An article in the 15-February online edition of the Washington Post traces the movement away from large-lecture classes in Washington-area and Maryland universities. The article, entitled “Colleges looking beyond the lecture” and written by Daniel de Vise, begins with the statement, “The lecture hall is under attack.” STEM programs (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) are especially interested in “retooling” the lecture” since the format is blamed, at least partially, for the attrition rates in these difficult programs: “About one-third of students enter college aspiring to STEM majors. Of that group, less than half complete a degree in a STEM field. Some migrate to the humanities. Others drop out.”
The article describes ways of diminishing the passive experience of the lecture in favor of active learning. Teachers break up large audiences into smaller groups as well as employ interactive smart boards, ask-your-neighbor discussions, impromptu teacher-student questions, and instant surveys. An alternative to retooling the lecture format is to keep the traditional lecture, but keep it out of the classroom. But, one might ask, why not scratch the lecture completely? Lectures are still useful…and popular. At the same time that active learning is on the rise, so too is the proliferation and popularity of online lectures from world-class faculty at [e.g.] Harvard, Yale, and MIT. De Vise writes, “General education lecture courses vary little from one university to the next. Students know they can log on to their laptops and watch the very same lecture—or a better one by a celebrity professor at a rival university.” Indeed, the lecture has become “a commodity that can be bought or shared.”
If there is utility in the lecture, perhaps it exists more as a preparation for the in-class experience. De Vise offers Jane Greco, a chemistry instructor at Johns Hopkins, as an example. Greco “records her lectures and posts them online as homework, a popular use for the derided tool. Greco uses her time in the lecture hall as a sort of ‘office hours for everybody,’ an interactive discussion of the lab experiment students completed in the previous session. One goal, she said, is ‘to separate out what you’re getting in our classroom that you can’t get online.’”
Perhaps there is some applicability to the ILE experience, where active learning/adult learning is the official modus operandi. One can imagine a classroom at one end of the spectrum in which the bulk of the lesson is spent clicking through dozens upon dozens of bulletized images on a screen. One can imagine a second classroom at the opposite end of the spectrum in which the prepackaged lecture, instructor memory aides learning aides have been reduced to, say, five slides while maximum use is made of the classroom’s white boards, small-group discussions, and structured debates. The latter classroom is obviously preferable from the perspective of both the active-learning and adult-learning models.
But a third option (among others, I’m sure) exists. MG Edward Cardon who once articulated this idea, albeit to little effect. Put simply, follow Jane Greco’s example above. Perhaps instructors might consider giving their adult learners the memory learning aides as homework as opposed to making the slides the crux of the classroom experience. Instructors and adult learners could—with the basic preliminaries of, say, doctrine out of the way—be able to discuss with some depth how the fundamental or doctrinal substance in last night’s PowerPoint presentation plays out in real-world problem situations as documented by scholars, policymakers, and military professionals writing in the pages of, say, Joint Forces Quarterly, Military Review, Parameters, Prism, or even strictly scholarly publications such as the Journal of Conflict Resolution and the American Political Science Review.
Early in the course, and particularly during the C100 and (partly) C200 lessons, this third way is perfectly suitable since—really—very little PowerPoint is necessary to have superb learning occur with the associated topics. Later in the course, when students are struggling with, say, the integration of design, critical-factor analysis, and the Joint Operations Planning Process, a superb lecture given as homework would—almost without a doubt—increase the chances of the material sticking since instructors could use the course time not to review the doctrinal material for the first time, but to observe and coach the officers as they apply the planning skills in the classroom…at the whiteboard…in groups…arguing the operational environment. If the pedagogical intent is to have the material and skills stick in the cranium (as opposed to say, achieving, a log-normal grade distribution), this third way might be worth looking into. Another benefit, strictly for the students, might include a more efficient use of time. A PowerPoint pack or lecture given as homework would reduce students’ preparation time at the margins and–in the aggregate–increase the time for reflection, inspire further study along a certain topic, increase intellectual endurance over the ten-month course, and–yes–increase the time for rest and personal/family pursuits, especially during the early, tornadic portion of the course.
