You are on page 1of 21

Variations in Lecturing Styles

Author(s): Alenoush Saroyan and Linda S. Snell


Source: Higher Education, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 85-104
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3448314
Accessed: 25/03/2010 13:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Higher Education.

http://www.jstor.org

Higher Education 33: 85-104, 1997.


? 1997 KluwerAcademicPublishers. Printedin the Netherlands.

85

Variations in lecturing styles


ALENOUSH SAROYAN1& LINDA S. SNELL2

1
Centrefor UniversityTeachingand Learning,McGill University,3700 McTavishStreet,
Montreal,Quebec, Canada,H3A 1Y2;2Divisionof GeneralInternalMedicine,RoomA-421,
Royal VictoriaHospital, 687 Pine AvenueWest,Montreal,Quebec, Canada,H3A IAI
Abstract Many factorscontributeto the way a lectureis conceptualizedand delivered.These
include one's philosophy and beliefs about teaching, knowledge of pedagogical principles,
availabilityof resources,and the realitiessurroundingthe instructionalsituation.In this paper
threetypes of lecturingstyles aredescribedandtheirdifferencesarehighlightedin the contextof
currentconceptionsof teachingandpedagogicalprinciples.The threelecturesaresubsequently
characterizedas content-driven,context-driven,and pedagogy-driven.Evaluationdatasuggest
thatthe more pedagogicallyorientedthe lecture,the higherit is ratedby students.

Introduction
Instructionalmethodsin universityteachingarevariedandrangefromthe very
common such as lecturingand small group discussion to the more uncommon such as cooperativelearning(Johnsonand Johnson 1974), apprenticeship methods (Brown, Collins and Duguid 1989), and anchoredinstruction
(Cognition and Technology Group at Vaderbuilt1990). While differences
in instructionalstrategies can be easily discerned, differences in the same
strategieswhen they are adoptedand used by variousindividualsare not as
apparent.The difficultyin distinguishingdifferencesis partlydue to the lack
of a theoretical frameworkthat could account for and be used to tease out
the numerousfactors which contributeto the variation.These factors might
include one's philosophy and beliefs aboutteaching,the pedagogicalprinciples incorporatedin the instruction,and resourcesand realities surrounding
the instructionalsituation. In this paper three types of lecturing styles are
characterizedand their differencesare highlightedin the context of existing
conceptions of teaching and pedagogicalprinciplesassociatedwith effective
instruction.

Factorswhichinfluenceteaching
Several important factors influence teaching practice and give it a particular
set of characteristics. One factor consists of views and beliefs about teaching.

86
Frameworksdepictingthis factorarequite varied.Some havebeen referredto
as "invidious"classificationswhich "...presentone view in the most favorable
and alternativesin the least favorablelight"(Scardamaliaand Bereiter 1989,
p. 37). The frameworksproposed by Leinhardt(1993) and Ramsden(1992)
are two such examples. In the former,teachingis depictedas a continuumat
one end of which is the didacticinstructor,leader,anddisseminatorof knowledge and at the other,the passive instructorwho is the responderto learners'
needs. Somewherearoundthe centre is the facilitatorand the arrangerof the
learningenvironment(Leinhardt1993). In the latterframework,which incidentallyis one of the few pertainingspecificallyto highereducation,teachers'
views andbeliefs are describedin the context of threeprogressivelysophisticated theories,namely teaching as telling, as organizingstudentactivity,and
as makinglearningpossible (Ramsden 1992).
What these and other similar frameworkshave in common is that they
characterizethe least sophisticated view and practice of teaching as being
teacher-centeredand conversely,the most sophisticatedview as being interactive or student-centered.Thus, they measuregain in pedagogicalexpertise
by the increase in the awareness of students' needs and the decrease in the
amount of obsession with the disseminationof a pre-determinedamountof
facts and knowledge.
Other conceptions of teaching are concerned with the characteristicsand
skills of good teaching and rely on the expert-novicedistinctionto embellish
these differences. For instance, in one conception, teaching is characterized
as the complex task of transmittingculture, training skills, fostering natural development,and producingconceptualchange. While the expert pedagogue's view of teaching is representativeof this complexity, the novice's
view tends to be limited to only one of the perspectives. The measure of
expertise is also defined by the manner in which core problems associated with each of the conceptions are approachedand resolved (Scardamalia
and Bereiter 1989). Anotherconceptionconcernedwith the characteristicsof
good teaching describes all instructionin terms of three mutuallyexclusive
paradigms:behavioral, developmental,and apprenticeship.The orthogonal
relationshipof these paradigmscalls for differentmechanismsfor measuring
expert-novicedifferences.In the behavioralparadigm,the distinctionis made
on the basis of incrementation,that is quantitativegains on the same scale.
In the developmentalparadigm, the focus is on personal beliefs, theories
and explanationsand the move towardexpertiseis gauged by the qualitative
difference in reportedevents and experiences. Finally in the apprenticeship
paradigm,sociological differences in the cultureof practiceis importantand
acculturationis used as the mechanismto measurechange (Farham-Diggory
1994).

