Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can read about 5 times as fast as I can listen, so I could get everything out of a one-hour lecture in 10-15 minutes reading time. And, if I fall asleep reading, I can go back and pick it up.
Exactly! Good books should have made lecturing mostly obsolete long before we had cheap computers.
Same here. I find the trick with lectures is you have to try to follow along. If you're texting and on your tablet, doodling or talking to a friend, you don't get much out of them. IMO the trick to getting something out of the lecture is being motivated to learn. I had a student a few years back who spent her class time on her phone. I gave up the fight after a while. One day we were reviewing material for the test and she blurted "WHEN did you teach us THAT?". Before I could open my mouth to answer, half the class answered in unison "When you were texting". The kids who want to learn get it. The ones who don't look for excuses to blame anyone but themselves for their failure to learn.
However the title of the article is misleading.They're comparing lecturers who just recite information to those who, for example, ask questions of their audience during the lecture or find other ways to make the audience more active participants and that is something good lecturers do. What the article is really comparing is two different lecturing styles. One technique they note is randomly calling on an audience member to answer a question. Of course your lecture is more effective then because people are afraid they'll be called on and won't know the answer. What this does is motivate the audience to follow along to avoid embarrassment. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to use this technique in my high school as it's considered embarrassing for the student and we're not allowed to embarrass students. I had one student who literally stared a hole in the corner the entire period and got my hand slapped when I called on her to ask her to repeat what I'd just said.
What I find interesting is the different responses of classes when I ask questions. I was reviewing a problem yesterday and not 5 minutes (too soon for them to be zoned out in theory (the rule is one minute per year of age before you have to change it up)) into the problem I asked the class a question about what to do next (one that could be answered by just looking at what was on the board and applying what I was saying). 1st hour answered right away, there were crickets chirping in 2nd hour and I finally had to answer the question, 3rd hour took a minute or two but figured it out. I've come to the conclusion that some kids just don't pay attention. My 2nd hour just doesn't pay attention. When I start a lecture, they ask "Is this on line?" and when I say yes, half of them put their pencils down.
I agree. I also found the title completely misleading. I thought this was going to be about all the benefits of group projects, which I always found a waste of time. The best teacher present information in a way that is meaningful and then discuss it with the class by asking questions and looking for understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava61
I agree with both the above statements. But teachers still should try to make their classes more interesting by presenting the materials using audio-visual aids that would help make the classes less boring for students.
Most teachers are actually doing this today. It is rare to find a classroom without a smartboard today. Some teachers have just not taken the time to prepare lectures that can be delivered this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mnseca
It's just a statistical correlation. It doesn't actually explain WHY a lecture is less effective, which means that it's probably misleading. I would say that a great lecturer is just as good as any other teacher, but the study didn't differentiate at all between the lecturers or compare them to each other. It didn't see if any particular lecturers had results just as good as the "active" teachers. Some lecturers are giving information that can't be found anywhere else - they're talking about their own personal research and theories, for example. And they do it well, and it's interesting. Others are just droning on and regurgitating information from the textbook. Some have a great speaking style and know how to put on a great presentation, and others just stand there and...drone. Given the choice between sitting in a group full of students who don't know any more than I do (and maybe less) and trying to answer a question or listening to a well-done presentation by an expert who has a unique point of view, I'll take the latter.
But there are others issues as well. How big were the lecture classes? Did class size matter? In a class of 200, no one knows if you attend or not. You don't feel really engaged or missed if you're not there. It's easy to just never go. Taking attendance pretty much solves that problem, though. And what about other forms of teaching? Is really just a question of group work or lecture? There are other things as well - like the clickers someone mentioned - and this study doesn't seem to have looked at any of those or made any kind of differentiation. I think the real situation is just that boring/unprepared teachers are more likely to lecture, and the lectures are likely to stink, compared to teachers who took the time to come up with structured activities. A lecture doesn't take much preparation, especially if it's from the book. Activities are hard. But that doesn't mean there aren't great lecturers or that no one should lecture, or that there isn't any third way to teach that combines some activity with listening.
I agree with most of your points and would add that it also makes a difference in the subject being taught. Math is just not as conducive to a lecture as most other subjects. Where I don't agree with you is with the use of structured activities. It depends on the subject being taught but structured activities for the sake of not lecturing are ususually a waste of time in many subjects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
I can read about 5 times as fast as I can listen, so I could get everything out of a one-hour lecture in 10-15 minutes reading time. And, if I fall asleep reading, I can go back and pick it up.
The best teachers expect the students to read the material ahead of time and don't lecture by recapping what is in the book. Schools have stopped expecting students to read textbooks and many college students will try to get by without buying textbooks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L210
Even when lectures are entertaining, I don't find them to be any more effective than reading something. Personally, I'm not wired for listening anyway. I retain information more easily by reading it. Taking notes during lectures doesn't help me much. This is the reason why I had no problems with online classes. Now, I'm in a ground program and wish I could skip lectures.
I have always hated taking notes and hated college classes where you had to write down everything from the lecture. I had classes where the instructor dictated his notes either verbally or presented them on a PowerPoint slide. I found these classes to be extremely boring.
Many HS teachers resort to this because they feel it is the only way to keep students engaged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa
I learn best from reading and discussion. Lectures never bothered me if I had some level of interest in the subject matter and the lecturer was knowledgeable.
Lectures tend to work poorly for people with short attention spans, though, and at this point, that's most people in contemporary society. Honestly, most people are poor listeners...not just in the classroom, but in life. It's really somewhat crippling.
I agree. A good teacher can add insight in his lecture and can add additional information that was not covered in the textbook.
