opinion
lecture Revisited
A speaker a t a recent ACS education symposium stridently remarked during the course of his talk that: "Lecturing, as far as I'm concerned, is dead as a dodo." Similar pronouncements heard recently from educational experts, college administrators, and faculty colleagues have made me reconsider why I continue the "dead" practice of lecturing, and I gather the same is true to a greater or lesser degree among a great number of other faculty. In this communication, I would like to point out that'there is more to the college experience than learning simple skills with programmed learning materials, and to present some ideas about the utility of the lecture system in comparison with some of the more recent self-paced programmed "systems approaches" such as the Keller plan ( I ) . It is ironic that the statement announcing the death of the lecture system was delivered by lecture to a packed audience of some 450 chemical educators. Indeed, a majority of the worst lectures I've had the privilege of attending were delivered as parts of meeting programs. Let's propose semi-seriously that because many lectures at ACS meetings are poor, the needs of the ACS would best be served by doing away with meetings altogether and replacing them with the circulation of programmed modules developed by the erstwhile authors of technical papers. This proposal would, of course, he met with a flood of well-deserved scorn from the chemical community. It is true that the delivery of papers by lecture provides authors with a rapid, flexible means to communicate with willing audiences, hut more importantly, much in the way of informal one-to-one communication between authors and audiences is possible after the formal technical sessions are over. Critics of the lecture system in their missionary enthusiasm generally compare the best of the newer approaches with the worst that the lecture has had to offer: thousands of students nacked into hadlv illuminated lecture auditoriums, blackboard writing ihegible from the third row back. mumhline. faceless lecturers who d i s a ~ n e a rfrom the stage a t theend of class, not to be found again by students, and true-false mystery examinations which bear no discernible relationship to the material "covered" in the course. Most college graduates can recall examples of moribund lecturing as just described, but to be fair and honest, even the most vocal critics of the lecture system must admit to experience with superior, interactive lecture schemes. I t is possible, if the personality of the instructor and the physical characteristics of the classroom permit, to share interactive instruction with as many as 300 students a t a time. Provision of constant student-instructor interaction and feedback, frequent non-trivial tests which instruct as well as measure, and legible and audible teaching aids are essential, as is frequent application by the students of the material being covered. As is the case with other instructional systems the lecture system can be used well or mismanaged depending on the skill and dedication of the instructional staff. Criticism of the lecture system is largely directed at large enrollment, lower division courses, because the research component of our graduate programs has always (when well administered) provided self-paced, open530
/ Journal of Chemical Education
ended, discovery learning with a great deal of individual interaction between student and professor and a minimum of lecturing. The process of teaching and learning in a college or university has conveniently been factored into two functions: a short-range training function and a long-range education function (2). In chemistry the simple training function comprises student mastery of tasks such as the use of nomenclature, equation balancing, and the solution of simple stoichiometry problems. This training function is easily defined in terms of educational objectives and, for this reason, constitutes the area in which most educational research has been done. In the long-range education function, the important factor seems to be the enthusiasm (3) imparted by the teacher, which drives the student to acquire a mature understanding of the subject long after formal course work is done, although it is also true that a small fraction of students are self-starters who need no external inspiration. Each of us remembers two or three master teachers from our own college experience. The education function is almost impossible to measure, but most of us would agree that i t is here that the unique college experience is centered. It is, of course, of extreme importance for the student to master the objectives of the training function to serve as a background for this mature understanding, and it is here that I think the new approaches have the most to offer us as teachers. However, the complete teaching process requires a balance between the two functions. As J. A. Youne has out it ( 4 ) : "We cannot accurately describe the processes gy which mature understanding is achieved. but we can and should describe the ovek steps involved in gaining knowledge which is prerequisite to understanding." The Keller plan, when enthusiastically put together and used, is undoubtedly one of the most effective training systems t o come alone recentlv. As it is eenerallv used in chemistry, a composite ~ e l l e rsystem iight include the following: the student works at his own pace on carefully constructed, elaborate learning materials including demonstrations, written materials, slides, movies, etc. He takes u p learning modules in sequence and on completing each is given an objective examination by a (student) proctor. If the student passes, he goes on to the next module; if he fails, he is allowed to review the material before taking an alternative exam. The better student finishes the course early in the semester while the slower student may lag through several semesters. The program is organized on the "pyramid plan" where there may he five students reporting to each undergraduate proctor, five proctors reporting to each graduate assistant, five assistants reporting to each faculty member, and so on. Lectures, when they appear at all, are tangential and limited in attendance to those students who complete units rapidly. The Keller plan is a competency-based system in which all students are brought up to the same competency level over a variable time period, while conventional svstems are largely time-based systems in which students are brought to variable levels of proficiency in a fixed time period (the semester., ouarter. ortrimester) The decision to convert totally to a training system such as the Keller plan must be considered carefully
.