87
The expert-novice paradigmis not the only context by means of which
effectiveness, and by the same token, variationcan be measured.There is
an extensive body of literaturewhich focuses on pedagogical principlesand
the extent to which these principlesdrive instruction.It is out of this literature that criteriafor the evaluationof teaching and course ratingshave been
derived. For instance, one importantpedagogical principle which impinges
on effectiveness of instructionis the "fit"of the instructionalstrategywith the
desiredlearningoutcome(McKeachie1994). Otherpedagogicalissues which
have a directimpacton the type of instructiondeliveredinclude organization,
clarity and expressiveness,and degree of interactiveness(Centra1993; Feldman 1984; Murray1983; Solomon, RosenbergandBezdek 1964), intellectual
excitementthroughcommunicationand interpersonalskills (Lowman1984),
charisma,rapport,dynamism,and personality(Perry,Abramiand Leventhal
1979).
Conceptualmodels can be used to explain why professorsteach the way
they teach and by doing so, they can accountfor some of the variationin practice. Pedagogical principles,on the otherhand,can effectively operationalize
the task of characterizinginstructionand can help specify the scope of differences in the way a particularstrategyis implemented.These principles,as
they pertainto lecturing,are discussed in the following section.
Characterizing lectures
Of all the instructionalmethods,lecturingis the most widely used formatin
university classes (McKeachie 1994; O'Donnell and Dansereau 1994) and
in some instances, such as in traditionalmedical programs,the predominant
one (Gibbs, Habeshaw and Habeshaw 1987). During its history, lecturing
has been praised as well as criticized, sometimes for the same reasons. It
has been praised because it can accommodate large numbers of students
and thus can be quite economical, it can be interactive(Frederick 1986),
can convey considerable amounts of informationto large audiences with
efficacy, and can be adaptableto divergentneeds and audiences (Gage and
Berliner1991). The lecturehas been criticizedfor not promotinghigherorder
skills such as conceptualunderstanding,independentlearning,and problemsolving abilities (Kimmel 1992; Puettand Braunstein1991) which are better
seen as fosteredby moreinnovativeinstructionalmethodslike problem-based
learning(Barrowand Tamblyn1980; Kaufman1985). Differentperspectives
regardingadvantagesanddisadvantagesof lecturesandindividualdifferences
in deliveringthem reinforcethe need for having a theoreticalframeworkfor
characterizinglecturesand addressingthe assertionthatthereis a lack of "an
operationaldefinitionof the classical lecture"(Schonwetter1993).

88
A frameworkfor discerningdifferencesin lectures
Many of the characteristicsof effective instructioncan be extendedto the lecture.The appropriatenessof the instructionalstrategyfor the desiredlearning
outcome is one criterion of effectiveness. We know that specific teaching
behaviourscorrelate significantly with specific kinds of learningoutcomes.
For instance,lecturinghas been foundto be an effective methodwhen gaining
knowledge of facts is the intendedoutcome (Kulikand Kulik 1979). Tomand
Cushman (1975) found that a lecture which was characterizedand rated as
"well-organized"by studentswas a significantpredictorof factual and conceptual knowledge gains. This "fit"can serve as one factor to differentiate
between lectures.
Organizationis another importantpedagogical principle and in lectures,
it takes into account both the way in which the structureof knowledge is
representedin a given discipline as well as the cognitive structureof students
in that context (McKeachie 1994). The conception of teaching as producing
conceptualchange, as describedby ScardamaliaandBereiter(1986), suggests
that the core problem in this context is how a connection can be made with
students' understanding,especially in large, heterogeneous classes. Thus,
organizationcan be an importantfactorin maintainingor severingcommunication links with students.There are several ways in which a lecture can be
organized.Hierarchicforms, chaining, or a variationof these are some examples (Bligh 1972). In hierarchicforms, differentcategoriesof information,all
related to one topic, are groupedtogether.In chaining, organizationis based
on the temporalor logical sequencingof events or processes. Variationsin the
organizationof lectures might include presentingby a) comparison;b) thesis; c) logical dichotomy; and d) conceptualnetworkof the area/field.Bligh
emphasizes that the organizationis importantinsofar as it fosters students'
understandingand enables them to make links between presentedconcepts
and theirrelationshipto one another.Includingan introductionandan explicit
explanationas to the way in which the lecture has been organized,periodic
summaries,and a conclusion can also enhancethe effectiveness of a lecture
(McKeachie 1994). Finally, providing signposts to inform studentsof what
is ahead,providingcues when a transitionis madefrom one topic to another,
making clear links between new materialand priorknowledge, and placing
the newly gained knowledge in the context of the discipline can improvethe
organization(Leinhardt1987; 1989; Leinhardtand Greeno 1986).
A third characteristicof effective instructionis interactiveness.In this
regard,specific guidelines havebeen developedto improvelecturesin medical
education (Cox and Ewan 1988; Foley and Smilansky 1980; Laidlaw 1988).
The purpose of these guidelines has been to extend teaching beyond simply
disseminating facts (Gibbs et al. 1987) via the "sponge method" (Schank

