Warning: controversial proposition
I want to rethink how we talk about face to face learning at Macquarie.
For years research has been telling us that the lecture, sage-on-the-stage is out, guide-on-the-side is in.
There’s many a scholarly article addressing the effectiveness of lectures. We are always asking how to increase student engagement, how to address falling lecture attendance?
I don’t have the answer but I want to ask, why are we still talking about lectures? Why are we still timetabling lectures? If they don’t work, why are we still thinking in terms of the lecture? Let’s scrap the term! Let’s not use it anymore!
When I say lecture, what comes to mind?
If you said something other than powerpoint, lecture theatre, talking, rows of students, well done. My point is that ‘lecture’ is synonymous with a type of passive learning. By still referring to lectures, we are effectively (perhaps subliminally) supporting lectures as an effective strategy despite the evidence.
I don’t have a term for it yet. Mitch has poo-poohed Learning Time but I’m not letting the lack of a term stop me from trying to spread the idea.
If you didn’t have to have a lecture (or even a tutorial) but were able to decide the most effective format, what would you do? You have x amount of contact hours to use in any way you see as the best fit for your unit…. What would you do? What would you need that you don’t have now?