Lectures and Discussions

Invisible Adjunct has an interesting thread on the relative merits of lectures and discussions in college education. On the issue of whether lecturing is teaching, I'd definitely argue that it is. When preparing a lecture, you try to package information in a way that students will best understand and retain it by means of such devices as analogies, examples, and organization. This is, I believe, something that requires skill, and, at best, an ability to think on your feet and read your audience to pitch your performance accordingly.

That said, I am a strong proponent of discussions. For one thing, in the vast majority of lecture classes I've been in, the content of the lecture has really been little more than the content of the reading in different packaging. (This is probably less true in fields that have yet to develop a strong range of readings suitable for college students.) Granted, that packaging is often interesting, but that's still a lot of what we're talking about. In addition, I think there are three points that speak to why I consider discussions the real core of a liberal arts education.

First of all, at least in history, there are often many possible views or approaches to something. One of the most interesting assignments I did as an undergraduate was in Dr. David Costigan's Civil War class when we had to go find out what certain historians said about why the North won. We then got to class and discussed the different ideas. Sure, Dr. Costigan was more qualified than us to decide which was the best, but we had read articles in which each was defended by a reputable historian more eminent than he was, so would we really have been better off just listening to his view? Some say that we need to just give students something to go on before they get to more complicated questions, but then I say, "Why?" As one of the IA commenters pointed out, research shows clearly that people learn material better if they have to process it in some fashion, and I'm quite convinced that the average undergraduate is capable of more than the average university currently asks of them.

Second, is our goal as liberal arts educators to produce students filled with knowledge simply for the sake of being learned, or do we aspire to have them use this knowledge as part of an educated society? I believe it's not enough to know about Reconstruction. I think you can also get students engaged in the process of discussing such questions as the nature of the relationship between the states and the federal government. One key role of discussion sections is to try to set up a habit of exchanging ideas based on the knowledge gained in lectures and readings. Ideally, of course, this helps them become better thinkers, makes them learn to consider and stand up for their ideas when necessary, and accomplishes other goals which I think are valuable for a member of society.

Finally, in addition to course content, educators usually aspire to pass along a skill set that is almost always best done in discussion. I have spent three semesters as a TA doing discussion sections and one as a lecturer in my own course doing both lectures and discussions. In my own course, one of the readings was Karen Armstrong's Muhammad, one I chose in part because its presentation sets up interesting questions about why books are written and how purpose and intended audience affects the contents. This sets up some ideas about critical reading which I felt were best addressed via class discussion. Students also need to learn about primary sources and what historians do with them. Several times in discussion I've divided the class into small groups, given each a source to analyze, and had each group give their comments on the source to the class as a whole. This allows both for better teaching, as I can go around and get a chance to work with each group on their skill development, and more coverage, as, say, during a given week students get a chance to at least here an analysis of a fatwa on reproduction, waqf deed by a woman, and whatever the other two sources were.

The IA comments thread brings out a lot of the common arguments against discussions. One is that students don't do the preparation. To me, this is a problem to be solved rather than a reality to be accepted. At my undergraduate school, history professors would often make us write short papers on the readings in which we had to discuss the author's point and the evidence used to make it. Through these papers (originally done at QU by the above-mentioned Dr. Costigan), I basically learned to become a historian, and even were that not my interest would have become a better consumer of news accounts and who knows what else. Things like this can at least bring everyone's reading habits up to the level where serious discussion is possible. As far as good students having to listen to everyone else, I have yet to have (or be) a student who couldn't have learned something from their peers. Finally, on the problem of students who just participate a little because they have to, I'm convinced the same thing happens in lecture, and we just don't notice as much. Try canvassing a class for memories of a lecture from the week before, and you'll usually find students paying only enough attention to jot everything down in preparation for cramming the night before the exam, after which it will promptly be forgotten.

This, at least, is my take. Some students like it, some don't. At QU, my friends and I definitely preferred discussion to lecture; at UW, I've seen letters in the student newspaper complain about people asking too many questions in lecture when others are paying to hear the words of the Great Authority. For what it's worth, many students indicated to me they thought discussion was a strength of the course I lectured in, though I've definitely presided over discussion sections that failed miserably. Here again, though, I'm sure I've also given worthless lectures I just didn't see failing because there was so little interaction. Ultimately, either lecture or discussion formats can succeed or fail. It's all in your strengths as a professor and the chemistry of individual classes.

ADDENDUM: The course I lectured in was a 200-level course which was about half freshmen and the rest an equal mix of sophomores - seniors. I disagree that discussions are primarily for advanced classes. In fact, I think it important to introduce basic habits and skills as early as possible.