A while back I wrote about what makes a good lecturer.
I have been thinking - and reading - again about lectures and their place in tertiary education, and especially in the preparation of Christian ministers. Most seminaries I know of have a very heavily lecture-based programme, with few tutorials or seminars, if any. In contrast to university teaching, which is usually a rather sparsely arranged timetable of lectures, seminaries crowd their days with alloted teaching hours. Partly, I speculate, this is because of a view of theology as not only a method to be demonstrated but a body of knowledge to be passed on in an authoritative way by recognised teachers. Also, theology is such a composite of disciplines - language, history, text-interpretation, philosophy - that it is hard to leave anything out of the programme, or to allow for an option-based course of study.
But, speaking from my experience as a student, I found lectures a largely very frustrating and slow way to learn, unless the lecturer was peculiarly good. It is particularly inefficient if the lecturer feels he/she has to cover everything in a particular course, because the lectures are replacing the role played by a text book. Further, a lecturing style that depends on the questions of students loses impact with large classes. And, frankly, I am not interested in the ignorance of my fellow students (and neither are they in mine!). In theological colleges, lecturers are often too nice (believe it or not!) to students and pander too much to their worst vices (especially by catering to their passivity in learning...).
So: lectures - for or against? What are lectures good for? When do they work, when do they fail? What can a lecture give that you can't get from a book in less time?
The Perfect You?
-
Once we have an idea of what reality is, could be or will be, there are
other pressing questions that arise in the search for the Spirit’s
worldview. With ...
Posts
22 comments:
Excellent, virgin comment space, which I will now proceed to soil with bannality.
1/ The anonymous nature of a lecture allows one to recover from a night of sleep deprivation. Granted, this doesn't speak to its effectiveness in education, but it is valuable nonetheless. And it should be noted, a well rested student will learn betterer. Trust me - I slept through my Arts degree.
2/ A lecture can provide accountability, in the form of 'attendance', in the way that reading a book can't (if only I could think of a student who had written an essay on a book they hadn't read to prove my point...). Hmm, re-reading your blog, I suspect you may count this a vice...but surely not more of a vice than neither being lectured at or doing any reading?
3/ Every good lecture has three simple points. Every book has dozens of complex chapters. This blog response proves my point...or not.
Here endeth the lecture.
Greetings, Michael!
Reading this post was a refreshing break for me...letting my thoughts go to non-theological topis for awhile.
On the whole, I agree with what you write about lectures, and how their inefficiency and inability generally fails to stimulate actual learning. However, there are some positives I would add for consideration:
1. I tend to learn best through a combination of reading and some form of verbal interaction. Although I think small-group tutorials probably suit the verbal need better than lectures, the latter can be useful in stimulating thought.
2. Lectures "enflesh" the message. In a day & age where we are constantly tempted to think the "virtual" (or in theology, the "spiritual") is more important than the physical, I appreciate the opportunity to see a lecturer reminding us that ideas are inextricably tied to--and need for their very survival--human beings. (It's ironic, isn't it, that this comment is being posted on a blog.)
3. On a related note, I would argue that lectures enrich the learning process in very positive ways. We can skim books, looking for the proof-text that we need to confirm our own pre-suppositions, then discard them without further thought. Sitting in a lecture room reminds us that learning is fundamentally a human process, and the greatest benefit of learning may not be solely how much information one can upload into one's brain. As your comment noted, it's best if lecturers recognize this and consequently do not attempt to convey everything in their lectures.
Finally, I would add that the effectiveness of a lecture is not based on the lecturer alone. As all sorts of teachers will confirm, a classroom or lecture hall needs to be a positive learning environment. A major contributing factor to this end is the willingness of the student to engage in the lecture (through attentive listening, mental critique, openness to new ideas, etc.). I would think this element has recently faced--and will continue to face--serious challenges in the days of shortening attention spans, instant gratification, and internet availability (it was probably a horrible idea to make wireless access available in our lecture rooms at college).
So personally, I would encourage you to continue to make your lectures an integral part of your vocation as a teacher!
Thoughts?
Pat
The question is complicated in that a theological college may be training very different types of people for different kinds of ministry.
Not everyone who arrives at a theological College is going to have the academic background to work through a reading course and write a paper (at least not without a great deal of anxiety). But that certainly doesn't mean that such a person won't make a very good minister.
What about this proposal (given that I'm thinking about Moore College in Sydney):
Have multiple streams within the College. Create a 'Masters by coursework Degree' available to students with existing tertiary qualifications. It would offer the same units as the Bachelor degree but as a reading course. Each unit consisting of a reading list with a paper due at the end of the course (like the University of London Philosophy course http://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/LPSG/contents.htm). Weekly tutorials with a small group of 5-6 people to discuss the readings with a Tutor (could draw in Tutors from qualified clergy around the city).
Languages and Exegesis would be taught as combined classes in the regular format.
Students could move into or out of the Bachelors stream at the end of the first year, depending on whether they are coping.
