One of our assigned readings this semester was a chapter by Bates and Sangra titled “Recent developments in technology and education” (2011, pp. 25-51). In this chapter the authors addressed the social construction of knowledge, and the use of web 2.0 tools in both the constructivist model (student control) and objectivist model (learner control). They provided a very useful diagram illustrating where various teaching strategies and tools fall within this objectivist-constructivist spectrum lie. Lectures are shown so far to the left (objectivist) it almost falls into the margin!
I must admit some teachers are so boring when they lecture, you fear you may fall into an irreversible coma. Yet our traditional higher education system is largely built on the back of the lecture format! Indisputably, we aim to train the pharmacy students at my university as constructivist thinkers, not just to pour facts into their empty little heads as the objectivist-lecture approach would intimate.
I recently read with great interest an opinion article by Penson titled “Lecturing: A lost art” (2012, pp. 72-76). I had to snicker over his reference to a quote from Mark Twain: “College is a place where a professor’s lecture notes go straight to the students’ lecture notes, without passing through the brains of either” (p. 72). Penson acknowledges that lecturing has gotten an exceptionally bad reputation in education circles in recent years. He quotes from a recent article authored by DiPiro who argued that lecturing has no place in pharmacy education (2009). DiPiro stated that lectures are passive teaching and don’t lead to knowledge retention, they don’t account for differences in learning styles, they are often are outdated or are quickly such, and lectures don’t develop learning critical thinking skills. Penson countered, however, saying lecture CAN be used to develop constructivist thinkers!
What Penson is referring to is the incorporation of active learning into the lecture format. This is the style that I personally use. No wonder so many of our students stay home to listen to lectures that were recorded in class when all the professor does is read the slides! I’d stay home too, and I’d crank it up to double speed! Penson argues that a lecture CAN be highly interactive with the students. This could include think-pair-share activities in the middle of lecture, calling on students to explain/reframe content just discussed, having students answer an open-ended or multiple choice question on content presented in the past 5-10 minutes. Learners start to brown out after about 7-10 minutes of lecture and need an opportunity to process the information, or the teacher really does risk “in one ear and out the other.” As a clinician, I pull on my years of experience taking care of patients. “I had this patient who…” is frequently heard in my lectures. I routinely teach 160 students at one time in my “lectures” and I include them by cold-calling on them. It’s true I don’t know most of their names, so I go with “You in the purple shirt – what do you think about this?” (I’ve noticed fewer bright colors in my classroom over the years!).
So as I sit here in a distance education program learning ABOUT distance education, is there room for the lecture format? Yes, I would say with great enthusiasm! In OMDE 601 we have watched several lectures presented by faculty from Germany, England and other countries! The coursemanager then uses this lecture and asks learners to participate in a variety of active learning exercises. This could include reflection in your ePortfolio, participating in a discussion forum, or engaging in an online asynchronous discussion with experts in the field concerning the lecture content.
In closing, I agree that lectures can be strongly objectivist (and boring I might add) but I also agree with Penson that lectures augmented by workshops, problem-based learning activities, case-based discussions, and in-class active learning techniques can be constructivist as well. I am a very practical teacher giving concrete examples to my students. I demand they apply information immediately and repeatedly throughout our journey together. I remain committed to educating the best pharmacist practitioners I can, using all the tools at my disposal.
Bates, T., & Sangra, A. (2011). Recent developments in technology and education. In Managing technology in higher education: Strategies for transforming teaching and learning (p. 25-51). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
DiPiro, J. (2009). Why Do We Still Lecture? American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73, 137-137.
Penson, P. (2012). Lecturing: A lost art. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 4, 72-76. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2011.10.010
I must admit some teachers are so boring when they lecture, you fear you may fall into an irreversible coma. Yet our traditional higher education system is largely built on the back of the lecture format! Indisputably, we aim to train the pharmacy students at my university as constructivist thinkers, not just to pour facts into their empty little heads as the objectivist-lecture approach would intimate.
I recently read with great interest an opinion article by Penson titled “Lecturing: A lost art” (2012, pp. 72-76). I had to snicker over his reference to a quote from Mark Twain: “College is a place where a professor’s lecture notes go straight to the students’ lecture notes, without passing through the brains of either” (p. 72). Penson acknowledges that lecturing has gotten an exceptionally bad reputation in education circles in recent years. He quotes from a recent article authored by DiPiro who argued that lecturing has no place in pharmacy education (2009). DiPiro stated that lectures are passive teaching and don’t lead to knowledge retention, they don’t account for differences in learning styles, they are often are outdated or are quickly such, and lectures don’t develop learning critical thinking skills. Penson countered, however, saying lecture CAN be used to develop constructivist thinkers!
What Penson is referring to is the incorporation of active learning into the lecture format. This is the style that I personally use. No wonder so many of our students stay home to listen to lectures that were recorded in class when all the professor does is read the slides! I’d stay home too, and I’d crank it up to double speed! Penson argues that a lecture CAN be highly interactive with the students. This could include think-pair-share activities in the middle of lecture, calling on students to explain/reframe content just discussed, having students answer an open-ended or multiple choice question on content presented in the past 5-10 minutes. Learners start to brown out after about 7-10 minutes of lecture and need an opportunity to process the information, or the teacher really does risk “in one ear and out the other.” As a clinician, I pull on my years of experience taking care of patients. “I had this patient who…” is frequently heard in my lectures. I routinely teach 160 students at one time in my “lectures” and I include them by cold-calling on them. It’s true I don’t know most of their names, so I go with “You in the purple shirt – what do you think about this?” (I’ve noticed fewer bright colors in my classroom over the years!).
So as I sit here in a distance education program learning ABOUT distance education, is there room for the lecture format? Yes, I would say with great enthusiasm! In OMDE 601 we have watched several lectures presented by faculty from Germany, England and other countries! The coursemanager then uses this lecture and asks learners to participate in a variety of active learning exercises. This could include reflection in your ePortfolio, participating in a discussion forum, or engaging in an online asynchronous discussion with experts in the field concerning the lecture content.
In closing, I agree that lectures can be strongly objectivist (and boring I might add) but I also agree with Penson that lectures augmented by workshops, problem-based learning activities, case-based discussions, and in-class active learning techniques can be constructivist as well. I am a very practical teacher giving concrete examples to my students. I demand they apply information immediately and repeatedly throughout our journey together. I remain committed to educating the best pharmacist practitioners I can, using all the tools at my disposal.
Bates, T., & Sangra, A. (2011). Recent developments in technology and education. In Managing technology in higher education: Strategies for transforming teaching and learning (p. 25-51). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
DiPiro, J. (2009). Why Do We Still Lecture? American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73, 137-137.
Penson, P. (2012). Lecturing: A lost art. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 4, 72-76. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2011.10.010
RSS Feed