- Email: [email protected]
Lecturing: A lost art
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 72–76 http://www.pharmacyteaching.com
Opinion
Lecturing: A lost art Peter E. Penson, MPharm, PhD* School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
Abstract Lecturing, for many years the typical mode of learning and teaching in university courses, has received much criticism in pedagogic circles in recent years. It has been suggested that lecturing promotes surface learning rather than deep learning, and that there is no real rationale for its use. This commentary intends to provide a rationale for lecturing in relation to professional courses, such as pharmacy, in which students are expected to assimilate learning from a wide range of sources, including clinical placements, laboratory classes, workshops, and their own reading. In this context, a series of lectures form the backbone of a course in which the lecturer brings together disparate elements of the curriculum and puts them into context. This enables learning in higher education to proceed in a constructivist manner in which students see their course as a whole, rather than an accumulation of unrelated activities and classes. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Lectures; Pedagogy
Introduction Nearly 30 years ago, Graham Gibbs wrote “Twenty terrible reasons for lecturing,” a short article that took the form of a series of statements in support of lecturing, each followed by a refutation. His conclusion was that lecturing is an inefficient way of encouraging learning and that lectures were used “far more . . . than can be reasonably justified . . . largely due to ignorance, attitudes and institutional constraints, rather than to any inherent virtues of lecturing.”1 Among educationalists, Gibbs’ opinions seem to be widely held as correct. This is evidenced by a frequently cited cynical remark by 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.” The question then remains, “Why do we still lecture?”2 Certainly, “institutional constraints” play a part. However, there is a strong argument that the reason we still lecture is because lecturing is an excellent way to promote learning as part of an overall strategy in university education. This
* Correspondence to: Peter E. Penson, MPharm, PhD, School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK. E-mail: [email protected].
article is not intended to be a point-by-point refutation of Gibbs’ work, nor is it a discussion of methods to improve lecturing. Many techniques can be found elsewhere.3-5 The commentary will discuss what constitutes a lecture and consider some of the reasons why lecturing is criticized in the pedagogic literature. These criticisms are summarized in a recent article by DiPiro, which argued that lecturing was inappropriate in pharmacy education for a number of reasons: (1) Lecturing is a form of passive teaching and is thus unlikely to lead to knowledge retention; (2) lecturing consists of an individual presenting information to a group of students in a way that does not account for differences in learning styles; (3) lecturing delivers knowledge or facts that rapidly become outdated; (4) lecturing does not encourage skills, such as critical thinking and problem solving, which are essential for pharmacists, and it does not prepare students for continuing professional development.2 However, lectures do not necessarily follow these stereotypes, as this article will attempts to demonstrate. Indeed, it could be argued that they only apply to poorly prepared lectures or badly designed courses. Charlton has suggested that lectures have been underappreciated in the pedagogic literature because, unlike other forms of teaching and learning, no theoretic rationale for the use of lecturing has been described.6 This article is intended to provide that rationale,
1877-1297/12/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2011.10.010
P.E. Penson / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 72–76
and to convince the reader that the lecture series forms the backbone of the university learning experience, from which all other elements of learning emanate, and by which they are supported. Pharmacy degree programs require students to leave the university with a very broad and detailed knowledge and understanding of science and clinical practice to practice safely. Lectures are, arguably, an ideal way to support student learning when they are working toward this goal. The article is not intended to describe an educational utopia, rather the real-world situation in which we work. A particular challenge in a popular degree program, such as pharmacy is to design teaching methods that are appropriate for use with large cohorts of students.
73
that lecturing can be used to promote thought. A strong argument can be advanced that the capacity for lecturing to promote deep learning has been underestimated by Bligh, DiPiro, and others.2,3 One major reason for this is that commentators often make false distinctions between different types of learning sessions. Lectures are always assumed to be monologues, whereas small-group teaching methods are invariably assumed to be interactive and discursive. This is compounded by the fact that empiric studies often attempt to consider teaching styles in idealized stereotypical forms and in isolation, rather than as part of a varied curriculum. In reality, the characteristics of any learning and teaching event depend to a large extent on the personality and preferences of the students and the teacher and cannot be categorized easily.
