so exactly why he should fault them for agreeing with him ... is another matter that I find a bit  confusing. 

But, let's address another point: videos are more useful then lectures. I don't want to go overboard on this. Lectures are one method and one method only of teaching. Some faculty are quite good at it -- a colleague of mine who  teaches here in the Classics Department draws "rave reviews" and students contend that his lectures really are wonderfully educational. But, this does not mean that videos are not important to education; or that education is an either/or type of thing. I personally ask my students to watch videos (usually feature films but occasionally short documentaries). My students use them in presentations. But, no one that I know sees the options as watch a video or attend a class. And, this is my key point: the problem with Gwyn's argument on this point is that he has set up a false opposition. No one that I know of sees lectures as some sort of ordinary, boring, guy stands in front of the room and talks in monotone all year and students parrot back what they heard-type of thing. 

Let me lay my cards on the table and tell you what I tell the students in my intro class each year: lectures are useful but they are not the end of education. An effective approach to education combines a variety of instructional techniques that is aimed to move students above and beyond simply being passive recipients of messages that come from a central location (be it a lecture of a video). In my academic unit, we work together to design a range of assignment, to make use of a range of media, to organize discussion exercises, and find ways to have students contributing to their own and their colleagues education. We lecture. But, we don't stop there and to suggest --or, rather imply -- that we do is only to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of what actually goes on in the classroom. In my intro class -- where there is a bit of lecturing -- we devote about 50% (give or take depending on the year) of our time to student-led discussion. I'm not looking for a prize ... virtually all of my colleagues do the same thing. Some can't get to the 50% mark to which we in Canadian Studies are close but that is not because they *prefer* to lecture. It is a question of resources and time. Virtually everyone I know who is lecturing extensively would prefer a different combination of educational approaches, but need to work within the available resources. 

The first key point I want to make them with regard to lecturing is that the image of the professor as lecturer and that is it is out-dated. It is a sign of someone who actually has had little experience with post-secondary education today and has not bothered to ask either students or faculty about what actually goes on in the classroom. 

The second key point I want to make is that lectures are time consuming to create. They are not -- or, should not be -- a person standing at the front of the room using worn notes from a decade ago to repeat the same thing that they said last year and the year before and the year before. That does happen. Most of the people I know who lectured that way (particularly in History and Political Science, the disciplines that Gwyn, ironically, likes) retired some time ago. That was one of the ways I was taught when I was an undergraduate student in the 1980s. I found it boring. I think the guy at the front of the room lecturing found it boring. It was what happened them. It is not -- by and large -- any more. 

Again, I can use myself as an example but any of my colleagues will support what I am saying. Lectures are some of the craft. They often involve multi-media (I use maps, stats, cartoons and artwork as well as occasional video clips).  They don't just begin, but rather begin with objectives: "here is what we are going to talk about." They include periodic breaks for brainstorming or discussion (I do try to limit this to one time per lecture because I don't want it to get old). They might also include key words or concepts, alternative perspectives on issues under discussion (so that students don't have to copy what I am saying), extra readings so that students can follow up issues in which they are interested, and conclusions that hit the highlights and key points for students so they can review notes to know if they have "got it." 

A good lecture can take a long time to put together.  My intro lectures take a few hours because they are subjects about which I have been teaching for a long time and because I know my subject. The time is usually taken up review my notes, thinking through communicative problems I might have had last year, and looking for current examples from the news with which students might be familiar (for instance, if I am talking about environmental policy, I might talk about ... say, the tar sands where I used to use the cod crisis).  You can, however, do the math. Imagine that I need to give, say three lectures per week during the school year. I have now already used up nine hours time just getting these three lectures (on subjects I know well) and I have not even gone in the classroom. 

Occasionally, however, a lecture can take a very long time to put together. Every once in a while -- usually once or twice a semester -- one needs to teach a subject with which one is less than familiar. How could this happen? Well ... that is a good question. I teach at Mount Allison University and the truth of the matter (as I noted above) is that there is only so much money that can be put into education. I don't make the decisions about staffing. They are made by someone else who is at a higher pay grade than me and I live with me. What this means is that those of us who run academic units don't always have the instructors we would like to have -- the expert who would be Grade A in the class on that particular subject. There is nothing horrible about this. It happens (sometimes people are on sabbatical, for instance or ill.) And, the general subject might be one with which I (or, some other faculty member) am familiar. The problem is the details. And, there are other obligations. Sometime a course needs to be taught because it is important to what students are learning in their major. A couple of years ago, I had to teach a course that I had never taught before: Regionalism. Clearly an important course in Canadian Studies. It needed to be taught; there was no one else to teach it ... I taught it. 

The result was that the lecture took longer to put together than they do for, say, my intro course. That is fair enough, too. Instead of three hours, I might have been spending six, checking facts, looking over scholarship that I had read but not thought of in terms of a course, reading over census data, or looking up information on regional cultural traditions that I knew existed but now needed to be able to explain to others. One lecture, however, was, for me, a real show-stopped. It was on a subject that was important to regionalism and involved some scholarship I'd read in passing over the years but my reading was enough to know that it was important and I needed to teach it so that the course addressed an important subject. It took my 19 hours to put that lecture together. And, to be honest, I was quite proud of it. You can, I am sure, see my point. Even if one is lecturing ... lectures are not just standing up and talking off the top of your head. They are serious modes of educational engagement that use diverse media and, when taken seriously, are remarkably time consuming. The students who go this lecture got a 1.5 hour lecture; disguised in that were the 19 hours that I had put in to get ready for it.

Why tell this story ... in part so that people know what a lecture is all about. If the lectures you have received seem more like the old-fashioned ones I got in the 1980s ... I am sorry about that. In my classes and among my colleagues, however, I can assure you that we work to set a high bar. We  strive to be accurate and current (both in terms of information and scholarship) to provide data to students, and to raise important issues even if we need to devote considerable time to them. Lecturing, in other words, is about much more than what happens in front of the classroom for an hour or an hour and a half.