To wish my university lectures were... well, lectures

[reallyyyy]

I started a new course a few weeks ago, it's my second degree and it's a healthcare degree so that might be why. But our lectures are so interactive and filled with so many activities that feel like a waste of time. I had a 2 hour lecture today and 40 minutes of it was spent making posters of different topics to put on the board at the front, with the vision that we would be learning from each other. Only, we couldn't read the posters as they were too small and far away and it didn't teach us anything. There are also lots of 'discuss in pairs X, Y and Z' and it's not helpful or useful. It was nice in the first week as a bit of an icebreaker but now it just feels annoying.

I'm finding it frustrating sitting in a 2 hour lecture and being taught 1 hour of content. I'm not sure if it's because I studied a different degree before but lectures were 2 hours of information and I learnt a lot from them.

We have seminars too so it's not like I'm not enjoying the interaction, just not in a lecture.

I know IABU but I think I'm just overly tired from getting up at 5:30am to commute in for a lecture just to spend half the time making posters or colouring in diagrams.

I’m sure I could find some if I looked. It’s being presented at school CPD and in educational press. Other people on the thread have already said the same. Why not have a little search?
If we are doing ‘you claimed it so you evidence it’ could you show a couple of research papers that say group work conveys information more effectively? That was your claim wasn’t it?

But ‘building and improving on what you already know’ as an undergrad student is basically reinventing the wheel if you are not hearing the expertise of academics in the department but are relying on group discussion with other undergrads as starting point for learning.

But our lectures are so interactive and filled with so many activities that feel like a waste of time.

Thing is, when we do standard 60 or 90 minute lectures of the "chalk and talk" style, we get complaints from students about us being "boring" or "too much talking" etc etc etc. It becomes rather demoralising after a while, to be teaching people so clearly not wanting the insights and information we have to give (let alone being pleased or grateful to have such learning opportunities).

Most human intense concentration is for 35 minutes maximum. And kids after COVID are far worse. So we break up our lectures. And there is a lot of evidence to suggest that this is a better way to learn. When I did my training for university teaching over 30 years ago, we were given research results even then about why lectures might be a good way of teaching, but they're not the most effective way of learning.

You're a proper grown up @reallyyyy so sadly, I'm afraid you're studying with young people who have no developed the discipline & drive that you have. Sorry about that, but you may have to grin & bear it. Maybe have a chat with your lecturer afterwards and ask if there's extended reading you can do?

Ah, no, this is not what I meant. I thought you were saying that teaching in a new way (i.e. activity based learning) was reinventing the wheel... and I am saying this style of teaching is not reinventing the wheel because the research that led to this is based off years of pedagogical research.

Most of my students love structure, set tasks, discussions and little broken up 'bits' like two minute think as well as lectures. I know this as I get extensive feedback every term, which can be brutal if you get it wrong (I've been going years so tend to get it right). A couple of especially bright students can find the lack of intellectual discussion in the groups frustrating, I suggest similar to the other poster they either come to my office hours or ask for extra readings. It is hard to please a whole group, I have say 20-30 in a smaller group, 60+ in a larger class and not everything will please everyone, I go for majority satisfaction.

That was not my claim at all. My claim was that 1/2 hour long lectures are ineffective methods of teaching. I can definitely point to many academic papers in this regard.

If we are talking about group work, I can point to research that suggests group work improves and solidifies learning outcomes.

I would never ever say that group work conveys information more effectively because I do not think this.

I think it's important in small doses but it is definitely not a way to "convey information".

I would also argue that learning is about more than remembering and regurgitaing a bunch of facts.

@mugboat thats what I think too. I just think that in the limited time a student has with actual experts in the field they are studying, the quickest method to transfer information is a lecture. The discussion etc can be organised by the student in their own time (and happens anyway in seminars and tutorials).

the quickest method to transfer information is a lecture

As I noted above @cardibach it's been known for a long time that, yes, a lecture is the "quickest" way to relay information - to teach.

But it might not be the best way to learn.

There's a difference between teaching & learning. Do you teach undergraduates?

How do you know what I think the research says?

I didn't say that tho, I was contesting your claim that research shows that chalk and talk works best "even in schools"
... which surprises me as I always thought the teaching and learning method depends on the subject.

You would need a few practical exercises in many subjects no matter how old the students.

Well you seem to think ‘learning styles’ are limiting factors to learning from your post. That’s all I mean.

No, I don’t. I teach secondary students - most of whom are quite capable of listening and taking in information by the time they get to sixth form. Yes teaching and learning are different. I’d argue that as we get older we should be independent learners so our teachers/lecturers can teach us the information then we can go away and digest that information, read around it, reorganise it, discuss it and, well, learn it.

I'd like to know what the other students in this thread aim to get from lectures. I don't expect to come out of them feeling like I know all I need for the course. For me their main purpose is to show which aspects of the topic I need to concentrate on in independent reading.

What do others expect from a lecture?

I'm a professor in the humanities, not an undergrad, but what I aim for in a lecture is to give the students a map of the bit of the overall topic that a module might be about. It's a map to help them navigate the topic themselves, including some reading recommendations beyond the required reading, some explanations of new or specialist terminology, maybe some outline of debates on the topic under discussion, and some further questions or things for them to explore in independent study and through seminar discussion.

I know this is now an old thread but someone sent me this academic poster and it was just too good not to pass on.

Funny, but it’s a crap poster.

i prefer the traditional listen and take notes