Lecturing: the challenge of deep learning Research by Marton and Saljo led to the development of a theory in which learning could be categorized as either surface learning or deep learning. Surface learning involves the accumulation of facts, and deep learning requires a level of understanding and comprehension.7 At the level of university education, it is essential that we aim for the latter. The objectivist model, in which a student is considered an empty vessel to be filled with knowledge, is replaced by a constructivist thinking, in which a student is actively involved in the learning process. Thus, it is said that the lecturer should aim to be a “guide at the side” rather than a “sage on the stage.”8 The physicist Richard Feynman, perhaps the most celebrated lecturer in recent history, understood the importance of deep learning. He said, “You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you’re finished, you’ll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird . . . So let’s look at the bird and see what it’s doing—that’s what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.”9 This philosophy defined his teaching style, and may go some way in explaining the enduring popularity of his lectures. It is remarkable that more than 20 years after his death, recordings of his lectures (intended for undergraduate physicists) are still widely enjoyed by the public. They are even available for download through iTunes software. Sadly, most of us are not blessed with Feynman’s remarkable flair for teaching. However, we must continue to strive to encourage deep learning in our students. In his summary of an extensive array of pedagogic research, Bligh concludes, “The lecture is as effective as other methods for transmitting information. Most lectures are not as effective as discussion for promoting thought.”3 From the first of these points, it is clear that lecturing is a particularly appropriate teaching technique in science and clinical degree programs, where the assimilation of a large amount of knowledge is essential. However, lecturing can be more than just an objectivist tool. The use of the word “most” in the second part of Bligh’s statement is instructive; it implies
False distinctions in pedagogic research and teaching Rigid boundaries are often drawn between different types of learning events in a manner that is constraining and counterproductive. Some faculties impose limits on the numbers of students who can be present for a session to be described as a seminar or tutorial, i.e., that the type of session is dictated by the number of students present. Although a lecture usually involves a high student-to-faculty ratio, this should not define it, because the same technique (if effective) should also work with smaller numbers of students. Although a session occurs in a lecture theater with a large number of students and one teacher, it should not be assumed that the session must be designed according to an objectivist epistemology. Thus, it is important to describe the characteristics of the teaching and learning event that we call a lecture. A lecture is a learning event in which one member of faculty interacts with a number of students. The session predominantly involves the lecturer talking about the topic in hand, but it can also include activities, such as short discussions between students, question-and-answer sessions, group work, and other “enhancements” usually associated with smaller class sizes. It is crucial that whatever activities are included, the lecture must be feasible with large numbers of students (100⫹). This differs from Bligh’s definition of a lecture as essentially a monologue,3 which would be less likely to encourage deep learning. Lecturing is a very personal and individual activity. Feynman was renowned for captivating the attention of his audience by introducing humor. Some rely heavily on animations. Some find handouts helpful, others detest them. Some will encourage discussion between students. There is no set of standards for what constitutes a lecture. Similarly, each academic will organize workshop and discussion sessions differently. In some cases, it may be appropriate to include elements of lecture-like monologue. Different sessions cannot therefore be easily labeled and a good teacher should not be constrained by the label a session has been given for organizational reasons. The predominant style should be chosen based on the learning objectives. This
74
P.E. Penson / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 72–76
causes problems when people try to compare different teaching methods empirically. Observation bias is likely to be a problem because faculty members involved in the study may feel the need to design observed sessions in a different way to their norm to fit the constrained definitions of teaching styles. Some of these problems are illustrated by a study that attempted to examine the effects of different teaching styles on medical students’ enjoyment of university education and on their end-of-course results. All students attended wardrounds and clinics. This was combined with classroom teaching—the students were randomized to receive either discussion group– based teaching or lectures.10 The primary outcome of the study was student satisfaction with the course (each learning session was rated for content and presentation using Likert scales: 1 ⫽ poor to 5 ⫽ excellent). Students randomized to the discussion group reported a greater level of satisfaction with the presentation of the material than those who attended lectures (discussion group mean score ⫽ 4.3, lecture group mean score ⫽ 3.8, p ⫽ .003). There was no significant difference in the rating of the quality of the taught material between the groups. A secondary outcome of the study was examination performance at the end of the course. In a written short-answer paper, students in the discussion group performed slightly better than those in the lecture group (8.3/10 compared with 7.8/10, respectively, p ⫽ .025). Results in an oral examination were not significantly different between the two groups. This study is better than many others carried out in the field because it considers lectures as part of a curriculum that includes other events (in this case clinical teaching). However, the study