I used to come in 5 to 15 minutes late for every other Calculus I and II lecture/class. Those in my study group recognized me pretty quickly as "the guy who would pop in late". I made sure to do the homework, and ended up doing decently on exams (and I attest that those missed minutes wouldn't have made much of a difference). Some of my classmates felt that it never feels like you're missing anything anyways.
In all fairness, some of these topics can be a lot to take in for a 50 to 70 minute continuous time span. It's not just some 80 minute movie about Adam Sandler, Disney/Pixar cartoon/CGI, etc. Some instances like with meetings, you do take breaks. For those who get worn out, they end up checking texts, or doodling in their notebooks.
Do we really do them any favors by catering to their inability to listen? Are we really just enabling them to continue not working on attention and retention?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
I'm a slow reader. I'd much rather listen. Reading was time consuming for me in college. I only read about 200 words per minute which is about half the rate of the average college student. Fortunately, I retain what I hear. Going to class was a must for me in college.
So I guess I could ask if teachers/professors who lectured were catering to your inability to keep up with the reading? Maybe giving more and tougher reading assignments would have helped you rather than enabled you to rely on auditory learning?
Just because someone learns differently that YOU do, doesn't make teaching to those abilities (rather than your own preference) "coddling" or enabling. It can go both ways. Some people learn better reading stuff and some people learn better hearing stuff. Ideally, I would think an effective educator would utilize both methods, but to indicate that just because YOU would rather listen and YOU would rather lecture, doesn't mean it's "enabling" anyone who is different. Not to mention, a lecture is only as effective as the lecturer is in presenting his/her material. Unfortunately, anyone can stand before a group of people and give a lecture. Doesn't mean it's any good.
Last edited by maciesmom; 05-17-2014 at 04:04 PM..
Wait until you get into the 'real world' and discover 'business or team meetings!'... Or discover that the work-world doesn't view 'texting' or 'Facebook' as a primary or even acceptable form of communication.
Sadly (for you), you will also discover that the new graduates in the workplace are most often asked to 'read and summarize or condense' a wide range of materials. You may also discover that, "I don't like to read; or I would rather skip that" ... don't get the same response from your boss/supervisor, as they do with your friends.
So I guess I could ask if teachers/professors who lectured were catering to your inability to keep up with the reading? Maybe giving more and tougher reading assignments would have helped you rather than enabled you to rely on auditory learning?
Just because someone learns differently that YOU do, doesn't make teaching to those abilities (rather than your own preference) "coddling" or enabling. It can go both ways. Some people learn better reading stuff and some people learn better hearing stuff. Ideally, I would think an effective educator would utilize both methods, but to indicate that just because YOU would rather listen and YOU would rather lecture, doesn't mean it's "enabling" anyone who is different. Not to mention, a lecture is only as effective as the lecturer is in presenting his/her material. Unfortunately, anyone can stand before a group of people and give a lecture. Doesn't mean it's any good.
Or maybe those who don't learn well through lecture should read..... The point is the learner needs to put in some effort here. You need to know your own shortcomings and figure out how to work around them as you will have to learn in the workplace too. Or do you expect employers to cater to people who put in little effort too? I know I learn better listening to lectures than I do by reading so I made darned sure I paid attention. I'm willing to bet some of my classmates in the last class I took who were texting and playing games on tablets would have learned more if they'd done the same. What I see in classes these days is distracted people doing distracting things and then complaining that they weren't taught.
FTR, I work with my students on reading for information because I know it's important. The fact I read slowly is my issue to deal with. It just meant I take twice as much time reading as the next student. I just had to put in the time.
And the issue is physical. The problem is my eyes. I have a hard time focusing on print even with glasses. Fortunately, I read fast enough to get by. You do what you have to to succeed in this world. No one owes it to you to do it for you.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 05-17-2014 at 04:51 PM..
I spent 5 years attending university lectures and I barely listened to a single one of them. I would drift off within a matter of minutes.
I still remember some lectures vividly. The only thing better than lectures was sitting on the grass in the commons debating with professors and fellow students. I really miss those conversations.
Wait until you get into the 'real world' and discover 'business or team meetings!'... Or discover that the work-world doesn't view 'texting' or 'Facebook' as a primary or even acceptable form of communication.
Sadly (for you), you will also discover that the new graduates in the workplace are most often asked to 'read and summarize or condense' a wide range of materials. You may also discover that, "I don't like to read; or I would rather skip that" ... don't get the same response from your boss/supervisor, as they do with your friends.
Very true. You do not go into a staff meeting and nod off because you're bored. You pay attention. If you don't, you're in trouble because your competition is paying attention. You also don't pass on reading something your boss tells you to read. I can't tell you how many operations manuals I read and memoized in my first year on the job. If they called me at 4 AM I had to have the answer at my finger tips. In my last job the main part of my job was interpreting test specifications. Fortunately for me, it was a task that required understanding not the ability to speed read. Test spec's are studied. I can study a text. Just don't ask me to read 1000 pages a day. I'm looking for the book on tape if that happens, lol.
Lecturing doesn't actually demand anything from the student except to sit and passively absorb information, so it's never going to be as effective as discussion, group work, etc. There's going to be less retention if the student isn't actually applying what they've learned in a guided context.
University professors don't go to teacher's college so they never really learn how to teach-- they coast on their reputations in the academic community and meanwhile it's up to the students to figure everything out.
Most teacher's colleges are teaching social development theory now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. The point is the learner needs to put in some effort here. You need to know your own shortcomings and figure out how to work around them as you will have to learn in the workplace too. Or do you expect employers to cater to people who put in little effort too? 
I know I learn better listening to lectures than I do by reading so I made darned sure I paid attention. I'm willing to bet some of my classmates in the last class I took who were texting and playing games on tablets would have learned more if they'd done the same. What I see in classes these days is distracted people doing distracting things and then complaining that they weren't taught. 
