Learning Not Lecturing

As teachers and professors move back to in-person classes and distance learning becomes a last resort for special circumstances and snow days, we will see what no video chat camera could really show. We will see firsthand how much students have been struggling and families have been in crisis. We must not avert our eyes and pretend that the pandemic never happened. It will be hard work, but if we do not do it, our students will pay the price. So it is incumbent on anyone in a classroom to really reflect on learning strategies that worked and didn’t work during our time apart and before. 

One strategy that needs revision is the lecture. I love this piece from Math With Bad Drawings. It is an “origin fable” about how lectures came to be. Lectures were the way that professors and other instructors conveyed their ideas to their students before there were any other means of doing so. When it was too difficult to produce material to read or enough copies for the class before any form of recording could be made when the students were wealthy white men who going to run the world anyway. In fact, lecturing may be the oldest teaching strategy we have! 

As I researched the effectiveness of lectures, I found many articles discussed how to deliver an effective lecture. The advice was almost always the same: have meaningful slides, using engaging questions, speak in an entertaining and dynamic manner, and so on. In other words, lecture is effective when it is accompanied by other effective techniques. Look at this website from Iowa State!

This article from Edtopia and this one from the Washington Post cite research that should make any educator reconsider the lecture. NPR reported about physics professors at Harvard and other colleges who realized that all they were doing was repeating what their teachers did and their students did not really understand the concepts. All they did was parrot back the lecture! 

The NPR article is an extension of a fascinating radio documentary by American Radio Works called “Don’t Lecture Me” about college lecturing and a college that decided not to use them. If your hackles are up and you are feeling defensive about the lecture, I urge you to listen to this. 

There is a place for lecture in education. Lectures, done well and done for brief amounts of time, can be a good teaching tool. As with many other areas, all generalizations are false: lectures are not universally problematic. 

However, I will argue that the vast majority of lectures are ineffective because the lecturer is not using dynamic teaching techniques. According to research cited in the radio documentary referenced above, only about 10% of students will learn well from a lecture, and it is likely that those students would teach themselves the material no matter how it was presented. Is it possible that the people who most benefit from lectures are the lecturers (and perhaps the institutions they work for)? 

The traditional college lecture in an enormous hall with hundreds of students feels like mass education gone horribly wrong. Let’s not even talk about the tuition cost to the students for such an experience. What is the rationale for not simply recording these lectures and allowing students to view them online? In fact, why not get all these lectures recorded and then allow the teachers to really teach or go do research? 

Maybe there is something else going on here. Many students might love lecturing because it asks so little of them. They don’t have to do anything but listen – and sometimes not even that. I have had many students who prefer not to think, but to just repeat what the teacher said. It is easier. 

If you visit a crowded lecture hall, you might see many students taking notes. You might see others surfing the web, texting, or doing other things. You might also see some who were sleeping. For many of these students, attending the lecture is performative anyway. The professor is only reading from a Powerpoint, which they later publish. Perhaps they even include notes. Students fully understand that they don’t need to see the show, they can just read the script. Is this a good use of their time and tuition dollars? 

Lecturing does make teachers and professors feel professorial. It is great to get up before an audience and show off. It feels good to have children praise and adore you for your knowledge and wit. Of course, they also expect that you will pay them for their worship with grades, preferably good ones. It is fun to have fans, but let’s be honest, impressing children for ego gratification feels low indeed. 

While brief and focused lectures may be necessary once in a while, teachers and students would be far better served if the classroom were a place where learning was interactive and engaging. We used to sit in a little red schoolhouse and write down our lessons with chalk on slates. We don’t do that anymore. Students now have access to every piece of information on the planet. Reciting it to them is far less useful than teaching them how to evaluate and create it. 

Come down from your stage, teacher, and help kids to make their own meaning, forge their own education: more than that special 10% will benefit  - and your lessons will have far-reaching impact.

Reading for Treasure: Dealing with the Unvaccinated

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles (and other readings) that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction.

My most recent blog post makes the metaphor that the unvaccinated are pissing in a pool in which all of us are swimming. It laments the current stalemate between those who want a COVID-19 free world and those who simply won’t get the vaccine. Here are some articles that further explore this topic. 

The Atlantic’s “Vaccine Refusers Don’t Get to Dictate Terms Anymore” This opinion piece makes a strong case that the unvaccinated should have to pay the price for their choice,  “Americans are entitled to make their own decisions, but their employers, health insurers, and fellow citizens are not required to accommodate them.” The time has come for vaccination mandates by schools, employers, agencies, and others or financial penalties as well as testing for the unvaccinated.  