has some weaknesses common to many studies in this field that restrict the widespread applicability of the results. For instance, it would have been interesting to measure the effect of exposing students to a mixture of lectures and discussion groups. This approach would probably be a more realistic reflection of a university curriculum and is preferable because it does not disadvantage those students who dislike the teaching style to which they have been randomized). Studies of this type often use the term traditional lecture based learning with very little qualification. It is usually not clear whether these lectures included elements of discussion or elements of problembased learning (case studies), or whether these were deliberately excluded. In this study, the different teaching events were delivered by different academics, who each delivered a teaching style with which they were comfortable, but who modified their usual teaching approach to fit specified definitions of teaching styles. This is a commendable empiric approach, designed to reduce confounding factors; ,however sessions designed to rigidly fit an intellectual model are unlikely to constitute an authentic learning experience, and thus the results generated by such an approach must be treated with caution. Recent years have seen an admirable shift in educational practice, with increased recognition of the importance of
allowing students to construct their own learning, and of considering student’s preferred learning styles when designing teaching sessions. Perhaps in this necessary change toward a student-focused curriculum, we have sometimes overlooked the needs of the teacher. Learning is likely to progress most effectively when both student and teacher are at ease. Some academics may find it difficult to stand up in front of a large group of people, and others might enjoy speaking to a big cohort but struggle with the intimacy associated with a discussion group or tutorial. That is to say that just as students have preferred learning styles, academics have preferred teaching styles based on their personality and experience. This cannot be used as an excuse to overlook the individual needs and preferences of students— academics should constantly strive to deliver their material in a manner that is accessible to all students. However, neither can the needs of academics be overlooked entirely. Forcing an individual to teach in a particular manner that does not suit them is unlikely to be productive, even when the chosen teaching method appears to have a sound basis in evidence.
In search of a rationale To be successful, students need to undergo a transition in the manner in which they learn during their time studying the pharmacy degree program. Students entering the course are likely to be accustomed to a particular form of learning. In high school, pupils can expect to be spoon-fed information; they can often purchase textbooks published by the examining body for each module studied. If they can learn everything in the book and apply it in certain well-rehearsed scenarios they can expect very high marks indeed. This is a very different scenario to the world of work for which we endeavor to prepare our students. Certainly there is no single book that tells pharmacists everything they need to practice. Professionals, either because of reflection or a critical incident, realize which areas of their practice are strong, and which require development. This allows the planning of activities to meet learning needs followed by an evaluation as to whether the learning needs have been met and whether any further learning needs have been identified. This cycle of continual professional development continues throughout life. To enable this transition between two very different forms of learning, university education has a unique role. It must aim to equip students with a broad general knowledge of their subject and the skills required to build on this knowledge as required throughout professional life. Charlton put it like this: “Lectures are therefore usually the standard medium for teaching science up to the point where the student begins to specialize and train as a practicing scientist, at which point a more individualized and skilloriented training becomes necessary.”6 Because science degrees require large volumes of material to be covered, it has been commented that “a deep approach to learning tasks . . .
P.E. Penson / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 72–76
often demands an initial concentration on details which [are] . . . hard to separate from a surface approach . . .”11 Thus, the challenge is to encourage self-directed learning, but to give a sufficient grounding in knowledge to make this possible and worthwhile. A university course based around a lecture series (but including workshops, practical classes, problem-based learning activities, and self-directed study) is an ideal way to achieve these aims. It has been said that “there is nothing like the lecture for developing the grand view.”12 No conscientious academic would arrive at a teaching session without having defined the learning objectives. However, education cannot proceed by taking a list of learning outcomes, designing a session to address each one, and ticking them off throughout the semester. Consideration needs to be given to the overall picture. To encourage constructivist learning, students need to understand the reasons these learning objectives were chosen. They need to understand the links between what they have seen in the laboratory and what they have experienced in practice placements. They may require guidance to understand the relevance of what they have read in a textbook. This is where lecturing is invaluable. Thus, the lecturer can be both a sage on the stage and a guide by the side. The good lecturer will indeed stand at the front of the class, not reading from a set of notes but drawing together disparate elements of the course and helping students organize and make sense of their learning experiences and reflect on their learning needs. Thus, in the face of a good lecturer, DiPiro’s criticisms of lecturing fall away.2 The suggestion that lectures are passive and that they do not take account of students’ preferred learning styles can be addressed