There is nothing I find more frustrating than coming to class and having a lecturer read me their notes, or the article they wrote in a Bible Dictionary. My impression is that, rather than operating as the medium through which ideas are transmitted from books to student's brains, a good lecturer is a foil against which a student can test ideas developed through direct contact with texts themselves.
However, a point in favour. Lectures can help to break down the individualist approach to study. It would be sad if theological education became the solitary pursuit of individuals lost in a sea of paper.
Says Edmo: "2/ A lecture can provide accountability, in the form of 'attendance' "
Ha! You've never sat in a lecture at MTC (or are most Unis in Oz - where you can expect 100+ students).
Mike
As a freshly minted philosophy post grad student I can say that it is rather nice to not have to go to lectures. I am finding that reading groups, seminars and one on one discussions are far better for getting my head around the material.
Generally however, I think lectures are great for teaching concepts but rotten at teaching methodology or factual material (unless the lecturer is particularly fantastic - but then such a person could make drying paint engaging).
At ANU there have been problems with the first year undergrad philosophy in that the students just want to know what the right answer is while the lecturer is trying to teach them how to think philosophically. It is frustrating for everyone. In light of this we are considering experimenting with a course where, rather than a lecture, there is a debate (carefully planned of course) where two 'lecturers' each presents an argument on the topic. I really like the idea that the manner of delivery should reflect the nature of material being taught.
John
Hi Michael
I learnt far more in my time at Oakhill in comparison to Moore simply for the fact that it was predominantly tutorial, small group and student seminar.
I recently spent time with one of the best Moore College lecturers of last century at his largish house in the eastern suburbs and the most outstanding thing he shared had to do with helping people learn.
He said effective learning principles are
1. learning suited to the learner
2. learning as doing
3. learning as teaching others
4. learning through fellowship
on this count I would say
1. ask students what will help them and very few would say info download lectures.
2. too much theological learning becomes heady intellectualism if it is not forged at the coal face of christian service.
3. students must be teachers must be students
4. we should hang out 'moore' and encourage table talk
5. with all respect to Paddy, ignore what he said. Even the keenest of learners will find lectures boring unless the lecturer has phenonemenal dialogical ability. a rare pearl!
6. remember Bruce Smith.
every blessing
Shane
ooo...ooo! I got referenced!
Thanks, Shane. I'm happy to be ignored.
But I think your comment goes to illustrate my point. Without the humanizing elements of learning (which includes lectures), we are left to our own individual devices to determine what's best to "store" and what's best to ignore. That's a dangerous path that contributes to our unchecked individualism.
Fortunately, Michael and I had a brief face-to-face discussion about his post, within which we were able to affirm and respect one another's innate dignity as part of the learning process.
One thing more: again, a lecture's value does not entirely consist of whether or not it is "boring".
Hey - but thanks for reading my post!
P
Lectures are helpful in summarising material for students who are new to the subject. However the sort of student who benefits more from lecture based learning will be limited in the level of scholarship they can produce.
CS Lewis noted that the best kind of student was the sort who from an early age had a passion for the subject and held 'reading as a vice.' Such a student, in general, progresses faster and further by reading. For the record - It costs a lot of money to organise it, but the Oxbridge model of one to one tuition is hard to beat... Tho Jesus ran seminars for 12. But one student failed so maybe 12 is too large?!
Really interesting discussion.
So what would be the alternative? Are you thinking of the "Oxbridge" model: optional lectures with the bulk of the learning being through wall to wall essays that are then read aloud in one or two person weekly tutorials? (I remember David Wenham saying that they reminded him a lot of a "Quiet Time" - one student reads his work to another student while the Master listens in.)
As someone who's lived this model I'd have to say there are pros and cons. It actually hightens the "fleshing out" that Pat was talking about as you have more personal contact with your tutor and I think it enables you to get the best out of people who aren't great lecturers. It works for bright, self motivated students who are happy to find their own way around the literature. But I'm not sure if it would work for all the people I think should be ordained. They just haven't engaged with the tute system but have gained most from enthusiastic lecturers who bring the literature to life.
The other thing that I've found is that I've ended up not sure if I'm hitting all the bases of what I need to know for ministry. I don't know what's out there in terms of theology or what ministry will require so although I've had a whale of a time, there are big areas that I only have a very superficial knowledge of because I (in my wisdom) decided to read something else on that day. However you could counter by saying that if I've loved study so far I'll be more motivated to go read up about these later. I hope you'd be right.
You're lecturing to the converted here. Fewer lectures = more learnin'.
Likewise, no quarrel from me if the point is about the number of lectures: in my day, Moore had far too many. There are things that lectures are very good for, and I think they're indispensable --- I have nothing much to add to the positive statements up-list --- but that doesn't mean they're the answer to everything, or that more is better. Rather, I think this is a case where "less is more" has application.
You wrote "I am not interested in the ignorance of my fellow students (and neither are they in mine!)": amen to that. As to lecturers being too nice, and pandering: in my day (and of course, in my opinion) lecturers at College pandered to the students and their vices something dreadful. I don't know what it's like now.