89
and Jona 1991) and to engage students in activities which are relevant to
the intendedlearning(Martonand Saljo 1976; Ramsden1992). For instance,
when comprehensionof a concept is the learningobjective, asking students
to write down their comprehensionof a 15 minute lecture in a "one-minute
paper"is a meaningfulengagementof studentsin a large lecturehall (McKeachie 1994). Interactivenesscan also be defined in terms of the amount
of attention paid to learners' needs, responses, and pedagogical concerns.
Interestinglysuch sensitivityappearsto have an inverserelationshipwith the
complexity of the subject-matterbeing taught(Borko and Livingston 1990).
Consequently, in university teaching where typically the subject-matteris
complex, allowing or encouraginginteractionmay be particularlydifficultto
sustain because it could take a substantialamount of time and would thus
jeopardizethe adequatecoverage of largebodies of information.
The researchwhich has yielded these and other characteristicsof instruction has been carriedout with the express intentof delineatingcharacteristics
of effectiveness. The attributeshave not been used to characterizeeither lecturing or other instructionalstrategiesnor to differentiateone lecture from
another.In fact, only one empirical study (Brown, Bakhtarand Youngman
1984) has attemptedto characterizelecturesbased on datafrom258 randomly
sampled lecturers.The study yielded five distinct lecturing"styles"defined
as a "person'shabitual mode of respondingto a similarly perceived task"
(Brown and Bakhtar1988, p. 132). The styles were: oral, exemplary,information provider,amorphous,and self doubter.Accordingto this study, oral
lecturersdependon theirverbalskills morethanon theirnotes or audiovisual
support.Exemplarylecturersare organizedaccordingto a set of objectives,
stay away from providingdetailed information,emphasize,repeatand summarize frequently,and use media effectively. Informationprovidersremain
attachedto their notes and more often than not presentunnecessarydetails.
Amorphous lecturers and self doubters have an unstructuredapproachto
lecturing, are not able to keep to the topic, and thus seldom achieve the
instructionalgoal. This study also found that lecturingstyles correlatedwith
disciplines: oral lecturerswere more common in the humanities,exemplars
were more common in biomedical sciences; and informationprovidersand
amorphouslecturersmorecommon in science andengineering.Self doubters
appearedto be distributedacross all disciplines. Moreover,the study found
that years of experience was not an active variablein shaping the lecturing
style.
The typology proposedin the studydescribedabove differentiatesbetween
lecturingstyles at a gross level butdoes not providea comprehensiveenough
frameworkfor describingcharacteristicsof lecturesat a more detailed level.
This paperhas attemptedto examine variationin lecturesat a more detailed

90
level. Three lectures are compared and their differences with regardto the
appropriatenessof lecturing to expected learning outcomes, organization,
and interactivenessare described.It is shownthatlecturescan be plannedand
delivered in a number of ways reflecting differentconceptions of teaching
and with varyingdegrees of adherenceto principlesof good pedagogy.

Method
Procedure
The introductoryDermatologyprogramfor second-yearpreclerkshipstudents
in a Canadianmedical school was the setting for this study.The entire dermatology curriculumfor this level was addressedin seven hours of lectures
and two hours of clinical instruction.Additionally,these nine hours were
organizedin three blocks, each three hours long and up to four weeks apart.
Individuallectures were drawnfrom specific topics in the field and each was
deliveredby a practicingdermatologistin a large groupsetting (n = 50). The
clinical instructioncomprised the last two hours of the third block during
which groups of 4-5 studentsrotatedthrough10 cubicles and observed and
interactedwith one patient-physiciandyad.
Data sources/subjects
Fromthe set of seven one-hourlectures,threerepresentingthe most divergent
styles were selected and analyzed for this study. Three types of data were
used: a) responses to a questionnairewhich were given to the lecturersprior
to instructionto establishthe scope of instructionalplans;b) videotapesof the
lectures,the audio-tracksof which were latertranscribedverbatimto generate
protocols of the instruction;and c) evaluationdatafrom the students(student
ratings), collected after each instructionalblock. In this evaluation,students
were askedto ratethe lecturerson 10 dimensionsusing a Likert-typescale of
0-5 where 0 was 'poor' and 5 was 'excellent'.
Analysis
Questionnaireresponses were content analyzed to delineate the similarities
and differences in the activities undertakento preparefor the class, and the
scope of content and pedagogicalconsiderationsincorporatedin the preparation. The procedurefor analyzingthe lectureprotocolsstartedwith segmenting, using syntactical markersto separatecomplete phrases and sentences
(Ericsson and Simon 1986). Following the first segmentation,three general

91
categoriesof content,pedagogy,andotherwere used for encoding. 'Content'
statementsrepresentedanydiscourserelatedto the subjectmatter.'Pedagogy'
statementsrepresenteddiscourserelatedto teaching,and statementscoded as
'Other'representedunrelateddiscourseand false starts.A more detailedcoding was carriedout for the contentandpedagogyclassificationssubsequently.
Based on the type of informationconveyedduringlectures,contentstatements
were classified as definition, symptoms, differentialdiagnosis, and therapy.
Pedagogy statements were content analyzed for evidence of the suitability of the pedagogical approachto intendedlearningoutcome, organization,
and interactiveness.Following this coding, a topical analysis was carriedout
(Bogdan and Biklen 1992). A distinctfamily of disease comprisedone topic
andincludedall contentstatementsas well as pedagogicaldiscourserelatedto
thatdisease. The numberof statementson each topic was also reported.This
numericalvalue was used as an indicationof the amountof time devoted to
a given topic in the context of a one-hourlecture.The chronologicalorderof
topics and pedagogical interventionswere used to generatelecture schema.
Percentages of content-relatedstatementsand pedagogy-relatedstatements
were calculated. Comparisonswere then made between the lectures on the
basis of these percentagesand the pedagogicalcharacteristicsof the lectures.
Finally, studentratingsof the lectureswere comparedusing an ANOVAand a
TukeyHSD test. These comparisonsyielded dataon the students'perceptions
of each of the three lectures.