Tino
Celestino Perez, Jr., Ph.D.
Lieutenant Colonel, Strategist
Assistant Professor/DJIMO
ILE Scholars Program–Local Dynamics of War
2 Comments on "Celebrating the Lecture (and PowerPoint)…as Homework"
Although I have not been exposed to the entire teaching strategy detailed in the article my DLRO and SGA did use some of the techniques the article described. For one, my ILE Instructors avoided the “death by PowerPoint method” and used very little of the slide package to achieve the teaching point objective. Secondly, they involved the students into the teaching point with practical exercises and had us “figure it out” on the white board as teams. They refused to use the outdated methods of hour long lectures without student involvement and back their lectures up with non-stop slides. I would suggest taking this method one step further by making this teaching method a requirement for all ILE graduates.
Like many of my colleagues I am making effective use of my time by pursuing a Master’s degree. The course meets every other weekend throughout the year. There is a marked difference between what the civilian education system uses as strategy for teaching and what is used here at ILE. Some, not all of the Instructors from my Master’s program fall into the trap of straight lecturing for hours on end without getting the students involved with the learning. Or they dim the lights and roll out the unending slide package and then test your learning by issuing a written test and giving a PowerPoint presentation.
What results is frustrated students who feel that they have wasted their entire weekend without really learning anything. I believe that using the ILE training model would have changed this. It is a new learning strategy that I had not been exposed to before. It does not allow for a student to sit in the back of the classroom and just unconsciously take in the lesson. It does require us to use the self-preparation time that is provided here at ILE and to come prepared to be involved into the lesson plan. Using the whiteboards and figuring out complex problems as a team and using practical exercises such as role playing staff sections taught me a lot. More than if it used the old teaching method.
As field grade leaders, we are required to train our subordinate staffs in order to serve the Commanders and by extension the Army better. Using the method described by LTC Perez and adopting the methods of my Instructors and modifying it to the audience would be a useful training model. This will increase their involvement into the planned training event and will improve their grasp of the teaching points. This will go a long way into creating a learning environment for the organization.
MAJ Rod Pfalzer
Staff group 23-B
As a recent student of LTC Perez, I wholeheartedly attest to the effectiveness of his proposed methods. Without question, students at any level learn best by personal experience and active engagement. While a lecture may prove worthwhile for the familiarity level, long-term cognitive retention is best be gained by exercising the tutored skills.
As an example, ILE students were treated to an exceptionally entertaining and thought provoking lecture from former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Undoubtedly, each student took away some nuggets of wisdom from the lecture, yet in practical terms, every attendee will truly benefit by putting that gained wisdom into future action. Additionally, during lectures, the listener’s time of useful consciousness is somewhat limited…especially if the speaker is not well spoken. Hence, teaching methodologies employed must appropriately match the desired learning objective.
By way of contrast, during one of LTC Perez’s classes, we were tasked with accomplishing analysis level thinking – about critical thinking. The class was tasked with homework of watching an online lecture video and bringing notes to class. What followed was the best in-class discussion and learning I’ve participated in – due to the prior preparation of the subject matter and the overall educational format. The video was used as a spring-board to generate friction of ideas. The friction then facilitated further analysis and refinement of true critical thinking. If the idea is to get students to generate original thought rather than simply regurgitate learned responses, I emphatically advocate for spending time in the classroom “getting our hands dirty.”
As an U.S. Air Force officer, I consider myself an adult educator as well as a leader. In the future, I plan to imitate LTC Perez’s education methods simply because – they work.
…and yes, my grades for ILE from LTC Perez were posted prior to the writing of this commentary.
Chili
Mark D. Howard
Major, US Air Force
Electronic Warfare Officer/ILE Student 12-01