next »

[t_r_b]

I write an outline of the lecture on the board (usually ~4 main topics for a 50-minute lecture) and use PowerPoint only for showing maps, images, and quotations. Since students like to get lecture outlines via the course website, I graciously provide them, in the form of the ~4 item outlines that I had written on the board. The outlines give them the topics covered in lecture, but offer no indication of what I actually said about those topics.

My evaluations, I fear, will include lots of demands for more substantive PowerPointy lecture outlines. I am determined to hold firm. But I will try to mix in more of the PowerPointy maps and images and quotations: those work quite well for my purposes.

That said:

Lectures are the single most effective way to communicate large amounts of content (apart from writing). 

Perhaps, but as you noted above, it all depends on your goals in the classroom. For some purposes, and for some audiences, traditional lectures work well. For others, they don't.

Also, I find the critics of content-centered teaching quite persuasive. The vast majority of my survey-level students will never take another course in my field. They are taking my course in order to satisfy some requirement or other. They will forget a good chunk of the content of my lectures almost immediately. They will remember a good deal of it for perhaps a few months. Almost none of it will remain in their brains after another semester. So I don't think delivering lots of content is accomplishing much in the long run. If, on the other hand, they leave the class better able to read critically, write coherently, and - yes - take decent lecture notes, they will benefit throughout their college careers and beyond. The content I provide in lectures gives them ideas to think, write, and take notes about. But at the gen ed level, at least, the content is a means to an end, not the end in itself.

[temporaryname]

I'm so freakin' tired of people referring to PowerPoint as if it were some major technological innovation. Unless you embed lots of videos and other flashy stuff, it's JUST AN ELECTRONIC MEANS OF PRESENTING AN OUTLINE, folks! Some people use it well, some people use it poorly. But if you're going to dismiss it out of hand, then you might as well dismiss blackboards, whiteboards, and overheads.

<snip>   

Generally agreed--if someone uses Powerpoint well, they should do so. (Unfortunately, in my observation there are few who have that skill.)

I have two big problems with Powerpoint:

1. It tends to make classroom presentation a bit too linear for my tastes. This isn't a problem for a lecture class with 300 students, but in a lecture with even 35 students, reasonably often a student will ask a question that lets me go in an unforeseen but profitable direction for a few minutes. Powerpoint tends to stifle this, in my experience.

2. This is more a technology issue than a Powerpoint one, but using Powerpoint requires me to darken the lights at the front of the room. This means that I'm less able to see the students, and (unless I stand directly in front of the projector) my students are less able to see me.

[eumaios]

Does caning students count as a traditional method? Our school has been pushing electronic shock collars for the past five years, but I wish administration would let us return to some of the old, proven ways.

[betty_p]

I'm with Prokraz. Many of my routine lectures are on PowerPoint--especially the ones that involve visuals or sample sentences or paragraphs (English prof here). But most of them are still board-certified. The oldest ones are like well-choreographed pas de deux between me and the chalk board.

Eumaios, don't knock the shock collars until you've tried them. The drool is unsightly, though.

[comp_queen]

This thread is awesome.  Chime to you all.

[rcjett]

I usually do lecture format, but I decided this semester to do a Powerpoint per chapter with main points highlighted (no content, just themes).

The students said they liked the powerpoint slides, but they seemed to do a lot worse. With the slides, they didn't take notes. They just assumed that the tests would cover what was on the slides, which was wrong, and their grades suffered accordingly.

In previous semesters, I lectured, used the board, initiated disucssions, and watched students take notes. I always thought, however, that I was doing something wrong because so many other instructors were using PP slides, and maybe I was missing the boat.

Next semester, I'm reverting back to lecture, using PP slides sparingly (photos, maps). They really hinder more than they help, at least in my experience.