fairly easily. A good lecturer will break up their monologue with some multiple-choice questions or a short discussion to ensure the lecture is not passive. They will include diagrams in their handouts and slides to appeal to visual learners. Of more interest is the criticism that lecturing delivers facts that are soon to be outdated, rather than encouraging important skills such as critical thinking and problem solving. If this were true, it would be more damning of lectures and harder to correct. The first part of the criticism is in fact true: science progresses through hypothesis testing and a continuous process of rejection of old ideas and models in the face of new evidence. Much or all of what students learn today will probably have been superseded by the time they retire. This cannot, however, be used as a reason not to teach current knowledge, or otherwise no one would learn science. It does, however, obligate academics to ensure that their teaching materials are an accurate reflection of the state-of-the-art, and that they are not already out of date. A lecture, delivered by an expert in his or her field is an excellent way to deliver an up-to-date curriculum. In pharmacy, for example, it is extremely important that students are aware of the latest advances in science and clinical practice. If a new set of clinical guidelines published even a few days before a lecture is given, they can be included. It
75
is also important that students be aware of the controversies in their field, and that a lecturer is able to critically discuss the most recently published evidence. This level of flexibility does not apply to all teaching methods equally. The notion that one must choose between teaching critical thinking and teaching knowledge is false. Critical thinking is perhaps the most important outcome of any university education whether it is in pharmacy, physics, or philosophy. However, critical thinking and problem-solving cannot occur without knowledge; indeed they involve bringing together different strands of knowledge in a particular way. If we are training students to use their brains as critical thinking machines, knowledge is surely the fuel that powers that engine, and it is the knowledge base a student studies that turns them into a pharmacist, a physicist, or philosopher— rather than a generic “critical thinker.” The job of the lecturer is therefore to bring together an array of materials from different sources, and to synthesize this information in a way that is accessible to students and that encourages and inspire them to construct their own learning and understanding in ways that best suit their individual learning style. When the student learns to imitate the lecturer and brings a wide range of resources to bear on a particular problem, when he or she can look at two sides of an argument and decide which has the most convincing evidence—then the student has become a critical thinker. The lecture has always been at the forefront of university education, partly because of organizational issues. In medieval universities, books were read aloud because of the scarcity of multiple copies of a text. Today, we face very different challenges and high student-to-faculty ratios mean that large-group teaching inevitably constitutes a large proportion of contact time. The fact that we lecture out of necessity does not diminish the ability of the lecture to be used as an effective learning tool, which can, where appropriate, form most contact time in university courses. A series of lectures form the backbone of a course, in which the lecturer brings together disparate elements of the course and puts them into context. This enables learning in higher education to proceed in a constructivist manner in which students see their course as a whole, rather than as an accumulation of unrelated activities and classes.
Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Dr Clare Milsom, Carol Maynard, and the reviewers of the initial draft of this manuscript for valuable advice.
References 1. Gibbs G. Twenty terrible reasons for lecturing. SCED Occasional Paper Number 8. 1981. Available at: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/
76
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
7.
P.E. Penson / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 72–76 services/ocsld/resources/20reasons.html. Accessed November 27, 2011. DiPiro J. Why do we still lecture? Am J Pharm Educ 2009;73: Article 137. Bligh D. What’s the Use of Lectures? 6th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2000. Davies P. Practical ideas for enhancing lectures. Seda Special 2003;13:1– 42. Smith B. Lecturing to large groups. Seda Special 1997;1:1–52. Charlton BG. Lectures are such an effective teaching method because they exploit evolved human psychology to improve learning. Med Hypotheses 2006;67:1261–5. Marton F, Saljo R. Approaches to learning. In: Marton F, Hounsell D, Entwistle N, editors. The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment; 2005:39-58. Information about the book. Available at: http://www.ed.ac.uk/schoolsdepartments/institute-academic-development/learning-teaching/ staff/resources/institute-resources/experience-of-learning. Accessed October 13, 2011.
8. King A. From sage on the stage to guide on the side. Coll Teach 1993;41. 9. Feynman R. What is Science? Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, The Physics Teacher, New York City, 1969:7:6. 10. Costa ML, van Rensburg L, Rushton N. Does teaching style matter? A randomised trial of group discussion versus lectures in orthopaedic undergraduate teaching. Med Educ 2007;41: 214 –7. 11. Ramsden P. The context of learning in academic departments. In: Marton F, Hounsell D, Entwistle N, editors. The Experience of Learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education, 3rd ed. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment; 2005:198-216. Information about the book. Available at: http://www.ed.ac.uk/ schools-departments/institute-academic-development/learningteaching/staff/resources/institute-resources/experience-of-learning. Accessed October 13, 2011. 12. Iphofen R. Long live the lecture. Available at: http://www. timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode⫽103747& sectioncode⫽26. Accessed October 13, 2011.