Results
The results presentedhere are organizedin terms of the three data sources:
instructionalplans, instructionalprotocols,and studentevaluations.
Instructionalplans
The first lecture was planned arounddisseminatingcontent and the means
of this disseminationwas didacticlecturing,using slides. The second lecture
aimed at conveying "key"informationabout a limited numberof topics and
in communicatingthe affective factor involved in the diseases. The lecture
was organizedaroundinteractionwith patientsand was deliveredwith the aid
of slides. The third lecture was plannedto cover a narrowerscope, namely
"terminologyanddiagnosis".It aimedat using clinical andpracticalexamples
to teachthe assignedtopics andhavingan informaltest atthe end of the lecture.
In additionto differencesin the instructionalplans, there were differences
in the way these plans were communicatedto the students.Excerptsfrom the

92
second andthirdlecturesindicatethatplanswere madeexplicit to the students
at the outset. Comparablestatementswere not made by the firstlecturer.

Excerpt from lecture 2


I broughtthreepatientstoday
[INTRODUCTIONS]
These patientshave a group of diseases which are .....
We are not going to ask them to describe [theirdisease] or anything.We are
just asking them a few questions in an informalway initially for 5 minutes.
Then we will talk a little bit aboutthe diseases
and I'll show you the diseases in slide format
and then we'll go back and speak to the patientsagain.
I don't want you to learn too much about these diseases so much as I want
you to learn and to realize that these are real diseases that you may only see
occasionally and rarely

Excerpt from lecture 3


I am going to introducea few topics to you this morning.
You may or may not have heardof these conditionsbefore.
There is lot of terminology in dermatologyand that's why I have handouts
this morning.

So you don't have to take furious notes.


You can sit back and enjoy the pictures.
Obviously we cannot teach you just simple pictures.
If you have any questions, you may ask them.
I will try and make the answers as clear as possible.
I have four topics to talk about:......
After my lecture, I have some slides, five or six clinical slides to test your
knowledge on what I have shown....

93
Table1. Proportionof contentand pedagogicaldiscoursein lectures
Lecture
1
2
3

% of statements

segments

% of statements
addressingcontent

addressingpedagogy

450
561
557

81.5
52
51.8

17.5
45*
47.2**

Total# of

# of topics
7
3
4

*This includes dialogue with patients. This dialogue was considered pedagogical
discoursebecauseit representedthepedagogicaltool whichthe instructorhadselected
to impressupon the studentsthe affective aspect of the diseases.
**Thedialogue surroundingthe test was includedas pedagogicaldiscourse.
Table2. Comparisonof pedagogicalattributesof lectures
Lecture3

Attributes

Lecture 1

Learningoutcomes stated
Organization
* explicit statementon organization
* introduction
* periodic summaries
* conclusion
* signposts
* transitioncues
* link with priorknowledge
* handouts

X
X
hierarchic hierarchic hierarchic
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Interactiveness
* studentactivities
* response to students'needs
* situatingthe learning
Evaluationcomponent

(limited)

Lecture2

X
X

X
X
X
X
X

Lectureprotocols (delivery)
Between lecture comparisons were made on the percentage of discourse
relatedto contentandpedagogy andthe total numberof topics discussed (see
Table 1). Data show the dominanceof content relateddiscourse in the first
lectureand a widerrangeof topic coverage.In contrast,lectures2 and 3 cover
fewer topics and includeotheractivitiesto emphasizethe importantpoints of
the lecture.
Differences in pedagogicalattributesare presentedin Table2 and are elaboratedfurtherby characterizingeach of the lectures in the remainderof this
section.

94
Lecture 1. The focus of the lecture was the instructor,who with the use
of clinical slides, fairly systematicallypresentedseven topics (Figure 1). The
lecture began with an overall descriptionof the general categoryof diseases
to be discussed;no outline of the topics, eitherverbalor written,was provided
at the outset. Transitionfrom one topic to the next was done successfully with
statementssuch as "now having said that, we'll go on to the next topic" or
"now,here we get into the nitty gritty".As can be seen in Figure 1, from the
fifth topic onward, the degree of detail providedfor each topic diminished
progressively.The lecturerdid not varythe delivery,but maintainedthe same
pace, pitch, and movements. He did not initiate or introduceactivities that
would engage the studentsor would enhancea deeperprocessingof information. For instance,he hardlyposed any questionsand when he did, they were
rhetoricalin nature.He did not pointout relationshipsandmadeexplicit links
between the materialat handandpriorknowledgeonly when teachingthe first
topic. He did, however,entertaina few questionsfrom the students(marked
as 'question [S]' in Figure 1) at the end of the first and fourthtopics. This
lecture did not have a component to evaluate learningand a lecture-related
handoutwas not provided.
Lecture2. The second lecture differedfrom the first in a numberof ways.
First, fewer topics (total of 3) were introducedanddiscussed (Figure2). Second, it included a variety of activities such as interviewswith three patients,
a formal lecture, and a short opportunityfor studentsto have a dialogue with
patients about their respective diseases. Finally, the outline of the lecture
as well as the intended learning outcomes were articulatedexplicitly (see
previous excerpt from lecture 2).
The inclusion of affective learningoutcomes in additionto cognitive ones
is of particularinterestin this lecture since the achievementof outcome was
facilitated by inviting patients with diseases related to the lecture topics to
be present and to contributeto the lecture. Transitionfrom one activity or
topic to the next was clearly markedby statementssuch as "I'll go into the
formal part of the lecturenow".The presentationof each topic was interrupted several times by questions from students.Furthermore,the opportunity
to interactwith patients added a dimension of interest and a change in the
environment,and providedthe studentswith an opportunityto independently
analyze and evaluatea given situation,develop hypotheses,and use evidence
to solve clinical problems. Learning was not evaluated in this lecture and
lecture-relatedhandoutswere not distributed.

