With the advent of new technologies, nearly all levels of education, from grammar schools to college classrooms, have welcomed new modes of learning. Among them is active learning, which implements group discussion and input. It is largely a response to the shrinking attention spans of younger students and new studies that argue that engaged students are more likely to succeed and enjoy their time in the classroom.
Many education experts have published research on this issue, though professors may have some of the most insightful opinions. A recently published op-ed in the New York Times has temporarily revived the discussion about learning in college classrooms. Author Molly Worthen, who is an assistant professor of history at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, defends the college lecture against its critics and suggests that, despite it being seen as an outdated mode of teaching, lecturing can be an exciting learning experience.
After explaining the qualities of a good lecturer (someone who does not recite an encyclopedia article but communicates “the emotional vitality of the intellectual endeavor”), Worthen suggests that lecturing is not a passive learning experience. On the other hand, a lecture “teaches students that listening is not the same thing as thinking about what you plan to say next — and that critical thinking depends on mastery of facts, not knee-jerk opinions.”
In the world of academia, there is no “one-size-fits-all” style of teaching. As the area of study varies, so does the most effective way of teaching it.
At Fordham, there is no definitive way to examine how professors teach, though it is likely that students have had experience with all kinds of styles of teaching. Across this spectrum, students may have their favorite styles and professors, but one thing is certain: no style of teaching is worse than the dictation style.
This style may not have a catch-all name but most students know it when they see it. The professors begins the class with either a presentation or a set of notes, and reads directly from them for an entire class session. The professor may momentarily depart from the prepared text, but, for the majority of the course, reads word for word what is prepared. And the worst part is that students often have the text in front of them or will be sent the presentation after class.
If there is an attendance policy in place, each class session is nothing more than a formality. Students show up, listen and know that if they missed anything the professor said, it is in the presentation slides.
Could anything be more mind-numbing than this?
This is not to say that the content of these presentations are always boring. It could be detailed, organized and informative. It could change the student’s perspective on a subject of his or her interest.
But it makes one question what part of this makes a college education “invaluable.”
When students enroll in college, they are looking for an intellectual challenge that encourages them, according to Fordham’s mission statement, “to foster in all its students life-long habits of careful observation, critical thinking, creativity, moral reflection and articulate expression.” Does listening to someone, however qualified, educated and widely-published, read from a prepared text, foster these habits?
When a student registers for a course, whether it is required or an elective, one expects to have a new experience. At Fordham, that is certainly possible with a lecture. Monessa Cummins, the chairwoman of the classics department and lecturer at Grinnell College, suggests in Worthel’s piece that lectures can “place a premium on the connections between individuals facts.”
Doing this in a classroom setting at the college level requires an engaged professor who does not recite the words from a pre-written script, but builds an argument, interacts with students and engages their curiosities — and does not read from a prepared text.
