Comments on: Red Herrings Overboard

By: hestal

hestal — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:37:01 +0000

Tell ‘em what you’re gonna tell ‘em, tell ‘em, tell what you told ‘em, is the process I followed while teaching nearly fifty years ago and in many business presentations (oral and written) ever since. I think it worked well; at least in business I closed the deal more often than not.

By: G. Weaire

G. Weaire — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:38:42 +0000

The “lecture and readings” question is a bit tricky for me, in the one course that I teach where it matters. (Obviously, beginning language instruction means that you have to rehash stuff, over and over again.)

Some students have a learning style where it helps them to have a textbook that reinforces the lectures, and vice versa. Others, obviously, don’t. I receive strong pro and con opinions whenever I ask the question on evals.

My uneasy compromise is to have an optional general textbook available for those that want it, alongside the assigned (all primary) readings. Even though I don’t plan my lectures to coincide with the textbook, it does give them a lot of the same information in a different way, if that’s what a particular student wants.

By: philosoraptor

philosoraptor — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:23:07 +0000

This is an inspiring post and reminds me of what I *should* be striving to do more frequently. I’d like to hear a bit more from you, though, about whether (on your conception of what a lecture is for) it matters whether the students, or a significant number of them, have done the reading for that day. I guess I’m still focused on your second point.

By: Fats Durston

Fats Durston — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:09:54 +0000

epistemological jungle.

Ahem. Epistemological rain forest.

Rehash works only if you make it value-added, e.g., you explain or explore or respond to the reading. If you just restate it, I think students eventually either stop doing the reading or stop turning on their brains during a lecture.

Oh yes–I always attempt not to merely replay the readings–throw in some primary/secondary documents (whichever the reading wasn’t) to reinforce or complicate, but sometimes fall into the rehashing.

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:07:16 +0000

I work qualifiers and debate in now, but basically as an aside, whereas when I started, I’d sometimes make these convoluted lectures that were about nothing but an epistemological jungle.

Rehash works only if you make it value-added, e.g., you explain or explore or respond to the reading. If you just restate it, I think students eventually either stop doing the reading or stop turning on their brains during a lecture.

I think give-and-take if I understand you right is how I lecture most of the time–I’ll work up to a tricky question then throw it out to the students, work with it a bit, and then take the reins again.

By: Fats Durston

Fats Durston — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:16:57 +0000

What s/he said.

I definitely still feel (#1) an uneasiness when I skip qualifiers and debates, the “sin” of which you speak.

An awful lot of students (how they’re treated in other classes?) seem almost bewildered (#2) when the lecture topic doesn’t rehash the reading. Although I never do it as well as I like (add #3), I try to use lectures to explore how multiple readings engage with a particular theme.

Really need to work on #3.

What’s your take on the give-and-take lecture–one that intersperses easy and tricky questions with the original material?

By: jpool

jpool — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:41:14 +0000

I find this really useful. Thanks.