95

^c

I l
I ^4

u^-

B
? *
B'tI*

*_

I
s
C-)

0
C-,
o

I l1---'

L
-

C-)
u
L

11

&

*1

O1F
v-

B
C

oo

It

la
*

**

W_~_

k?

Oc^ II YE
II c
m

I~~~~~~~c

z8g

96

Overviewof
outcomes
tpics, instuctonal
plan,andlearning
{16}
withpaient# 1
Dialogue
{63}
Dialogtlwithpatient2
{62}
withpatient 3
Dialogue
{47}
I

TOPIC
1
{93}

cinical
manifestations
causes
*defiion
*clnical
manifestations
infoonslide
?personal
ts
suiferential

2
TOPIC
{118}

'IC3
TOP
{81}

_ons
c_na mani_festat

cnial manifestations
dlinition
treatment
?clinicamanifestations

*Jdaposts

*defntion
manifestations
*clinical

*treatment

*dfferential
d(?K)rsis

SEGMENTS
PEDAGOGY

{21}

(18}

(11
?cuefortopicchange

*cuefortopic
[1
change

(42)

[5
?cuefortopic
change
outcome
[31
learning

*usedofAV11
(S)1+1+1+11
questin
[6+2+1+11
response
*dass
[1
response
confirmation
[4]

*question
(S)[1+1
[13+181
*response

useofAV1

Students'
with
Interacion
paitsl

TOTAL NUMBER OF SEGMENTS= 561


Content segments = 292
Pedagogy segments = 81
Proportionof content relatedtalk = 52%
Dialogue with patients= 172
Figure 2. Schema of lecture2

*oveniew11]
*Ieairngoutcome
[101
*question
(S)11+1]
*response
2+21

97
I

Personal
intducton{4}

Overview{20)}

Colfiiinidion
ofunderst6ndkg
{2}

2
TOPIC
{64}

1
TOPIC
(141}
?definition
Wypesd
*causes
manleslations
clinical
*tpes o
*tretmern

*denafior
*etiology
treatment

useofAV[141
*quesbn(L)1+3J
*questn(S) 1+1+1+3+1+4+11

*response
(6+1+1+15+22+4

andrevew
*response
*coeiation ofconprehension
1l

dag
cdicalnosis
maniestations

TOPIC
4
{20}
?definition
*diical
mnifestatmrs

*cini
icmasrr^iestations

PEDAGOGYSEGMENTS
(97)

3
TOPIC
(64}

(30}

?cuefortopic
1
changes

?usedA 1101
*question(S)I11
*respose1181

29}

12
eag outcome

(S)11+1
question
*reponel14+l

141
**reviwn13
learigoutcome

oflecture
Conclusion
[1]

I Test[801

TOTAL NUMBR OF SEGMENTS= 557


Content segments = 289
Pedagogy segments (including test and feedback= 263
Propoition of content relatedtalk= 51.8%
Personalintroduction= 4
Figure 3. Schema of lecture 3

Lecture 3. The third lecture differed from the other two in several ways.
Most notably, it was organized in such a way that only one-third of the

98
time was devoted to the actual lecture, with equal time given to answering
students' questions and to an informal evaluation of learning (Figure 3).
Moreover, a succinct handout, containing all the informationdisseminated
in the lecture, was distributedin advancewhich effectively placed students'
focus on listening and active participationratherthan on note-taking.As can
be noted in the following excerpt,this lecturercontinuouslyassessed students'
learningneeds and respondedby appropriatedegrees of explanation.
Excerpt from lecture 3
You were supposedto have [learned]that in an oncology lecture
But I will review that word if you wish
[I have used] a lot of terms there
If you have problems [with them], please interrupt
In this lecture,like the previousone, the structureof the lectureand specific
learningoutcomes were clearly articulated,"Again,a lot of termshere,[but]if
you rememberthe clinical names, that's all I'm interestedin."Similarly,transitions from one topic to the next were very clear and always prefacedby the
phrase,"Thenext topic I am going to talkabout is...".Of the lectures,this one
adheredthe most to pedagogical principles (Table 2). The lecture consisted
of an introduction,a well organizedbody with a sequence of generalizations
followed by specific periodic summaries, a conclusion, and an evaluation.
The actual lecturecomprisedonly 20 minutesof the one hour,which limited
the total amountof novel informationconsiderablyand allowed time for an
informalevaluationof learning.
Studentevaluation data
Lecture 1 received lower mean ratingson all dimensionsof the questionnaire
and yielded an overall mean ratingof 3.58 as comparedto 4.16 for lecture 2
and 4.52 for lecture 3. There were significantdifferences(p < .05) between
lectures 1 and 3 on all dimensions;between lectures 1 and 2 on appropriateness of level of instruction,active studentinvolvement,enthusiasm,effective
use of media, and overall teaching effectiveness;and between lectures 2 and
3 on clarity, organization,communicationof expectedlearning, and responsiveness to students(see Table3). However,in overall teachingeffectiveness,
lecture 2 received a higher mean rating.

