{"id":117,"date":"2015-10-24T13:53:03","date_gmt":"2015-10-24T17:53:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/elligoudzwaard.com\/?p=117"},"modified":"2018-02-15T13:53:23","modified_gmt":"2018-02-15T18:53:23","slug":"post-script","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/elligoudzwaard.com\/index.php\/2015\/10\/24\/post-script\/","title":{"rendered":"Post Script"},"content":{"rendered":"

Not surprisingly, my recent blog post is in good company with a lot of other commentary on the subjects of classroom lecture and active learning after\u00a0Molly Worthen\u2019s op ed<\/span><\/a>\u00a0last week. A few of note:<\/p>\n

Some good discussion is taking place\u00a0here<\/span><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0here<\/span><\/a>\u00a0on the listserv of the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD). The crux of the conversation, which I think hits the nail on the head, is that to pit classroom lecture against active learning is a false dichotomy and creates a conflict that need not exist. Most of the educators commenting on that thread describe their methods as including both in peaceful co-existence. But, you know. Peaceful co-existence doesn\u2019t make for a Times-worthy headline.<\/p>\n

Josh Eyler<\/a><\/span>\u00a0has written a thoughtful response on his blog. Of particular interest to me is the research he pulls in to support the\u00a0successes of active learning<\/span><\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0problems with lecture<\/span><\/a>. I\u2019m also glad he\u2019s calling Worthen out on her snarkiness and raising the question of the value of experts, a topic which has my mind churning on a forthcoming blog post.<\/p>\n

Derek Bruff\u2019s article<\/a><\/span>\u00a0preceded Worthen\u2019s and clearly names the problem as a definitional one:<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s be clear: According to the research, if your understanding of \u201clecture\u201d involves engaging students in discussion and interaction during class, then you should keep lecturing. It\u2019s \u201ccontinuous exposition by the teacher\u201d that\u2019s the problem. My only advice would be to consider whether all of your students are learning actively, or just some. It\u2019s easy to engage a few, harder to engage all.<\/b><\/p>\n

He goes on to diffuse the polarizing us vs. them argument with a single, graceful note from\u00a0Donald Bligh\u2019s 2000 book\u00a0What\u2019s the Use of Lectures?.\u00a0<\/i>Bruff quotes:<\/p>\n

Lectures are as good as other methods at transmitting information, but lectures are generally not effective at promoting thought, changing attitudes, inspiring interest, or teaching skills.<\/b><\/p>\n

And, Bruff reminds us, \u201cIt needs to be clear that the nothing-but-lecture approach is not supported by the research.\u201d\u00a0It\u2019s worth noting than an active-learning-only approach is, similarly, unsupported.<\/p>\n

I appreciate the questions I\u2019ve gotten from educators in the humanities looking for active learning methods that might work in their subject areas. On that topic, Derek Bruff has a great overview of\u00a0Think-Pair-Share<\/span><\/a>, the simplest and perhaps most brilliant active method of them all. Here, he combines that method with the use of classroom response systems, an approach I\u2019ve used effectively in both science\/math and humanities contexts (sometimes in the same course and class session, gasp!). I\u2019d love to know if there are other conversations happening around what active methods work well in the humanities.<\/p>\n

Lastly, Alex Small\u2019s 2014 piece,\u00a0\u201cIn Defense of the Lecture\u201d<\/span><\/a>\u00a0in the Chronicle of Higher Education succeeds in many of the ways that Worthen\u2019s article falls flat. Of note, he allows for the limitations of lecture to exist alongside its achievements. He makes a strong case for what lecture does that other methods do not, namely modeling the formulation of a logical oral argument.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m excited to be part of such a rich, timely and necessary conversation about teaching and learning. To all of this, yes! More please.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Not surprisingly, my recent blog post is in good company with a lot of other commentary on the subjects of classroom lecture and active learning after\u00a0Molly Worthen\u2019s op ed\u00a0last week. A few of note: Some good discussion is taking place\u00a0here\u00a0and\u00a0here\u00a0on the listserv of the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD). The crux of the conversation, which I think hits the nail on the head, is that to pit classroom lecture against active learning is a false dichotomy and creates a conflict that need not exist. Most of the educators commenting on that thread describe their methods as including both in peaceful co-existence. But, you know. Peaceful co-existence doesn\u2019t make for a Times-worthy headline. Josh Eyler\u00a0has written a thoughtful response on his blog. Of particular interest to me is the research he pulls in to support the\u00a0successes of active learning\u00a0and the\u00a0problems with lecture. I\u2019m also glad he\u2019s calling Worthen out on her snarkiness and raising the question of the value of experts, a topic which has my mind churning on a forthcoming blog post. Derek Bruff\u2019s article\u00a0preceded Worthen\u2019s and clearly names the problem as a definitional one: Let\u2019s be clear: According to the research, if your understanding of \u201clecture\u201d involves engaging students in discussion and interaction during class, then you should keep lecturing. It\u2019s \u201ccontinuous exposition by the teacher\u201d that\u2019s the problem. My only advice would be to consider whether all of your students are learning actively, or just some. It\u2019s easy to engage a few, harder to engage all. He goes on to diffuse the polarizing us vs. them argument with a single, graceful note from\u00a0Donald Bligh\u2019s 2000 book\u00a0What\u2019s the Use of Lectures?.\u00a0Bruff quotes: Lectures are as good as other methods at transmitting information, but lectures are generally not effective at promoting thought, changing attitudes, inspiring interest, or teaching skills. And, Bruff reminds us, \u201cIt needs to be clear that the nothing-but-lecture approach is not supported by the research.\u201d\u00a0It\u2019s worth noting than an active-learning-only approach is, similarly, unsupported. I appreciate the questions I\u2019ve gotten from educators in the humanities looking for active learning methods that might work in their subject areas. On that topic, Derek Bruff has a great overview of\u00a0Think-Pair-Share, the simplest and perhaps most brilliant active method of them all. Here, he combines that method with the use of classroom response systems, an approach I\u2019ve used effectively in both science\/math and humanities contexts (sometimes in the same course and class session, gasp!). I\u2019d love to know if there are other conversations happening around what active methods work well in the humanities. Lastly, Alex Small\u2019s 2014 piece,\u00a0\u201cIn Defense of the Lecture\u201d\u00a0in the Chronicle of Higher Education succeeds in many of the ways that Worthen\u2019s article falls flat. Of note, he allows for the limitations of lecture to exist alongside its achievements. He makes a strong case for what lecture does that other methods do not, namely modeling the formulation of a logical oral argument. I\u2019m excited to be part of such a rich, timely and necessary conversation about teaching and learning. To all of this, yes! More please.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-117","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/elligoudzwaard.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/elligoudzwaard.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/elligoudzwaard.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elligoudzwaard.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elligoudzwaard.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=117"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/elligoudzwaard.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":118,"href":"https:\/\/elligoudzwaard.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117\/revisions\/118"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/elligoudzwaard.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elligoudzwaard.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/elligoudzwaard.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}