Old+versus+New+-+Death+to+Rumors

Does the Traditional Classroom Lecture format still work? Is it still a viable instructional delivery model? This has been an interesting discussion some of us have been having in bits and pieces as we visit in the lounge, my office, or the halls. I know it's prompted by comments I've made regarding some of my Walk-Throughs. It has also been a hot topic on blogs. For those who wish to take the time, here are two posts to read and think about.

I feel like that news station who states: We Report - You Decide. (I know I tip my hand in my blog, but I thought you'd like to at least glance at the debate that's happening between "The Traditionalists" and "Classroom 2.0 Advocates"…)



First, from the Washington Post:

=Breathing Life Into the Lecture Hall=

By Valerie Strauss Washington Post Staff Writer

Nearly 200 students sat in the large lecture hall, staring down at their professor, Edward F. Redish, holding pencils at the ready to take notes in Fundamentals of Physics. It looked like a traditional lecture course, but appearance is where the tradition ended.

Instead of spending 50 minutes putting students to sleep by lecturing about position, velocity and acceleration, Redish, a University of Maryland professor, kept the students awake by getting them actively involved in the lesson -- all 192 of them.

He called on his students by name, having taken and studied their pictures. He frequently directed students to solve a problem with their neighbors or register opinions with a "clicker" system that, within seconds, calculates the answers and shows him the response. Sometimes he performs an experiment or shows part of a movie. And if he sees someone doing a crossword puzzle, he is liable to walk over and help out.

This is Redish's version of the time-honored college lecture course, which is undergoing significant change at some universities because of technological innovations and the desire to hold the attentions of the highly structured 21st-century student.

"Lecturing is not good for children and other living things," said Redish, who spent 25 years in theoretical nuclear physics and now researches how students learn physics. "They don't really learn very much in a lecture."

Once, all professors spent entire classes talking nearly nonstop while students furiously scribbled notes. Today, a growing number of professors are abandoning that tradition, saying there are better ways to keep students focused and learning.

"Sooner or later, you lose track of what the point is of the lecture. Your mind wanders," said Eric Mazur, a Harvard University physics professor whose book "Peer Instruction" is widely used among educators looking for alternative ways to teach. "For some people, it will happen seven minutes into the lecture; for others, 20 minutes. The problem is that when that happens, you are lost."

Or as Wenimo Okoya, 19, a junior in Redish's course, put it: "It's boring. A lot of students fall asleep."

Gideon Haile, a 20-year-old junior, said the reason he loves Redish's class is because he so "interactive." But, he said, "he's the only one."

Professors who have embraced new techniques frequently have turned to PowerPoint, saying it fits the lifestyle of today's students, who grew up with computers, cellphones and other forms of technology and whose lives have been far more structured than those of past generations.

Devon Welsh, 21, a junior and natural resource management major at U-Md., said it allows teachers to "give you the simplified version of what they are saying."

But some professors say it is making a bad thing worse. Students spend all their time scribbling down what's on the PowerPoint presentation, they say, and that leads professors to structure lessons around the visual presentation rather than creating a lecture with a beginning, middle and end that tells a story and can excite students.

"If the old traditional lecture is dying, it is because we are relying so much on the template of technology to make up for the lack of content," said Michael Bugeja, director of the Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication at Iowa State University. "PowerPoint has done more to kill the lecture than people really are aware of."

Other instructors have turned to the clicker, a device similar to a remote control, which students point at a receiver in the front of a classroom to answer questions. It also allows professors to determine almost instantly what percentage of students have the right answer.

Last week, Redish asked the students to use the clickers to state whether the acceleration in an experiment was positive, negative, zero or impossible to know. Within 10 seconds, he knew that most students had chosen incorrectly.

"Eighty-six percent got the wrong answer," he said. "Physics is about data. Our first intuition is not quite right. We have to modify our intuition."

Students say clickers keep them engaged, if not entertained.

"I feel like I'm in 'ask the audience' on 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire,' " said Landon Katz, 18, a freshman.

Of course, there are still some professors who can galvanize a class by using dramatic storytelling, internal structure, movement and a strong voice.

Seth Jacobs, a Boston College associate professor of history, said he uses skills he learned in his previous life as an actor, sometimes employing voices other than his own to bring historical figures to life. He has never used PowerPoint, but he has won teaching awards.

The problem, some educators say, is that few teachers can bring a lecture to life.

"Far too many lecturers tend to read aloud material students could readily read on their own," said Coleen Grisson, professor of English at Trinity University in San Antonio.