99
Table3. Mean ratingsof studentcourse evaluationsand between lecturedifferences
Questionnaireitems

Clarity
Organization
Communicationof expected learning
Appropriatenessof level of inst.
Active involvementof students
Provision of summaryof main points
Responsivenessto students
Enthusiasm
Effective use of media
Overall teaching effectiveness

Lecturer1
(n = 35)
x (s.d.)

Lecturer2
(n = 34)
x (s.d.)

Lecturer3
(n = 33)
x (s.d.)

F ratio

3.80 (0.72)
3.69 (0.83)
3.51 (0.92)
3.63 (1.11)
2.63 (0.97)
3.60 (0.85)
3.11 (1.55)
3.49 (0.92)
3.77 (0.69)
3.63 (0.77)

3.99 (0.58)
4.00 (0.89)
3.94 (0.74)
4.18 (0.67)
4.38 (0.89)
3.97 (0.72)
3.91 (1.29)
4.21 (0.84)
4.44 (0.61)
4.62 (0.74)

4.52 (0.57)
4.67 (0.54)
4.55 (0.97)
4.52 (0.67)
4.30 (1.10)
4.64 (0.65)
4.33 (1.27)
4.61 (0.61)
4.55 (0.67)
4.59 (0.58)

11.75
14.24
11.72
9.48
34.49
16.77
6.91
16.99
14.06
16.54

* Significantdifferences(p < 0.05) between lectures 1 and 3 on all dimensions.


* Significant difference between lectures 1 and 2 in appropriatenessof level of instruction,
active studentinvolvement,enthusiasm,effectiveuse of media, and overall teaching effectiveness.
* Significantdifferencesbetween lectures 2 and 3 in clarity, organization,communicationof
expectedlearning, and responsivenessto students.

Discussion
The three lectures described in this paper confirm Frederick's (1986) view
point with regards to the potential and versatility of lectures. These lectures
represent a broad range of possibilities with respect to delivering and engaging
students in meaningful learning. While all three are similar in that they are
presented in a one-hour slot, review the same general area of medicine, and
are organized hierarchically, they differ in style and pedagogical strength.
Lecture 1 portrayed in this study is content-driven. It aims at covering a
large amount of information in the span of one hour and hardly includes
activities that would enhance cognitive processing and storing of voluminous
information. This lecture is a good example of Ramsden's (1992) "teaching
as telling" theory, and the lecturer is an equally good example of Leinhardt's
(1993) "didactic instructor" and Brown et al's. (1984) "information provider".
There is little evidence that the conception of teaching extends beyond that
of "cultural transmission" (Scardamalia and Bereiter 1989).
As compared to lecture 1, lecture 2 is context-driven because it uses
the context of clinical instruction effectively to promote the instructional
goals which clearly extend beyond providing information. Within Ramsden's
(1992) framework, perhaps this type of lecture is closer to theory 3 in which
the belief about teaching is to make learning possible. Since the overriding

100

instructionalgoal is to impress upon studentsboth the key aspects of a set


of diseases and the psychological impact of these diseases on patients, the
presence of patients is a powerful pedagogical tool for bringing about that
particularlearning. In Leinhardt's(1993) model, this instructorwould be
placed in the centerof the continuumsince he is the "arrangerof the learning
environment".In this lecture, greaterpedagogical expertise is evidenced by
a broaderconception of teaching in which the transmissionof culture and
trainingskills are as evident as the conceptionof teaching as producingconceptual change (Scardamaliaand Bereiter 1989). As well, the apprenticeship
paradigm,as describedby Famham-Diggory(1994), can be associatedto this
particularlecture. The initial interviewsof the instructorwith the patientsin
front of the class is a fine example of modeling, which is one of the stages of
cognitive apprenticeship(Brown et al. 1989).
Finally,lecture 3 can be best characterizedas pedagogy-driven.It attempts
to promoteand fosterthe learningof clinically useful principlesby meansof a
wide range of pedagogicaltools and ensuresthatthe opportunityto apply the
knowledge is providedduringthe lecture.Some of the elements which have
renderedlecture 3 more pedagogically oriented, such as clearly articulated
objectives, limited content, summary,a short evaluation,and handouts,are
fairly simple ideas which can be implementedeasily and which can make a
significant difference in terms of studentevaluationand potentially student
learning.This is an "exemplarylecturer"(Brownet al. 1984) who has clearly
articulatedlearningoutcomes anda pedagogicalapproachwhich corresponds
with those outcomes. In this lecture,the purposeis to make learningpossible
(Ramsden 1992). The lectureris not passive. On the contrary,she responds
to studentneeds and reviews and backtrackswhen and where the need is felt
or expressed (Leinhardt1993).
Whereas the content-drivenlecture is teacher-centered,the context and
pedagogy-drivenones are student-centered.What this implies is not only a
greaterinvolvementof the studentin the instructionbut also a change in the
nature of the teaching task. It is cognitively more demandingto exert less
control over discussion topics, divertfrom predeterminedcontent,encourage
freedom in classroom interaction and questioning than it is to teach from
a script or a detailed outline (Leinhardt1993). In other words, pedagogical
advantagesof an interactivelecturealso requiregreateradvanceplanningand
preparationon the part of the professor.Conversely,content-drivenlectures
tend to reduce the complex skill of teaching into the organizationof content
with a view that teaching and learning are synonymous terms. There is an
assumptionbehind this view that the consequence all teaching is learning.
This assumptionmakes it easier to blame studentsor otherelements if performance is poor or if expected learningdoes not occur.In contrast,context and