[mystictechgal]

When I have taught people to use PPt, my emphasis has always been on using it, essentially, as one might use hand-held 3x5 note cards.  It is a way of providing an overview sketch of the flow of discussion, keeping both the presenter and the audience on track.  It may also be productively used when illustrations are useful to understanding a point under discussion--whether they be charts and graphs, photos, or videos.  Additionally, it may be productive to include terminology, if for no other reason than spelling counts, and in a somewhat darkened room (that can be a drawback if used in a room large enough to require it) going back-and-forth to a board is potentially problematic.

What it should not be, imo, is a word-for-word presentation of material.  The discussion--the actual points of information--should come about in-between, if you will, the points on the slides.  It also should never be permitted to become the presentation.  In other words, if there is a technological glitch in the middle of the presentation--the computer freezes up, you accidentally advance multiple slides, etc., you should be capable of continuing the presentation without much, if any, muss or fuss, and your audience should still be receiving the necessary information.

In other words, it is used to enhance, not become, the presentation.  If the presenter intends to advance 1 slide, and it skips 2, the best response is a glance over the shoulder at the screen, and an acknowledgement that a mistake has been made while ignoring the skip: "Oops.  Well, we'll get there in a moment, but right now I want to talk about (finish talking about) x.  Moving on..."   When the talk catches up with the slide that came up in error, a simple hand gesture indicating that you're now back in synch should be enough.  With very few exceptions--usually involving graphics--a technology glitch should not derail the flow of the talk, causing the lecturer to move their focus from the audience to the technology.  If it is necessary to back up the slides, it is helpful if the lecturer is skilled enough to do so while still moving forward with the information: "Ah, here we are.  You can see that x is what I was just describing..."

It is this last part that I see most people, professionals and students, struggling with the most.  And, the more one is relying on the PPt to provide information, the worse the struggle seems to be.  I've always emphasized that the presenter's notes should be separate from their PPt--even if they're just a printed copy of their slides.  If the electricity on the computer circuit suddenly cuts out, they should be able to complete their talk with aplomb and without the PPt.

The most important skill I can teach is how to understand the technology well enough that you can deal with the unexpected with negligent ease.  What I can't teach is how to continue if you're actually using it as a crutch for the information you wish to impart. 

Use the technology, don't let the technology use you.  It's a potentially valuable guide, or enhancement, but at no time should it's use impede the actual flow of information.  In that regard it's not much different from the slide projectors of times past--that's really all it is, after all.   

[cc_alan]

I have two big problems with Powerpoint:

1. It tends to make classroom presentation a bit too linear for my tastes. This isn't a problem for a lecture class with 300 students, but in a lecture with even 35 students, reasonably often a student will ask a question that lets me go in an unforeseen but profitable direction for a few minutes. Powerpoint tends to stifle this, in my experience.

2. This is more a technology issue than a Powerpoint one, but using Powerpoint requires me to darken the lights at the front of the room. This means that I'm less able to see the students, and (unless I stand directly in front of the projector) my students are less able to see me.

#1 can be a big problem if someone tries to use *only* an electronic, fixed presentation. A tablet or simply going to the board mitigates this problem.

#2 is a tech issue. The newer projectors (out in the last couple of years) are nice and bright. Now, the only time I turn lights off is when I show a video/clip that's itself not bright.

Alan

[heybeerman]

The students said they liked the powerpoint slides, but they seemed to do a lot worse. With the slides, they didn't take notes. They just assumed that the tests would cover what was on the slides, which was wrong, and their grades suffered accordingly.

In previous semesters, I lectured, used the board, initiated disucssions, and watched students take notes. I always thought, however, that I was doing something wrong because so many other instructors were using PP slides, and maybe I was missing the boat.

Next semester, I'm reverting back to lecture, using PP slides sparingly (photos, maps). They really hinder more than they help, at least in my experience.

I will heartily second this testimonial.  PowerPoint is NOT the same as an outline on the board. 

I used to use an outline on PP, and was frustrated that my students didn't seem to get most of the concepts I was discussing.  Then I asked to see their notes.  All they wrote down was what was on the screen.  I discussed this with them, emphasized that PP was only an OUTLINE and that they were to build off that from my lecture.  Still, very few got it.

