The Place of the Lecture in Higher Education

A recent article in the Chronicle (http://chronicle.com/article/More-Professors-Could-Share/64521/#comments) discusses whether professors or institutions should record lectures and make them available online.

Hidden in the conversation about who owns it, public access, and how students might use and benefit from such recordings is a key assumption about the nature of teaching and learning. While it is unstated, it appears that the article and the debate assume that higher education is primarily about knowledge transfer, ostensibly from faculty to student. Based on this assumption, the lecture is one method for facilitating that transfer. Further relying on this assumption, the next question is whether we need universities at all if students can simply "listen" to the lectures on their own.

Despite the framing of the issue around new technology, this is really part of an ongoing debate about the nature learning. Are teachers engaged in a form of banking in which we deposit knowledge into brains that will be accessed at a later date or are we more like fitness coaches who are helping people develop "healthy habits of the mind"?

As I get older, I am realizing that I view teaching through the lens of creating good intellectual habits. I just don't have much faith in the banking theory of education, especially as knowledge expands and changes. Moreover, the internet is really good at reminding us of names, dates, and definitions. On the other hand, the internet is not so good at helping us figure out how to evaluate information or apply that information to discrete contexts. This is where you need to talk to an actual human being and engage in a conversation. This is where "hands on" and experiential learning kick in. This is also why students need classes to jumpstart the processes of reflection and analysis. I guess this is why I don't really lecture, but try to hold discussions with my classes. As my friend, Chris Panza, says, education is not so much about knowledge but relationships and wisdom.

From what I can tell, much of the conversation around online lectures relies on the banking theory of education. So, I really don't have much of a problem with posting online lectures, but I don't think that is really a substitute for higher education though either.

Right now, there are tons of books in libraries that possess more information than I ever could ever relate to my students. However, they are not a substitute for actual classes even if the books could be made more widely accessible. The information is not enough. Online lectures, while probably better than many books, still are not engaging, experiential, or conversational enough to serve as the primary basis for teaching and learning for most students.

Oddly, after reading the article and thinking for a bit, I remembered why I don't lecture so much. I just don't believe in information transfer as the key element of learning. The key is dialogue and feedback. All this talk about online lectures speed up and/or increase the productivity of information dissemination, but it does not really revolutionize how individual feedback and guidance is handled. When someone figures out how to dramatically improve the productivity of my grading and working with students on formulating and editing papers, then we will have a real revolution in education!