101

pedagogy-drivenlecturesmakea distinctionbetweenthe concept of teaching


and learningand this is evidencedby the additionaleffortthatlecturersmake
in arrangingthe environmentto make learning possible. Activities to promote interaction,evaluationcomponentswhich providefeedbackto students,
and a considerationfor pedagogical principles in delivering instructionare
mechanismsthat have been used in lectures2 and 3.
With respect to the organization,the formal presentationof all three lectures can be characterizedas hierarchical(Bligh 1972). However,insofar as
making the organizationclear enough for studentsto grasp and follow, the
pedagogy-drivenlecturehas an advantageover the othertwo. This advantage
is due to the comprehensiveandconcise handoutwhich outlinedthe discussed
concepts and theirlinks and relations.Knapper(1987) has suggestedthat the
primarypurpose of a handoutis to make availableto studentsa large body
of informationfor independentstudy outside the class so that class time can
be devoted to discussing a few basic ideas. In this lecture too, only general
characteristicswere discussed, while the minute details were purposefully
omitted from the lecture.
Studentratingsof these lecturessuggest thatthe morepedagogicaloriented
the lecture,the betterit is perceivedby the students.As mightbe expected,the
content-drivenlecture was ratedthe lowest on every dimensionof the evaluation and the pedagogy-drivenone was evaluatedthe highest. The exceptions
were two dimensions: active involvementof students and overall teaching
effectiveness, which yielded slightly higher although not significantly different ratings for the context-drivenlecture. The higher mean rating given
to lecture 2 in the overall teaching effectivenessdimension is an interesting
phenomenonwhich could be due to many factors.For instance,it is possible
that students' interpretationof "overall"has been the standingof the present
course in relation to other courses in the program.It could also be that the
dimensions in the questionnairedo not sufficientlymeasurethe constructof
"effectiveness".That is students,in theirassessmentof overall effectiveness,
might have included other factors which were not listed as questionnaire
items.
Dimensions such as clarity,organization,and communicationof expected
learning have been reportedamong the strongestcorrelatesof studentlearning (Cashin 1988). In addition,McKeachie(1994) has suggestedthatstudents
are betterable to learnin lecturesin which periodic summariesare provided.
In light of this literature,the pedagogy-drivenlecture may be consideredto
be more effective with regardto its impacton studentlearning.However,the
purposeof this paperwas to presentanddescribedivergentstyles of lecturing.
It did not aim at establishingsuperiorityof one lecturingmethodover another and consequently, it cannot be concluded that what has been labeled as

102
pedagogy-drivenyielded significantlybetterlearningthanthe content-driven
lecture.To establishthat,a moretightly designedstudyneeds to be carriedout
in which a numberof lecturescorrespondingclosely to the definitionsprovided for each type with varying topics are carefully examined and compared.
The descriptionof the lecturesprovidedhereincan serve as the firstphase of
such a study.Moreover,in an experimentaldesign, a numberof confounding
variablessuch as the personalityof the lectureror the inherentinterestlevel
of the topic of the lecture, which might renderone lecture superiorto the
other, need to be controlled.These are interestingtopics of investigationfor
futureresearch.
Concluding remarks
The lecture is a much maligned instructionalstrategy,perhapsinappropriately so given the potential differences in approach,delivery, and student
evaluation. In this paper, three variationsare described and several criteria
for improvingthe pedagogical quality of lecturesare articulated.It has been
shown that pedagogically sophisticatedlecturesyield higher studentratings
and potentially better learning. From the range of variationin lectures presented in this paper,it can be concluded that the merit of each instructional
episode needs to be established on its own and not within the instructional
strategyto which the episode belongs. Thusa lecturecan be as effective as any
otherinstructionalstrategyso long as it is appropriatelysuitedto the intended
learning outcomes and is pedagogically plannedand delivered.In a context
where a fundamentalcurricularchange (i.e., eliminatinglectures)is not possible, a pedagogically-drivenlecture might still be a very viable medium of
instructionin all levels of postsecondaryeducation, from undergraduateto
continuingprofessionaleducation.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded in part by a grant from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada.The authorswould like to thank
Timothy Rahilly for his help on an earlier version of this paper and Song
Guangwenand Susan Davies for their assistancein datacollection.
References
Barrow,H. and Tamblyn,R. (1980). Problem-basedLearning.An Approachto Medical Education. New York:Springer.