Thanks: this is really helpful and interesting.
I think lectures in the right amounts can be an excellent method of learning, for many of the reasons given. But too many, and it is pretty much like learning by watching TV.
I found it hard, as both a student and a lecturer, to understand what an 'exegesis lecture' was supposed to achieve. I'd be interested in comment on that score.
Providing full notes to lectures is, in my view, a grave mistake I will never make again. I used to provide them AFTER the lecture, to ensure no-one was simply reading along: but then people simply handed them on to the next year in toto and people just read along. Waste of time.
I agree with your initial post, Michael.
Maybe a lecturer may say things in a book that he can't, wont or hasn't said in his books. He could adapt things to his audience or say things that are more speculative or semi-confidential.
I think you definitely want 1 on 1 tutorials but teachers and students need to make the most of them. It was something of a waste of time that I had to read out my essays but it was reasonably enjoyable and maybe better for the teacher than having to read them. Lots of my lectures with Dr John Day at Oxford weren't as useful as they could have been if I'd known what I wanted to get out of them.
I guess there's some place for seminars & classes and private study too.
As you suggest, its about working out the mix and what each method of teaching can do best and how.
I would make all forms of learning optional. Candidates can make their own choices with guidance and advice. If they make stupid choices they should fail and not be ordained.
At Oak Hill, folling the Moore College philosophy, I assume, there was virtually no choice in years 1 & 2 esp. if you did Greek & Heb, which were strongly encouraged for all who could, while Greek was compulsary for ordinands under 30, I think.
Looking forward to your lectures next year—whatever they end up looking like.
æ
"If they make stupid choices they should fail and not be ordained."
Shouldn't the academic training aspect of a theological college, and the question of ordination, be less tightly coupled than this? In practice they may be tightly bound in a particular place and time; in principle they are not, or should not, be the same thing.
As to "Providing full notes to lectures is, in my view, a grave mistake" I agree, for the reason that it gives institutional support to the idea that students should be studying the lecturer's words directly, rather than the lecture being a way provided into the material, complementary to the reading list , reflection, discussion and so on.
I'd make an exception for some of Graeme Cole's lectures on philosophy at Moore, which were very helpfully passed around in my day (in private copies, I think) after he'd stopped giving those courses. (This was just before he left for Ridley.) This exception proves the rule, I think. The discussion therein was at a much deeper level than was otherwise available at College at the time, and so could be said to function as a text in its own right. But most lecturers wouldn't view their material that way, or at least, they should not.
I just want to make it clear that my contribution was neither interesting nor helpful, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs a good hard look at themselves.
Speaking as a medical student, which is a long way from a theological qualification, I get the most out of lectures when they're introductions to the literature. Big topics in medicine get so much rubbish written about them that it can be really helpful to have 50 minutes of an expert in the field orientating everybody on the big questions - the terminology and framework of current thought, and the controversies to watch out for. Unless the texts on the subject are seriously incisive you'd be hard pressed to spend the first 50 minutes of your study of a topic more productively by yourself. I agree that lectures are a terrible way to "download" big tracts of factual information and that often they're useless at teaching methodology - although it's entirely possible to include case studies and examples that give insight into methodology. There we are. Two bits-worth from a student who's spent a sizeable portion of the last 3 years in various lecture theatres with various degrees of concentration...
mmmm here's my 2 cents for what its worth.
Not every student at theological college will enter a life of academia or go on to do a phd, this does mean they will be inferior ministers of the gospel but it does mean that they may struggle with the volume of reading and information!
For these students (like me!) surely college should help them learn and orientate them to the key issues. How is putting them in a room with a bunch of books going to help them learn? surely part of the role of college is to assist people to learn not just set a set of expectations for them to live up to?
The idea of tutorial is good because ministry never happens when you sit by yourself in a room, its by nature a community activity!
oops the above should read 'this DOESNT mean they will be inferior ministers..'
I was rushing because I'm running late for you guessed it a lecture!!
I think I learn best when there is a good balance between four things: input(lectures, MP3s, books etc), doing, reflecting and discussing. The problem I have is that at college there was little 'doing' and after college there is little 'input and discussing'.
When 'lecturing' the PTC course at church I found a difference in generational expectations: The young wanted discussion, while the older students didn't want to 'hear the half formed opinions of people who don't know anything', and so just wanted the teacher to talk. Perhaps they have developed a disciplined form of listening which is absent in our younger students?
I'm finding the repeated comments really interesting about the value of the lecture format in providing surveys of the literature. This chimes with my experience too.
I suppose this is like having a local show you around their city, or describe to you what the various suburbs are like.
It's hard to find written material that does this sort of thing, let alone doing it really well. Perhaps there is something about this kind of knowledge that lends itself to the lecture format.
Maybe when you get to the level of detailed arguments and facts you're better off in a reading group format or simply reading something for yourself.
Post a Comment