There is something inherent in the "authority" of the computer screen projector that convinces students they are getting the information.  I think their brain goes into passive "TV" mode.  Now I provide 2-3 "thought questions" at the beginning of lecture, and the only thing PP is for is maps and pictures.  THEY have to figure out what is important to write down, which makes their brains work, thereby processing the information on a deeper level.  The difference in their comprehension has been drastic.  Several students have written on evaluations, "I learned how to take notes from taking this class." 

[rowan1]

I do use PP - It is virtually all images or sound or film clips and next to no text.  I hate text based PPs - like the undending one a senior Prof used in a boring committee meeting last week - Committee meetings should be discussions not lectures.

Students ask for copies - I ask why.  But I am considering putting the images on WebCT - if I can get the dang gum thing to work.  I do put the links to interviews and other You Tube clips on webCT.

I also tell them on day one that they need to take notes - detailed notes.

I will have one image that gets us started on 5 to 10 minutes of lecture/discussion.  Plenty of room to go off on a tangent - and I do.

I will use an image or a clip to support what we have just covered.

But then I teach a subject that is incredibly visual.

I no longer provide study guides prior to lecture - they would fill in the barest amount of info during lecture - completly counter productive.

Just my 2 cents - YMMV

[temporaryname]

I have two big problems with Powerpoint:

1. It tends to make classroom presentation a bit too linear for my tastes. This isn't a problem for a lecture class with 300 students, but in a lecture with even 35 students, reasonably often a student will ask a question that lets me go in an unforeseen but profitable direction for a few minutes. Powerpoint tends to stifle this, in my experience.

2. This is more a technology issue than a Powerpoint one, but using Powerpoint requires me to darken the lights at the front of the room. This means that I'm less able to see the students, and (unless I stand directly in front of the projector) my students are less able to see me.

#1 can be a big problem if someone tries to use *only* an electronic, fixed presentation. A tablet or simply going to the board mitigates this problem.

#2 is a tech issue. The newer projectors (out in the last couple of years) are nice and bright. Now, the only time I turn lights off is when I show a video/clip that's itself not bright.

#1: I agree--but how many instructors really approach it that way? In addition, #2 makes it hard to flip back and forth.

And speaking of #2, yeah, it's a tech issue, but try convincing *my* institution, at least, that it ought to spend the (currently non-existent) money to replace its more-than-2-years-old projectors until they physically fall apart...

[john_proctor]

Also, I find the critics of content-centered teaching quite persuasive. The vast majority of my survey-level students will never take another course in my field. They are taking my course in order to satisfy some requirement or other. They will forget a good chunk of the content of my lectures almost immediately. They will remember a good deal of it for perhaps a few months. Almost none of it will remain in their brains after another semester. So I don't think delivering lots of content is accomplishing much in the long run. If, on the other hand, they leave the class better able to read critically, write coherently, and - yes - take decent lecture notes, they will benefit throughout their college careers and beyond. The content I provide in lectures gives them ideas to think, write, and take notes about. But at the gen ed level, at least, the content is a means to an end, not the end in itself.

I think your description of your students is pretty routine for most gen ed, intro level courses.  I'd wager about 2/3 of my own are the same.

I also agree that I'd prefer honing their argument/thinking skills and making them "life long learners."

My problem, though, is what those goals mean and what, on earth, I can realistically do in 14 weeks to accomplish those goals.  Finally, what/how can these objectives be "assessed?"

Former questions first:

To have a good argument and critical thinking, one must have: a. good control of enough relevant data; b. good, established and consistent methodologies of analysis.  I do think, in class, we ought to try to get students to practice finding and honing these.  But, in the realities of 14 weeks (with students whose initial exposure to the critical practice of my field is zero), it seems to me that we've got more table setting to do than not. 

In other words, teaching students relevant data and discipline appropriate methodologies (i.e. "content") IS teaching students to think critically.

They're just not practicing it as much yet.