1) Although a suggestion for making sophisticated modules wide-
ly available has been made (5), at present it is up to the individual to produce his own. The cost in time in setting up such elaborate programmed materials is cansiderable and much faculty time (6) must be generated administratively or at the expense of research in order to produce a superior system. There is no question that the expense is justified when the authors produce the materials for educational research, hut a wise faculty would be well advised to do an extensive cast analysis before launching a complete conversion. 2) Once the required time has been spent in setting up such a system, sweeping course revision is more difficult than with the lecture method. 3) The Keller system requires the use af objective tests, with many alternative forms available. R. B. Johnson, after a review of such programmed testing materials (7). noted "a disproportionately higher use of cow-level cognitive objectives (i.e., those which test for recall and memorization of information)." It would appear then that the freedom of the instructor to emolw . . a wide varietv of testine" methods which serve to teach as well as to evaluate is severely curtailed by the Keller plan testing approach. 4) Once faculty enthusiasm for the new approach has evaporated and students have found ways to beat the system, there is the danger common to all educational approaches that the system will become arid (as many freshman chemistry Laboratory programs had before open-ended Labs came along). 5) The poorer student who is allowed to inch through all his programmed courses over two and three semesters should not he deluded into thinking that medical school (or graduate school) entrance is the reward for hanging fire to a nine-year B.S. Thus. consideration of the Keller d a n reooens the auestion of the ahnlishment of grading. ~ahfnfllasrt hay be, dne advantage of thr present rut-throat, competitive system is that it aids the srudcnr who is slaw in chemrstry in makrng a realistic career choice early in his college tenure. 6) The constant refinement of self-developed courses under student scrutiny in the interactive lecture system can be a great help to the young instructor in the development of his personal set of chemical eoncepts-we all learn by teaching. However, consider the plight of the young instructor who comes on the scene as an educational manaeer .. after . the svstem has been dwelnped, or purcha~edfrom a publrsher. 7 ) Large lecture halls wlth fixed seating represent a considerable capital investment bul are nut readlly adaptable for optimum usage with the Keller plan. 8) Finally, the use of the "pyramid plan," with i t s insertion of several layerb of junior administrators between the student and the faculty member, is at least as susceptible, if not more so, to the isolation of faculty from students as is the large lecture system. In fact, many of the systems writers in K-12 programs have worked to remove as completely as possible the personalitv of the instructor from the instructional svstem. I feel that. on the other hand, the college experrence should rnaxlmrze ~tudentcontact wrth a wrde dlversny of mrtructor perwnallties.