Harvard University education professor Julie Reuben said a poll of college courses would find that many professors still rely on traditional lecturing as a primary mode of instruction. It's what they had during their college years, said Daniel J. Klionsky, a biology professor at the University of Michigan who has written about the lecture as a teaching tool. And some say the vast class sizes necessitate the format.

However, another dynamic exists, Reuben said. Professors often spend their adult lives researching a particular topic and feel they have a unique synthesis and understanding of the research. They want to talk about their work.

And although the process of putting together the lectures is a creative, intense experience for professors, it doesn't always translate to students who have to sit and listen, Reuben said.

"This is one of the tensions," she said. "How do you have courses in which students have a similar kind of intensive learning?"



Second, from [|www.farbucks.typepad.com]

=Tossing Dan A Lifeline=

My colleague, Dan, who I consider to be the epitome of The Prototype Teacher 2.0 is taking fire across the bow because he's once again asking those pesky questions that stir up the Classroom 2.0 purists.

I can't sit by and not comment this time. I'm tossing a lifeline and hoping it helps him keep his head above the water. Not that he needs my help, mind you, but sometimes it's just good to hear a friendly voice of support.

Dan is my prime example of today's teacher who is trying to pull current research, best practices, promising practices, Classroom 2.0 technologies, and proven past methods into one coherent instructional delivery model. Occasionally he is being sidetracked by purists who seem to feel that implementing Classroom 2.0 automatically excludes any teaching method older than 2006.

I'm not sure where anyone has gotten the impression that the Good Old Stand Up Lecture is out-moded, out-dated, or God forbid, out-lawed.

Afterall, I first learned about Web 2.0 and Classroom 2.0 through...ta da...LECTURES! How ironic, eh?

It's the same principle that keeps orchestra conductors from being replaced with metronomes.

For the record, I maintain that TO THIS DAY the best way to assess a teachers ability is to take them outside, give them a group of 20 students, no pencils, no paper, no electricity, nothing but a pleasant day and a tree to sit under. And tell them to teach. A true TEACHER would take this opportunity and run with it. I'm afraid Classroom 2.0 disciples would sit and show symptoms of withdrawal. [No Powerpoint? Nope. What about my laser pointer? Nope. How do I start?]

Watch what happens during power outages or blown fuses. New staff flounders. "Oh, jeez, no power, what to we do? The projector's not working…" Veterans open the windows, turn on a flashlight, (or whatever), grab a piece of chalk and plow ahead.

Dan is using technology as a TOOL, not a crutch. He doesn't worry about the "focal points" in all the "noise" of his Powerpoints just because he want a snazzy techno-teaching production. He only sweats that type of detail in order to prevent the tool from becoming a distraction to the learning process.

Let me say that again, because it lies at the heart of what Dan is doing that is absolutely correct and models the ultimate use of Classroom2.0.

Dan only sweats that type of detail in order to prevent the tool from becoming a distraction to the learning process. The medium is not the message.

Lectures are still a totally appropriate means of instructional delivery. Frankly, they always will be. I doubt that even when holographic technology makes it possible for a fully actualized 3D teacher to meet one-on-one with a student 100 miles away that it will replace the significant and subtle forms of interaction that humans need.

Teaching cannot be fully automated. Correction, make that "teaching should not be allowed to become fully automated".

True teaching and learning MUST allow for subtleties and nuance, for opinions expressed in tone of voice, for emphasis via a small hand gesture, or doubt cast with the slightest raising of an eyebrow.

Why is it the same Mozart on a printed sheet of music can be made to sound so different depending on the personal touch a conductor gives it? Why can the same sermon - word for word - either put me to sleep to keep me on the edge of my seat depending on the style of the preacher? Why did Mr. Smith nearly kill my desire to learn chemistry the first semester while Mr. Aizawa brought the Periodic Table to life in the second semester? [More - MUCH more on this in future blogs**]

Student work products must be allowed to be presented and enhanced with technologies, but a wise teacher MUST look through the glitz of a Power point with sound effects, fireworks, and embedded videos of dancing elephants and pull out the KNOWLEDGE that the student gained.

Remember: it's all about GAINING KNOWLEDGE. Classoom 2.0 means nothing without factoring in the all important component of VALUE ADDED.

Dan is becoming an expert at revolving around the issues, peeling away the onion, and pioneering how Everything 2.0 has a purpose and place in the classroom. The tried and true methods of memorization, drill, practice, teacher-led discussions, etc. are still very much valid. Bear in mind: Web 2.0, Classroom 2.0, Teacher 2.0, Technology 2.0, EVERYTHING 2.0 are meant as enhancements - NOT REPLACEMENTS.