Mind you, I think 3d and 4th year courses ought be entirely seminar (where students, assuming the data and methods of 1st and 2d year, practice and apply critical thinking and group instruction).

You can't teach (at least) four years worth of skills in 14 weeks.

Your point about many being there grudgingly (and never coming back to the field) is well taken.  But you also can't teach critical thinking without a fundamental basis in data and methodology.

So, to my mind, the only way I've got a shot at really attaining my final objective (critical thinking, analysis and communication skills) in one semester is to hit content-based teaching really hard.

As to the latter point (create life-long learners):

I'm not at all sure what that means.  I think it means (or at least, it used to.  Anyway, when I say it, I mean) that we want to create a student with a fundamental level of skill in a given discipline, a fundamental awareness of how to investigate or self-teach topics in the subject, and a sense of curiosity (or at least acknowledgement of the value of the subject).

Again, how does one accomplish these goals without a solid grounding in fundamental data, history of scholarship and methodology?  Even if just intuitive (I'm not saying we have to do graduate level "know every turn in the debate and the nuances of the scholars who argue for/against it).  And, again, I have 14 weeks.

In terms of assessment, how does one design an exam or project that predicts the future?  How in God's name can we ever know if we've produced a "life-long" learner? 

I CAN assess if I have someone, today, who shows those skills.  If they do, then I could reasonably project that, at least, some will be able to do so 10 years from now. 

Ultimately, too, I'm wondering more and more if what students can  do /be 10 years beyond my classroom is any of my business.

I'd argue that the best potential for one is someone who can, by semester's end, demonstrate awareness of critical terms/concepts (via quizzes), show some skill manipulating and responding to field-specific methodologies and debates (via essay exams) and demonstrate the ability to craft and hone a research topic, find field-specific resources and accurately engage their theses (via research paper).

I guess I'm going long-way-around the barn to say that I'm not so convinced by critics of "content-centered" teaching. 

Seems to me that the few nuts they find (and even a blind squirrel gets the occasional acorn) can be readily incorporated into theories of why we do content-centered instruction (not at all, however, as basis for rejecting the same).

Particularly since I've not seen a satisfactory alternative.

[bms2000]

My love for traditional methods conflicts with my increasingly bad handwriting. I messed up my shoulder a few years back, and writing on the board is incredibly painful after a while.

But I have found a solution. I do use powerpoint, but I use various software tools and a tablet to be able to electronically write on the slides. My handwriting is marginally better if I write as if with a regular pen, I can save the notes for future reference, I can do ctrl-z to delete mistakes, multiple colors, and much more visible than regular overhead transparencies. Best of all possible worlds.

I'm also a big fan of in class problems for my engineering students. Gets them thinking on paper, instead of blindly guessing at multiple choice questions on a clicker system or some such thing.

[wanna_writemore]

I usually do lecture format, but I decided this semester to do a Powerpoint per chapter with main points highlighted (no content, just themes).

The students said they liked the powerpoint slides, but they seemed to do a lot worse. With the slides, they didn't take notes. They just assumed that the tests would cover what was on the slides, which was wrong, and their grades suffered accordingly.

In previous semesters, I lectured, used the board, initiated disucssions, and watched students take notes. I always thought, however, that I was doing something wrong because so many other instructors were using PP slides, and maybe I was missing the boat.

Next semester, I'm reverting back to lecture, using PP slides sparingly (photos, maps). They really hinder more than they help, at least in my experience.

I use PPT for outlines and terms because I teach non-US history and students can't even begin to spell many of the names and places I mention in lecture.  I also get frustrated writing on the board because I find it uncomfortable and I'm not sure that students can really see it well.  When I go to the back of the room during a discussion and I look at the board it's not always easy to read. 

That said, I get incredibly frustrated when students just copy what's on the slide (usually a few phrases, names, places, etc) rather than taking real notes.  I don't think they know how to take notes, but there have to be some limits on what I teach them and what they have to figure out for themselves.  I change the slide and they all start copying.  I post the ppts on Blackboard so they can avoid copying but they never do.