Comments on: Defending the lecture method http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/ Author, Speaker, Professor, Shattering Gender Myths Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:44:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: YNWA http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19619 YNWA Wed, 17 Oct 2007 03:46:33 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19619 " i am sick and tired of having folks with doctorates in education (Lord help us)" I am feeling you on this one! Just because they have a Ph.D. in Education does not mean they are qualified to revamp the system. The fact that you have 'Doctorate in education' in the same sentence, makes it so laughable! I mean really, who takes them seriously? Hugo, I hope you persistently differ with their teaching methods. ” i am sick and tired of having folks with doctorates in education (Lord help us)”

I am feeling you on this one! Just because they have a Ph.D. in Education does not mean they are qualified to revamp the system. The fact that you have ‘Doctorate in education’ in the same sentence, makes it so laughable! I mean really, who takes them seriously? Hugo, I hope you persistently differ with their teaching methods.

]]> By: Tam http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19618 Tam Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:32:19 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19618 One of the best lecture-based courses I've taken was American Immigration History (at my school, the Metropolitan State College of Denver). The professor (Dr. Monys Hagen - just in case she ever googles herself) was not some kind of exceptional orator - not funny or super charismatic or whatever. But her lectures had a way of being manifestly organized such that it was easy to hang on to the outline of what she was saying as well as the details. We had a textbook, and we read other materials, but much of what I learned came from those lectures. I don't think having discussion groups would have improved anything. One of the best lecture-based courses I’ve taken was American Immigration History (at my school, the Metropolitan State College of Denver). The professor (Dr. Monys Hagen – just in case she ever googles herself) was not some kind of exceptional orator – not funny or super charismatic or whatever. But her lectures had a way of being manifestly organized such that it was easy to hang on to the outline of what she was saying as well as the details.

We had a textbook, and we read other materials, but much of what I learned came from those lectures. I don’t think having discussion groups would have improved anything.

]]> By: Hugo Schwyzer http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19617 Hugo Schwyzer Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:31:45 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19617 <em>but i still think a majority of teaching should not be done in large settings where lecture is really the only viable choice. </em> If you can get the average size of my classes down to, say, 15 from the current 45-50, I'd be delighted to experiment with other pedagogical methods. Given the limitations with which I operate, good lecturing is the best way I have at my disposal to meet my students' needs. but i still think a majority of teaching should not be done in large settings where lecture is really the only viable choice.

If you can get the average size of my classes down to, say, 15 from the current 45-50, I’d be delighted to experiment with other pedagogical methods. Given the limitations with which I operate, good lecturing is the best way I have at my disposal to meet my students’ needs.

]]> By: catswym http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19616 catswym Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:29:13 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19616 bad lectures are worse than worthless. good lectures are wonderful and can be effective teaching tools. but, imo, they are nothing compared with discussion/small group learning settings where everyone is forced to engage. now, i understand that that is simply not possible for a majority of classes taught today. and that bad teachers shouldn't be allowed to teach, whatever their method. but i still think a majority of teaching should not be done in large settings where lecture is really the only viable choice. bad lectures are worse than worthless. good lectures are wonderful and can be effective teaching tools. but, imo, they are nothing compared with discussion/small group learning settings where everyone is forced to engage.

now, i understand that that is simply not possible for a majority of classes taught today. and that bad teachers shouldn’t be allowed to teach, whatever their method. but i still think a majority of teaching should not be done in large settings where lecture is really the only viable choice.

]]> By: Katie http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19615 Katie Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:37:08 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19615 The go-to guy for brilliant and unforgettable lectures on my campus was a professor named Ralph Williams. He gesticulated and bellowed and cooed, and I never had a lecturer quite like that again. So I 100% agree with you. Having the outline online is nice; having the overhead graphics or slides is great, but there is absolutely nothing like a lecturer that can truly blow your hair back. The go-to guy for brilliant and unforgettable lectures on my campus was a professor named Ralph Williams. He gesticulated and bellowed and cooed, and I never had a lecturer quite like that again. So I 100% agree with you. Having the outline online is nice; having the overhead graphics or slides is great, but there is absolutely nothing like a lecturer that can truly blow your hair back.

