Molly Worthen, an assistant history professor at UNC, recently defended the lecture format in a New York Times editorial.
“Lectures are essential for teaching the humanities’ most basic skills: comprehension and reasoning, skills whose value extends beyond the classroom to the essential demands of working life and citizenship,” she wrote.
She is right. But in defending it, she glosses over the form’s flaws and mischaracterizes active learning. The lecture is a worthwhile component of education. A well-delivered lecture, especially in the humanities, should not be removed from higher education. However, to pretend that the vast majority of lectures are done well is wrong, and to pretend active learning dismisses it is false, too.
While some lecturers, Worthen perhaps among them, are worth deeming excellent — many in the comparative literature and history departments come to mind — the lecture format can be an excuse for a professor to put up a PowerPoint and go through the facts.
Almost every student has had a course where a professor has read off slides on a PowerPoint, while they sat in the back watching their classmates on Facebook. That’s not a real lecture, but it happens under the same name.
Also, the proven increased test scores associated with active learning should not be ignored in the name of a “school should be hard” mentality. It’s true that time is sparse, especially because of the unfair burdens put upon adjunct professors, but if professors want to keep the lecture, they must be as vigorous in teaching it as those who are attempting active learning. The days of not caring if your students get the material are rightfully gone.
Active learning is mischaracterized as a science-minded move toward the use of technology in large lectures. In actuality, active learning is the idea of engagement with students where they are asked to present information.
But the current active learning push should not be characterized by its ideal and neither should the lecture. Each has an ideal form, and both are, in practice, flawed. Proponents of active learning are often too obsessed with technology, and the lecture can be boring in the wrong hands.
The real new focus is student learning. At the root of active learning is the commendable goal of increased student achievement, something professors should adapt their methods to, whether it be a lecture or a flipped classroom.
