1. Doesn't spoon-feed the students, even when they beg and beg and beg. Never hand out full text notes, or make them available.
2. Stimulates futher thinking and reading rather than provides the definitive answer for all time. But doesn't shy from conclusions either.
3. Gives you an account of the views of others, but is unafraid to give their own opinion - with passion if necessary. Prejudice is a wonderful pedagogical tool!
4. Gives a brief but quality reading list.
5. Is disciplined about questions, and is even quite harsh with rambling or hectoring questioners if necessary. Perhaps he or she makes clear how questions are going to run before the lecture. If there is no time, then tough.
6. Is disciplined about discussions or other in class activities.
7. Does check to see if he or she is being listened to, and asks for clarification questions.
8. NEVER belittles other students for a laugh. In fact, is secure enough not to have to be funny all the time.
9. Makes time for female students to ask questions, speak, talk, interact etc.
10. Starts on time/finishes on time.
11. Never or rarely runs out of time: but each lecture is presented whole.
12. Makes an effort to communicate with colour and variety.
13. Isn't obsessed with powerpoint.
14. Provides a simple outline. One A4 sheet is sufficient.
15. Appears to be enjoying him/herself.
16. Gives clear and simple information about assessment. Doesn't spend too long fussing about it.
17. Is accessible outside the class room.
18. Knows what he or she is actually talking about.
19. Is not defensive when questioned, but firm.
Can you add to the list?
20 comments:
Isn't a fat head and full of himself
hmm. That's a toughie!
Am looking forward to seeing how it's done when you get back :)
20. Finishes early every now and again (same goes for preaching?)
21. Has the goal of developing the type of pastor/doctor/other sort of professional that they would want to be served by.
22. Treats students like peers (they will be in a couple of years time).
23. Knows of the need to live outside the ivory tower. The worst type of lecturers are those who see themselves as victorian era boffins and think it's endearing. It's just frustrating.
Victorian era boffins? come come my dear fellow, what could you mean?
I am happy for people who are authoritative to, in a modest way, speak authoritatively - ie, to rise above the peer thing. Of course, the is a lot of Aussie culture in what you say too...
Readily admits ignorance, error or conjecture etc.
Has footnotes available where necessary.
What a good list!
I think finishing early is irritating.
Dont pop off for coffee durring the lecture.
No need for group activities or discussions. Teach! Lecture! Dont fascilitate!
Dont read out something you've published. We can mostly read!
I agree about the humour thing. We don't need figures from historty with comedy accents, for example. Have confidence in the importance and interestingness of what you are saying or dont bother saying it.
Have you been to Professor MacCullouch on the Reformation? He is an excellent model, in my view.
But then Professor O'Donnovan was very good too - in an entirely different way. Deep and subtle thought and not always straightforward lectures.
Who are your lecturing models / heros?
I believe Garry Williams is excellent too.
whose lectures are better than reading all of the books available on the subject, because he has truly mastered the subject and is able to synthesise the subject for the hearer.
I have ever only heard one lecturer whose class notes were far far better than reading all of the texts.. Dr. Manley in Church History.
What can a lecture give that you can't get from a book in less time?
I would say McCullough and O'Donovan do it for me as lecturers too.
I have personally been guilty of many of the sins I cite here. In my former lecturing career I did use a great deal of interactive exercises, and I did that partly in order to make listening to a lecture less of a passive experience. Some liked it; some hated it. On the whole, students DO NOT like to listen to other students I notice.
Byron: well now: that's the crucial question. The presence of the lecturer is the answer in part. Could you suggest some more things?
Hi Mike,
One of the things that people commented on approvingly regarding your earlier lecturing career was the fact that you used different learning techniques in your lectures. People don't all learn in the same way, and your teacher's training showed in the way you presented your lectures.
Now if only I could learn how to do that in my Youth Group/Bible Study.
I guess the point is that these activities take real discipline from the lecturer to keep a lid on.
Also, if the lecturer is a real expert in the subject, then the material ought to carry the day on its own...
MacCullough lectures straight, but stops after about 20 minutes for questions rather than leaving it to the end.
And:
don't spoon feed the students. We at Moore have been doing this for years AND IT MUST STOP. It is so, so wrong. It is bad for their teeth.
Also, if the lecturer is a real expert in the subject, then the material ought to carry the day on its own.
Then why have lecturers at all? Why not just get students to read the real experts in the subject?
I think the benefits of the lecture over the book include: (i) the opportunity for face to face relationship. Although it is quite possible to enter into a 'relationship' with an author, this is of a different order to interacting face to face. On the one hand, the lecturer has the benefit of tone of voice, facial expressions and body language, though all these could be achieved (almost as well) using a video recording, and are probably not the key factor. (ii) The presence of the lecturer adds an extra layer of responsibility/accountability making it more likely that less motivated students will actually be there and take in something. Only motivated students will survive a reading course. (iii) However, I think the key factor is the ability to interact, to engage in discussion, to facilitate learning in more relational ways than a book can. Thus, I think the multiple learning styles is part of it, but another part is that you are teaching a way of thinking, not just content (as you discuss in your next post). The problem with spoon-feeding is that it assumes the content is more important than the skills.
Handing out full notes doesn't necessarily equate to spoon feeding. If all you then do is read those notes aloud, perhaps it does. You are right that students don't want to just hear other students, but I don't think this means all a lecturer ought to do is monologue.
hmm, you don't sound very convinced! On your account, the famed socratic method should be the best one going. Yet I think this has been another weakness of our teaching style: the socratic method is less effective with a large (50+) class, and (anecdotally speaking) some students - particularly female ones - don't enjoy its confrontational approach and its lack of structure.
On your account, the famed socratic method should be the best one going.
Not necessarily - for precisely the reasons you mention. It is not the only method of interaction. And interaction doesn't need to be the whole of lecturing (or even necessarily the majority). Variety is good.
I really enjoyed your lectures and thought they had a good mix of approaches. By all means keep thinking about how to improve them (I wish more lecturers would worry about this more), but don't throw out your strengths.
No waffling.
No reading out an entire lecture using such long sentences that note-taking is impossible. (Certain Sydney Uni English lecturers were guilty of this.)
Oh man, I remember one in particular who had a persistent rising inflection so you never knew when a sentence ended... it was terrible.
Michael
I don't know you, but I'm a former student of Marty Foord's (in Perth) -- a tenuous connection, I know.
On lecturers:
* Should have a passion for their subject, one which pops its head up at least every now and then.
* To test whether lecturers have mastered and truly imbibed their subject, I suggest taking their notes from them and giving them 15 or so minutes to scribble a lecture outline on a piece of A4 paper. Top lecturers would, I suspect, deliver a lecture almost as good as they would have otherwise. I'd call this the Conviction Test, and reckon it should be used at least once a year per subject.
Post a Comment