A recent issue of the Sunday supplement to the local newspaper contained a n account of a store front "learning center" located on the main street of a northeastern community. Ctistomers pay $2-7 hour inr programmed, machine-administered training in such areas a s languages, speed reading, touch typing, etc. Why not chemistry training also? With the present push towards "accountahility" on the part of legislatures and hoards of trustees, and with the present financial difficulties in higher education, complete conversion without regard to quality to one of the systems approaches may offer a convenient excuse for a drastic pruning of faculty and research. The message is clear that our public universities, which are pricing themselves out of the market, must show the community that they are uniquely more suited for long-range educacan claim no orieinalitv ~" , for this model. It describes the result ot what evolved over n tour-year pmud m the one complete systems applicatmn toa college course which I have observed. ~~
tion than such store front centers, or face extinction. The unique advantage which the college or university offers, and the factor necessary for the long-range education function, is student contact with a variety of functioning, active scientific minds. Learning is done by the student; the instructional system exists only to facilitate learning. No single system will serve the needs of all students. The most rational plan would seem to involve a superior combination of these systems (8). Thus, the following model' appeals to me: courses should he organized so that part of the training function is discharged uia such strategies a s the Keller plan early in the course. After initial training is complete, the lecturer comes on the scene assured that his student population is competently trained in those areas covered. If students are precertified for lectures by programmed training, lectures can he used for that function they serve hest: the presentation of exciting material in an informal fashion to students who are all ready t o learn. As the course proceeds, lectures are suspended by the instructor for programmed training whenever the subject matter dictates. The moderate use of student proctors in such a scheme does not require t h a t the majority of the on-campus time of upper division students he spent in instruction, as complete conversion would seem to. Yet i t does allow upperciassmen to spend some time in instruction, a powerful advantage of the Keller plan. The relative importance of lectures versus Keller-type training should he determined by the instructor (9). It appears that the teacher will remain a n essential element in college education until the time when computers have reached such a state of sophistication and accessihility that the young can he plugged a t birth into some sort of surrogate-mother environment. Frankly, the prospect frightens me. I prefer the present system where a student learns (or does not) from a random selection of human teachers to whatever extent his drives and abilities allow. Of course, college education is not the only area where interaction among humans provides a necessary spice. I close with a suggestion for the reform of college football. It is cruel and heartless to force football players to perform under pressure during a two-hour period on Saturday afternoon: after all, not every player may he in the mood to play hall. The present athletic system is time-based, in that i t measures what a team is able to do a t game time and fails to measure what a team may finally he capable of when pressure is off. I suggest then, a competencybased system in which individual members of the team go a t various athletic self-paced tasks all through the week. A player can, of course, try a task as many times a s he chooses. The winning team in each game is not decided until far beyond the football season since many players will wish to put off their tasks for personal reasons. Want to guarantee your home mortgage with the gate receipts??
IJterature (1)
o,
Cited
b a a i n g referenrrp ~ i t e dby ereen. J ~ .B., A,. J COII sci. hi^ hi^^ I, [11,50 11971). similar sppraeeh~s am d . ~ ~ t i b by ~ d ~ i ~ b ~D. r tJ., , J. CHEM. EDUC., 49, 56 11972): White, J. M., Clcse, J. S.. and McAlister, J. W., 3. CHEM. EDUC., 19, 772 119721; Leo., M. w.-M., J. CHEM. EDUC., so. 49 115731: ~ e w i s D. , K.. and EDUC., 50, 51 1 ~ 7 3 )and ; ~ ~ e t hJ. r ,E., J COII Sri. wolf, M A., J. CHEM. Teaching, 2. No. 3.30 (19731.
,,,,,,,,,
cHEM,ED,c ,,,(,,
,,,,
131 h~~iter,B.w..J.CHEM.EDuc.,49.3881972).
~~;g$;~;;j;~~~{;~~~~,;~,";,"~~~,"~~~;
16) .-science ~ t t h .open~ ~ i ~ ~ m authom, i t y them. , ~ ~it., ~ 7,506, ~ i (1~11. ~ ~ ~ (7) John%". R.B.. Ju"'o'CO". J.. 42.1.18 (1971). 181 Maim, N. a. F.,Amor PsyeholqlaZ 26,722 (1971). (91 M C K ~ S CW. ~ ~J..~ , hi^^ T~PS:A for the ~ c ~callege i T~S ~ C~~ . i or'' 16th Ed.). 0. C. Heath, 1969.p 10.
Edward K. Mellon
~~~
~
Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306
Volume 50, Number 8. August 1973
/
531
~
~