John Banzhaf, a professor emeritus from George Washington University, goes one step further, “Vaccinated workers, students, airline passengers and others who go out in public should not have to bear the risks and huge financial costs that the unvaccinated are imposing on society.” In his opinion column for CNN,  “Make the unvaccinated pay out for their deadly decisions,” he argues that, “Vaccine refusers should pay more for life and health insurance,” as well as  “If the unvaccinated want to get hotel rooms or board cruise ships or fly on airplanes, they should have to pay more to cover the additional costs of thoroughly cleaning and sanitizing the places they may infect. They should also be charged more because of the added burdens associated with requiring all airlines, bus and train passengers to be masked.” Basically, if you don’t want to get vaccinated, you need to pay for the additional costs you are creating! Yes! 

Inverse provides a specific and highly scientific answer to the question, “How Immune Are You After Having COVID-19? Why You Still Need a Vaccine” The common sense answer is to get vaccinated no matter what. Doubt that. Read this! 

Here's an update to my blog post: CNN is reporting that, "New analysis estimates $5.7 billion price tag for treating unvaccinated Covid-19 patients in the last 3 months." That is a lot of money helping people, many of whom could have been vaccinated! 

Finally, a little hope from an older article from The Atlantic. In, “One Vaccine to Rule Them All,”  Dr. James Hamlin describes research to create a universal vaccine. May this research be successful! 

I am currently reading A Desolation Called Peace by Arkady Martine 

Pissing in the Pool: The Broken Social Contract

Recently, a doctor in Alabama stated he would not treat unvaccinated people. It was simply too painful to watch them die. Many of these people, says another doctor, ask for the vaccine as they are being put on the ventilator. 

It is appropriate to feel sorry for people who have made poor decisions like this. Certainly, there are people who, due to medical conditions or circumstances beyond their control, cannot get the vaccine. But what about the willfully and proudly unvaccinated? What about those who could and should be vaccinated, but won’t? 

What happens when people who have been hateful, hurtful, and horrible need help and those of us who have taken proper precautions pay the price of their poor choices? What is our obligation to the unvaccinated, unmasked, Clorox and Ivermectin taking folks? What happens when some people, who place their own desires, feelings, and “rights,” above the wellbeing of the entire community, fill hospitals to capacity so that there isn't even room for children with cancer?  Should we rush to Texas’s and Florida’s aid even if they are outlawing the very actions that would make their situation better?  

The idea of a social contract is  “(a)n implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection.” While you may never need the fire department, you pay taxes to have one because it helps the community as a whole – and if someday you should need it, it will be there for you. We all get this idea – or do we? 

“But I don’t trust the government,” someone replies. “It is my right not to wear a mask,” cries another. “You can’t make me get the vaccine,” says the third. Yet, people who have these views are treated in our hospitals like any other. Their children are going to school and potentially spreading COVID. They are making it impossible for children or teachers who are immunocompromised to return to school at all. 

At this point, arguing with them doesn’t seem like it is working. While loving responses and listening and acknowledging their fears may be a way to reach them, that does not address the current preventable crisis. And can that be scaled up to address all of them? They have made their choice clear: their individual choice (which they see as rights) are more important than the social good. Me first, us last. 

Last year, the folks making these claims said that COVID deaths were an acceptable cost for reopening businesses and that we should “sacrifice the weak.” More recently, a woman at a Trump rally compared this situation to “separating the sheep from the goats” which is a reference to a parable from the Gospel of Matthew. Ironically, the sheep are saved and the goats are lost. The unvaccinated woman identified herself correctly as a goat. 

Yet, we are paying for and cleaning up their messes – and it is quite expensive! We are spending billions of dollars to treat unvaccinated people and their choices may mean higher insurance premiums for all of us. Should we endorse their logic and put these goats out to pasture?  

We are an interdependent society; our choices significantly affect far more people than ourselves. We are not living in isolation. Regardless of whether you accept the social contract, we are still all swimming in the same pool.  

Why withhold help from those who need it? Why persist in holding a grudge against unfortunate and misinformed people? What good comes out of hurting those already in pain? Is the suffering of COVID a reasonable consequence for being arrogant and super selfish? 

I don’t think hospitals will stop treating willfully unvaccinated people. It is unlikely that large numbers of doctors will refuse to treat them. But there is an exodus of healthcare professionals leaving the field, and that will affect everyone. 

Here’s the issue: Should the willfully unvaccinated get care despite their disregard for the chaos they create or do we back off and let them suffer the consequences of their choices, even though that, too, could be deadly. 

If you run a red light, you get a ticket. If you leave your child in a hot car, that’s child abuse. If you drive under the influence…There are consequences when people flagrantly break the social contract. Defying mask mandates is against the law and prohibiting them is certainly a breach of contract. What about vaccination? 

It’s a lose-lose scenario if there ever was one. Thanks, assholes.