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 72–76 http://www.pharmacyteaching.com
Opinion
Lecturing: A lost art Peter E. Penson, MPharm, PhD* School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
Abstract Lecturing, for many years the typical mode of learning and teaching in university courses, has received much criticism in pedagogic circles in recent years. It has been suggested that lecturing promotes surface learning rather than deep learning, and that there is no real rationale for its use. This commentary intends to provide a rationale for lecturing in relation to professional courses, such as pharmacy, in which students are expected to assimilate learning from a wide range of sources, including clinical placements, laboratory classes, workshops, and their own reading. In this context, a series of lectures form the backbone of a course in which the lecturer brings together disparate elements of the curriculum and puts them into context. This enables learning in higher education to proceed in a constructivist manner in which students see their course as a whole, rather than an accumulation of unrelated activities and classes. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Lectures; Pedagogy
Introduction Nearly 30 years ago, Graham Gibbs wrote “Twenty terrible reasons for lecturing,” a short article that took the form of a series of statements in support of lecturing, each followed by a refutation. His conclusion was that lecturing is an inefficient way of encouraging learning and that lectures were used “far more . . . than can be reasonably justified . . . largely due to ignorance, attitudes and institutional constraints, rather than to any inherent virtues of lecturing.”1 Among educationalists, Gibbs’ opinions seem to be widely held as correct. This is evidenced by a frequently cited cynical remark by 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.” The question then remains, “Why do we still lecture?”2 Certainly, “institutional constraints” play a part. However, there is a strong argument that the reason we still lecture is because lecturing is an excellent way to promote learning as part of an overall strategy in university education. This
* Correspondence to: Peter E. Penson, MPharm, PhD, School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK. E-mail: [email protected].
article is not intended to be a point-by-point refutation of Gibbs’ work, nor is it a discussion of methods to improve lecturing. Many techniques can be found elsewhere.3-5 The commentary will discuss what constitutes a lecture and consider some of the reasons why lecturing is criticized in the pedagogic literature. These criticisms are summarized in a recent article by DiPiro, which argued that lecturing was inappropriate in pharmacy education for a number of reasons: (1) Lecturing is a form of passive teaching and is thus unlikely to lead to knowledge retention; (2) lecturing consists of an individual presenting information to a group of students in a way that does not account for differences in learning styles; (3) lecturing delivers knowledge or facts that rapidly become outdated; (4) lecturing does not encourage skills, such as critical thinking and problem solving, which are essential for pharmacists, and it does not prepare students for continuing professional development.2 However, lectures do not necessarily follow these stereotypes, as this article will attempts to demonstrate. Indeed, it could be argued that they only apply to poorly prepared lectures or badly designed courses. Charlton has suggested that lectures have been underappreciated in the pedagogic literature because, unlike other forms of teaching and learning, no theoretic rationale for the use of lecturing has been described.6 This article is intended to provide that rationale,
1877-1297/12/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2011.10.010
P.E. Penson / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 72–76
and to convince the reader that the lecture series forms the backbone of the university learning experience, from which all other elements of learning emanate, and by which they are supported. Pharmacy degree programs require students to leave the university with a very broad and detailed knowledge and understanding of science and clinical practice to practice safely. Lectures are, arguably, an ideal way to support student learning when they are working toward this goal. The article is not intended to describe an educational utopia, rather the real-world situation in which we work. A particular challenge in a popular degree program, such as pharmacy is to design teaching methods that are appropriate for use with large cohorts of students.
73
that lecturing can be used to promote thought. A strong argument can be advanced that the capacity for lecturing to promote deep learning has been underestimated by Bligh, DiPiro, and others.2,3 One major reason for this is that commentators often make false distinctions between different types of learning sessions. Lectures are always assumed to be monologues, whereas small-group teaching methods are invariably assumed to be interactive and discursive. This is compounded by the fact that empiric studies often attempt to consider teaching styles in idealized stereotypical forms and in isolation, rather than as part of a varied curriculum. In reality, the characteristics of any learning and teaching event depend to a large extent on the personality and preferences of the students and the teacher and cannot be categorized easily.