]]> By: B http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19614 B Sun, 14 Oct 2007 03:42:34 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19614 The Socratic method used in law school is excellent if used correctly. It is not simply a way to see if Person A read last night's material. The questions the professor asks and the way he leads the student to a conclusion is like a back-and-forth lecture given by two people for the rest of the classroom to learn from. Students who think it's safe to zone out just because they're not the one being quizzed are missing out on a wealth of information. The Socratic method used in law school is excellent if used correctly. It is not simply a way to see if Person A read last night’s material. The questions the professor asks and the way he leads the student to a conclusion is like a back-and-forth lecture given by two people for the rest of the classroom to learn from. Students who think it’s safe to zone out just because they’re not the one being quizzed are missing out on a wealth of information.

]]> By: Hugo Schwyzer http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19613 Hugo Schwyzer Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:19:58 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19613 In law schools where one presumes a basic knowledge of the material, the Socratic method can be an excellent tool. If I were teaching a small number of advanced students, I wouldn't hesitate to employ it. In law schools where one presumes a basic knowledge of the material, the Socratic method can be an excellent tool. If I were teaching a small number of advanced students, I wouldn’t hesitate to employ it.

]]> By: Fred http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19612 Fred Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:18:19 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19612 Hugo, What are your thoughts on the effectiveness of the Socratic Method used mostly in Law schools? Hugo,

What are your thoughts on the effectiveness of the Socratic Method used mostly in Law schools?

]]> By: Hugo Schwyzer http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19611 Hugo Schwyzer Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:15:20 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19611 Hurrah for loud and vibrant lecturers! And Noumena, thanks for the excellent point about how lecturing is frequently the best way to model learning. Hurrah for loud and vibrant lecturers! And Noumena, thanks for the excellent point about how lecturing is frequently the best way to model learning.

]]> By: Noumena http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19610 Noumena Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:12:17 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/10/12/defending-the-lecture-method/#comment-19610 By far, the most memorable seminar I've taken in 5 1/2 years of graduate coursework was Michael Loux' Aristotle's Metaphysics seminar. The seminar was almost exclusively lecture, and absolutely fascinating: Loux is a performer, energetic and loud, and, after teaching this class probably 10 times over the last 20 years, has mastered the narrative within which he presents Aristotle. (He's incredibly loud. His office is next to mine, and with our doors and windows closed it's easy to understand what he's saying when he's having a conversation next door.) And, just for emphasis, I'm neither an Aristotle scholar nor a metaphysician. His seminar was the first time I had read either Aristotle or encountered the issues of contemporary metaphysics. I'm not especially interested in Aristotle, and I hate metaphysics. Philosophy graduate seminars are typically exclusively discussion-based, and this has been the format of every one of my numerous philosophy of math and philosophy of science seminars. This series of lectures was simply that amazing. The last semester I was a TA for a math class, I had business calculus. Towards the end of the semester, the professor came and watched one of my discussion sections, and gave me notes later. He stressed that students come to their TAs and professors to see how we solve problems. By following our model, the students learn the habits and techniques we use. Much the same, I've come to realise, applies to teaching philosophy. In Intro to Philosophy, after all, we're more interested in teaching students skills of analysis and argumentation than trying to get them to understand what the heck the Form of The Beautiful is. This is relevant because, of course, the only way to model these skills to students is to do problems/analyse arguments on the board. That is, to lecture. By far, the most memorable seminar I’ve taken in 5 1/2 years of graduate coursework was Michael Loux’ Aristotle’s Metaphysics seminar. The seminar was almost exclusively lecture, and absolutely fascinating: Loux is a performer, energetic and loud, and, after teaching this class probably 10 times over the last 20 years, has mastered the narrative within which he presents Aristotle. (He’s incredibly loud. His office is next to mine, and with our doors and windows closed it’s easy to understand what he’s saying when he’s having a conversation next door.)

And, just for emphasis, I’m neither an Aristotle scholar nor a metaphysician. His seminar was the first time I had read either Aristotle or encountered the issues of contemporary metaphysics. I’m not especially interested in Aristotle, and I hate metaphysics. Philosophy graduate seminars are typically exclusively discussion-based, and this has been the format of every one of my numerous philosophy of math and philosophy of science seminars. This series of lectures was simply that amazing.

The last semester I was a TA for a math class, I had business calculus. Towards the end of the semester, the professor came and watched one of my discussion sections, and gave me notes later. He stressed that students come to their TAs and professors to see how we solve problems. By following our model, the students learn the habits and techniques we use. Much the same, I’ve come to realise, applies to teaching philosophy. In Intro to Philosophy, after all, we’re more interested in teaching students skills of analysis and argumentation than trying to get them to understand what the heck the Form of The Beautiful is.

This is relevant because, of course, the only way to model these skills to students is to do problems/analyse arguments on the board. That is, to lecture.

]]>