103
Bligh, D. (1972). What'sthe Use of Lectures?Middlesex,England:PenguinEducation.
Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. (1992). QualitativeResearchfor Education (2nd ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Borko, H. and Livingston, C. (1990). 'High school and mathematicsreview lessons: Expertnovice distinctions',Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation21, 372-387.
Brown, G. and Bakhtar,M. (1988). 'Styles of lecturing:A studyof its implications',Research
Papers in Education3, 2, 131-153.
Brown, G., Bakhtar,M. and Youngman,M. (1984). 'Towarda typology of lecturingstyles',
British Journalof Psychology54, 93-100.
Brown, J., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989). 'Situatedcognition and the cultureof learning',
EducationalResearcher18(1), 32-42.
Cashin,W. (1988). StudentRatingsof Teaching:A Summaryof the Research,(IDEA PaperNo.
20). Kansas:Kansas State University,Centerfor FacultyEvaluationand Development.
Centra,J. (1993). ReflectiveFacultyEvaluation.San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
CognitionandTechnologyGroupat Vanderbuilt.(1990). 'Anchoredinstructionandits relation
to situatedcognition', EducationalResearcher19(6), 2-10.
Cox, K. and Ewan, C. (1988). TheMedical Teacher.Edinburgh:ChurchillLivingstone.
Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. (1986). ProtocolAnalysis. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Farham-Diggory, S. (1994). 'Paradigmsof knowledgeandinstruction',ReviewofEducational
Research64, 463-477.
Feldman, K. (1984). 'Class size and students' evaluationof college teachers and courses: A
closer look', Researchin Higher Education5, 243-288.
Foley, R. and Smilansky,J. (1980). TeachingTechniques.New York:McGrawHill.
Frederick,P. (1986). 'The lively lecture', College Teaching34(2), 43-50.
Gage, N. and Berliner,D. (1991). EducationalPsychology.Dallas:Houghton-Mifflin.
Gibbs,G., Habeshaw,S. andHabeshaw,T. (1987). 'Improvingstudentlearningduringlectures',
Medical Teacher9(1), 11-20.
Johnson, D. and Johnson, R. (1974). Learning Together and Alone. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Kaufman,A. (Ed.) (1985). ImplementingProblem-basedMedical Education: Lessonsfrom
Successful Innovations.New York:Springer.
Kimmel, P. (1992). 'Abandoningthe lecture:Curriculumreformin the introductionto clinical
medicine', The Pharos 55(2), 36-38.
Knapper,C. (1987). 'Largeclasses andlearning',in Weimer,M. (seriesed.), New Directionsfor
Teachingand Learning:Vol.32. TeachingLargeClasses Well. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,
pp. 5-16.
Kulik, J. and Kulik, C. (1979). 'College teaching', in Peterson, P. and Walberg,H. (eds.),
Researchon Teaching.Berkeley,CA: McCutchan.
Laidlaw,J. M. (1988). 'Twelvetips for lecturers',Medical Teacher10 (1), 13-17.
Leinhardt,G. (1987). 'Developmentof an expert explanation:An analysis of a sequence of
subtractionlessons', Cognitionand Instruction4(4), 225-282.
Leinhardt,G. (1993). 'On teaching',in Glaser,R. (ed.), Advancesin InstructionalPsychology:
Vol.4. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,pp. 1-54.
Leinhardt,G. and Greeno,J. (1986). 'The cognitive skill of teaching',Journalof Educational
Psychology 78(2), 75-95.
Lowman,J. (1984). Masteringthe Techniquesof Teaching.London,England:Jossey-Bass.
Marton, F. and Salj6, R. (1976). 'On qualitativedifferences in learning II: Outcome as a
function of learner'sconception of task', British Journal of Educational Psychology 46,
115-117.
McKeachie,W. (1994). TeachingTips(9th ed.). Lexington,MA: D.C. Heathand Co.
Murray,H. (1991). 'Effective teachingbehaviorsin the college classroom', in Smart,J. (Vol.
ed.), Higher Education: Handbookof Theoryand Research: Vol. 7, No. 4. New York:
Agathon,pp. 135-172.

104
O'Donnell, A. and Dansereau, D. (1994). 'Learning from lectures: Effects of cooperative
review', Journal of ExperimentalEducation61(2), 116-125.
Perry,R., Abrami,P. and Leventhal,L. (1979). 'Educationalseduction:The effect of instructor expressiveness and lecture content on student ratings and achievement',Journal of
EducationalPsychology 71, 107-116.
Puett, P. and Braunstein,J. (1991). 'The endocrinemodule:An integratedcourse for first-year
medicalstudentcombininglecture-basedandmodifiedproblem-basedcurricula',Teaching
and Learningin Medicine 3 (3), 159-165.
Ramsden,P. (1992). Learningto Teachin Higher Education.London:Routledge.
Scardamalia,M. and Bereiter,C. (1989). 'Conceptionsof teaching approachesto core problems', in Reynolds, M. (ed.), KnowledgeBasefor BeginningTeachers.Oxford:Pergamon,
pp. 37-45.
Schank,R. and Jona, M. (1991). 'Empoweringthe student:New perspectiveson the design of
teaching systems', TheJournal of the LearningSciences 1(1), 7-35.
Schonwetter,D. (1993). 'Attributesof effective lecturingin the college classroom', The Canadian Journal of Higher EducationXXIII (2), 1-18.
Solomon, D., Rosenberg,L. and Bezdek, W. (1964). 'Teacherbehaviorand studentlearning',
Journal of EducationalPsychology 55, 23-30.
Tom, F. andCushman,H. (1975). 'The Cornell DiagnosticObservationandReportingSystem
for StudentDescriptionof College Teaching',Search5(8), 1-27.

You might also like