Lecturing: the challenge of deep learning Research by Marton and Saljo led to the development of a theory in which learning could be categorized as either surface learning or deep learning. Surface learning involves the accumulation of facts, and deep learning requires a level of understanding and comprehension.7 At the level of university education, it is essential that we aim for the latter. The objectivist model, in which a student is considered an empty vessel to be filled with knowledge, is replaced by a constructivist thinking, in which a student is actively involved in the learning process. Thus, it is said that the lecturer should aim to be a “guide at the side” rather than a “sage on the stage.”8 The physicist Richard Feynman, perhaps the most celebrated lecturer in recent history, understood the importance of deep learning. He said, “You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you’re finished, you’ll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird . . . So let’s look at the bird and see what it’s doing—that’s what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.”9 This philosophy defined his teaching style, and may go some way in explaining the enduring popularity of his lectures. It is remarkable that more than 20 years after his death, recordings of his lectures (intended for undergraduate physicists) are still widely enjoyed by the public. They are even available for download through iTunes software. Sadly, most of us are not blessed with Feynman’s remarkable flair for teaching. However, we must continue to strive to encourage deep learning in our students. In his summary of an extensive array of pedagogic research, Bligh concludes, “The lecture is as effective as other methods for transmitting information. Most lectures are not as effective as discussion for promoting thought.”3 From the first of these points, it is clear that lecturing is a particularly appropriate teaching technique in science and clinical degree programs, where the assimilation of a large amount of knowledge is essential. However, lecturing can be more than just an objectivist tool. The use of the word “most” in the second part of Bligh’s statement is instructive; it implies
False distinctions in pedagogic research and teaching Rigid boundaries are often drawn between different types of learning events in a manner that is constraining and counterproductive. Some faculties impose limits on the numbers of students who can be present for a session to be described as a seminar or tutorial, i.e., that the type of session is dictated by the number of students present. Although a lecture usually involves a high student-to-faculty ratio, this should not define it, because the same technique (if effective) should also work with smaller numbers of students. Although a session occurs in a lecture theater with a large number of students and one teacher, it should not be assumed that the session must be designed according to an objectivist epistemology. Thus, it is important to describe the characteristics of the teaching and learning event that we call a lecture. A lecture is a learning event in which one member of faculty interacts with a number of students. The session predominantly involves the lecturer talking about the topic in hand, but it can also include activities, such as short discussions between students, question-and-answer sessions, group work, and other “enhancements” usually associated with smaller class sizes. It is crucial that whatever activities are included, the lecture must be feasible with large numbers of students (100⫹). This differs from Bligh’s definition of a lecture as essentially a monologue,3 which would be less likely to encourage deep learning. Lecturing is a very personal and individual activity. Feynman was renowned for captivating the attention of his audience by introducing humor. Some rely heavily on animations. Some find handouts helpful, others detest them. Some will encourage discussion between students. There is no set of standards for what constitutes a lecture. Similarly, each academic will organize workshop and discussion sessions differently. In some cases, it may be appropriate to include elements of lecture-like monologue. Different sessions cannot therefore be easily labeled and a good teacher should not be constrained by the label a session has been given for organizational reasons. The predominant style should be chosen based on the learning objectives. This
74
P.E. Penson / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 72–76
causes problems when people try to compare different teaching methods empirically. Observation bias is likely to be a problem because faculty members involved in the study may feel the need to design observed sessions in a different way to their norm to fit the constrained definitions of teaching styles. Some of these problems are illustrated by a study that attempted to examine the effects of different teaching styles on medical students’ enjoyment of university education and on their end-of-course results. All students attended wardrounds and clinics. This was combined with classroom teaching—the students were randomized to receive either discussion group– based teaching or lectures.10 The primary outcome of the study was student satisfaction with the course (each learning session was rated for content and presentation using Likert scales: 1 ⫽ poor to 5 ⫽ excellent). Students randomized to the discussion group reported a greater level of satisfaction with the presentation of the material than those who attended lectures (discussion group mean score ⫽ 4.3, lecture group mean score ⫽ 3.8, p ⫽ .003). There was no significant difference in the rating of the quality of the taught material between the groups. A secondary outcome of the study was examination performance at the end of the course. In a written short-answer paper, students in the discussion group performed slightly better than those in the lecture group (8.3/10 compared with 7.8/10, respectively, p ⫽ .025). Results in an oral examination were not significantly different between the two groups. This study is better than many others carried out in the field because it considers lectures as part of a curriculum that includes other events (in this case clinical teaching). However, the study has some weaknesses