Recently, lost in the abyss of state funded academia, I found myself in a group discussion with other professors and administrative personnel. A nameless woman in charge of assuring academic excellence in teaching moderated the discussion. This highly educated woman had accumulated all the knowledge known to man regarding the process of learning and imparting information. Here I stood in this room, being paid to hear her teach about teaching, rather than teaching the students in need of teaching because of my absence from my regular duties. Like most establishment minds, she and I did not see eye to eye.
The friction between us turned to a spark when, as a passing comment, she said, “… when you are lecturing, well you know what I mean, I hope nobody in this day and age is still lecturing…”. Being an instructor who almost exclusively lectures, I asked her why lecturing need go extinct. Her response: It has been shown that lecturing is an inferior form of instruction; studies have shown it over and over again. I snidely responded, “Inferior for whom? Inferior for what?”. Expressions in the room led me to believe that questioning this fact bordered on taboo. The expression on the woman’s face led me to believe she didn’t know anything about instruction. Since simple English questions seemed to overwhelm her, she asked that I rephrase the question.
After rephrasing, she answered my inquiry with equivocation. Stripped of the verbal pomp, she believed that all students and all subjects and all instructors should be taught and teach in the same manner, one that involves minimal lecturing. Moving past this, my follow up question was , “Which studies showed this? How did they measure this?”. What ammunition did she possess for her counterattack? Nothing. A blank stare. Then, I whimper of “I’ve read articles that show it.”
I’ve already talked about the problem of homogeneity in education. I won’t say much more. Asking the questions, “lecture is good for whom?”, “lecture is good when delivered by whom?”, and “lecture is good for teaching what?”, is incredibly important in this situation. If a person gives boring, dry, unimaginative, or confusing lectures maybe he shouldn’t be using that mode of instruction. If a person lectures like some artists write novels, then maybe it’s a very good idea. Don’t force round pegs into square holes and expect results. What works to teach advanced linear algebra to gifted graduate students does not work to teach beginning algebra to continuing education students. Don’t expect these kinds of courses to remotely resemble each other.
Now onto my bigger point, besides the obvious point that the public education system is a rotting corpse of misinformation and waste, up to and including the community colleges. Intelligent people do not read a newspaper article about a study. An intelligent person reads the study. An intelligent person reads the actual study. Intelligent people do not just read the abstract and the conclusions. That is not science. That is not thinking. Reading a journalist’s summary of a study, or the author’s summary of a study, is worthless. One may as well just invent truths from nothingness. An appointed expert in the field should especially not be partaking in this behavior. Researchers do two important things which require that you read their actual work: they lie, and they make mistakes. They’re human. They have agendas, and they have flaws. They want money, fame, and power like most people. The peer review process does not nullify this. Similarly, you must know two things about journalists: they rarely understand what they’re writing about, and they report stories not the truth. Journalists are writers. They’re not scientists. They usually don’t have the skills, or the will, to do rigorous research into the actual results and methodology of a study, and more importantly, they want money, fame, and power. The headline, “Research shows that current teaching methods work for some people and not for others. Results were largely inconclusive.”, doesn’t exactly bring much attention to you and your work. The headline, “New research shows sweeping reform needed in our educational system.”, has a much better shot. Read the studies and questions them.
I must say that the closer to a problem you are, the more depressing it seems.