common to many studies in this field that restrict the widespread applicability of the results. For instance, it would have been interesting to measure the effect of exposing students to a mixture of lectures and discussion groups. This approach would probably be a more realistic reflection of a university curriculum and is preferable because it does not disadvantage those students who dislike the teaching style to which they have been randomized). Studies of this type often use the term traditional lecture based learning with very little qualification. It is usually not clear whether these lectures included elements of discussion or elements of problembased learning (case studies), or whether these were deliberately excluded. In this study, the different teaching events were delivered by different academics, who each delivered a teaching style with which they were comfortable, but who modified their usual teaching approach to fit specified definitions of teaching styles. This is a commendable empiric approach, designed to reduce confounding factors; ,however sessions designed to rigidly fit an intellectual model are unlikely to constitute an authentic learning experience, and thus the results generated by such an approach must be treated with caution. Recent years have seen an admirable shift in educational practice, with increased recognition of the importance of
allowing students to construct their own learning, and of considering student’s preferred learning styles when designing teaching sessions. Perhaps in this necessary change toward a student-focused curriculum, we have sometimes overlooked the needs of the teacher. Learning is likely to progress most effectively when both student and teacher are at ease. Some academics may find it difficult to stand up in front of a large group of people, and others might enjoy speaking to a big cohort but struggle with the intimacy associated with a discussion group or tutorial. That is to say that just as students have preferred learning styles, academics have preferred teaching styles based on their personality and experience. This cannot be used as an excuse to overlook the individual needs and preferences of students— academics should constantly strive to deliver their material in a manner that is accessible to all students. However, neither can the needs of academics be overlooked entirely. Forcing an individual to teach in a particular manner that does not suit them is unlikely to be productive, even when the chosen teaching method appears to have a sound basis in evidence.
In search of a rationale To be successful, students need to undergo a transition in the manner in which they learn during their time studying the pharmacy degree program. Students entering the course are likely to be accustomed to a particular form of learning. In high school, pupils can expect to be spoon-fed information; they can often purchase textbooks published by the examining body for each module studied. If they can learn everything in the book and apply it in certain well-rehearsed scenarios they can expect very high marks indeed. This is a very different scenario to the world of work for which we endeavor to prepare our students. Certainly there is no single book that tells pharmacists everything they need to practice. Professionals, either because of reflection or a critical incident, realize which areas of their practice are strong, and which require development. This allows the planning of activities to meet learning needs followed by an evaluation as to whether the learning needs have been met and whether any further learning needs have been identified. This cycle of continual professional development continues throughout life. To enable this transition between two very different forms of learning, university education has a unique role. It must aim to equip students with a broad general knowledge of their subject and the skills required to build on this knowledge as required throughout professional life. Charlton put it like this: “Lectures are therefore usually the standard medium for teaching science up to the point where the student begins to specialize and train as a practicing scientist, at which point a more individualized and skilloriented training becomes necessary.”6 Because science degrees require large volumes of material to be covered, it has been commented that “a deep approach to learning tasks . . .
P.E. Penson / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 72–76
often demands an initial concentration on details which [are] . . . hard to separate from a surface approach . . .”11 Thus, the challenge is to encourage self-directed learning, but to give a sufficient grounding in knowledge to make this possible and worthwhile. A university course based around a lecture series (but including workshops, practical classes, problem-based learning activities, and self-directed study) is an ideal way to achieve these aims. It has been said that “there is nothing like the lecture for developing the grand view.”12 No conscientious academic would arrive at a teaching session without having defined the learning objectives. However, education cannot proceed by taking a list of learning outcomes, designing a session to address each one, and ticking them off throughout the semester. Consideration needs to be given to the overall picture. To encourage constructivist learning, students need to understand the reasons these learning objectives were chosen. They need to understand the links between what they have seen in the laboratory and what they have experienced in practice placements. They may require guidance to understand the relevance of what they have read in a textbook. This is where lecturing is invaluable. Thus, the lecturer can be both a sage on the stage and a guide by the side. The good lecturer will indeed stand at the front of the class, not reading from a set of notes but drawing together disparate elements of the course and helping students organize and make sense of their learning experiences and reflect on their learning needs. Thus, in the face of a good lecturer, DiPiro’s criticisms of lecturing fall away.2 The suggestion that lectures are passive and that they do not take account of students’ preferred learning styles can be addressed fairly easily. A good lecturer will break up their monologue with some multiple-choice questions or a short discussion to ensure the lecture is not passive. They will include diagrams in their handouts and slides to appeal to visual learners. Of more interest is the criticism that lecturing delivers facts that are soon to be outdated, rather than encouraging important skills such as critical thinking and problem solving. If this were true, it would be more damning of lectures and harder to correct. The first part of the criticism is in fact true: science progresses through hypothesis testing and a continuous process of rejection of old ideas and models in the face of new evidence. Much or all of what students learn today will probably have been superseded by the time they retire. This cannot, however, be used as a reason not to teach current knowledge, or otherwise no one would learn science. It does, however, obligate academics to ensure that their teaching materials are an accurate reflection of the state-of-the-art, and that they are not already out of date. A lecture, delivered by an expert in his or her field is an excellent way to deliver an up-to-date curriculum. In pharmacy, for example, it is extremely important that students are aware of the latest advances in science and clinical practice. If a new set of clinical guidelines published even a few days before a lecture is given, they can be included. It
75
is also important that students be aware of the controversies in their field, and that a lecturer is able to critically discuss the most recently published evidence. This level of flexibility does not apply to all teaching methods equally. The notion that one must choose between teaching critical thinking and teaching knowledge is false. Critical thinking is perhaps the most important outcome of any university education whether it is in pharmacy, physics, or philosophy. However, critical thinking and problem-solving cannot occur without knowledge; indeed they involve bringing together different strands of knowledge in a particular way. If we are training students to use their brains as critical thinking machines, knowledge is surely the fuel that powers that engine, and it is the knowledge base a student studies that turns them into a pharmacist, a physicist, or philosopher— rather than a generic “critical thinker.” The job of the lecturer is therefore to bring together an array of materials from different sources, and to synthesize this information in a way that is accessible to students and that encourages and inspire them to construct their own learning and understanding in ways that best suit their individual learning style. When the student learns to imitate the lecturer and brings a wide range of resources to bear on a particular problem, when he or she can look at two sides of an argument and decide which has the most convincing evidence—then the student has become a critical thinker. The lecture has always been at the forefront of university education, partly because of organizational issues. In medieval universities, books were read aloud because of the scarcity of multiple copies of a text. Today, we face very different challenges and high student-to-faculty ratios mean that large-group teaching inevitably constitutes a large proportion of contact time. The fact that we lecture out of necessity does not diminish the ability of the lecture to be used as an effective learning tool, which can, where appropriate, form most contact time in university courses. A series of lectures form the backbone of a course, in which the lecturer brings together disparate elements of the course and puts them into context. This enables learning in higher education to proceed in a constructivist manner in which students see their course as a whole, rather than as an accumulation of unrelated activities and classes.
Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Dr Clare Milsom, Carol Maynard, and the reviewers of the initial draft of this manuscript for valuable advice.
References 1. Gibbs G. Twenty terrible reasons for lecturing. SCED Occasional Paper Number 8. 1981. Available at: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/
76
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
7.
P.E. Penson / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 72–76 services/ocsld/resources/20reasons.html. Accessed November 27, 2011. DiPiro J. Why do we still lecture? Am J Pharm Educ 2009;73: Article 137. Bligh D. What’s the Use of Lectures? 6th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2000. Davies P. Practical ideas for enhancing lectures. Seda Special 2003;13:1– 42. Smith B. Lecturing to large groups. Seda Special 1997;1:1–52. Charlton BG. Lectures are such an effective teaching method because they exploit evolved human psychology to improve learning. Med Hypotheses 2006;67:1261–5. Marton F, Saljo R. Approaches to learning. In: Marton F, Hounsell D, Entwistle N, editors. The Experience of Learning: Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment; 2005:39-58. Information about the book. Available at: http://www.ed.ac.uk/schoolsdepartments/institute-academic-development/learning-teaching/ staff/resources/institute-resources/experience-of-learning. Accessed October 13, 2011.
8. King A. From sage on the stage to guide on the side. Coll Teach 1993;41. 9. Feynman R. What is Science? Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the National Science Teachers Association, The Physics Teacher, New York City, 1969:7:6. 10. Costa ML, van Rensburg L, Rushton N. Does teaching style matter? A randomised trial of group discussion versus lectures in orthopaedic undergraduate teaching. Med Educ 2007;41: 214 –7. 11. Ramsden P. The context of learning in academic departments. In: Marton F, Hounsell D, Entwistle N, editors. The Experience of Learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education, 3rd ed. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment; 2005:198-216. Information about the book. Available at: http://www.ed.ac.uk/ schools-departments/institute-academic-development/learningteaching/staff/resources/institute-resources/experience-of-learning. Accessed October 13, 2011. 12. Iphofen R. Long live the lecture. Available at: http://www. timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode⫽103747& sectioncode⫽26. Accessed October 13, 2011.