INSIDE DOUGLAS COLLEGE / OCTOBER 30, 1990

 

A FORUM FOR TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION SIPRUNG, 1 919°0

 

Grant MacEwan
Community College

CHANGE, formerly the “Technological Applications Committee (TAC) Bulletin,” is produced by
Instructional Development, 1212, 10030 - 107 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5] 3&4

Lecturing: Some Myths
and a Few Truths

Mythology is a fascinating study.
At one time, many people believed
that mythological creatures exerted
a considerable influence over their
daily lives. At the very least, the
myths were regarded as stories
whose accuracy one questioned at
one's peril. Today, we have dis-
posed of most of these misconcep-
tions and replaced them with a new
set of equally improbable, but
much less colourful, beliefs about
governments and politicians. Even
educators, who pride themselves
on an absolute adherence to dem-
onstrated facts, harbour private my-
thologies about teaching.

 
  

{ y #1:
| The lecture is an archaic form
| of education that should be

 

 

There is a general feeling that
technology can overcome most
educational problems and
successfully outstrip traditional
instructional approaches. The
response I give to those who

believe that lectures "could be done
much better using computers" is to
ask for evidence that their assertion
is correct. Whether we choose to
believe it or not, a good
computer-assisted instruction (CAI)
lesson is better than a bad lecture,
and a good lecture is better than a
bad CAI session. We also know
that some things can be taught
more quickly and effectively
through interactive computer
programs, and other things are
better suited to a lecture format. In
terms of the success of the different
approaches, most studies I have
seen have been unable to detect
any difference in learning,
regardless of which technique is
used. This result may be due to the
poor "signal to noise ratio" in these
kinds of studies, or indeed, there
may be little significant difference.
Even in cases where one approach
is shown to be superior to the
other, the predictive value for this
observation to other subjects,
programs, and instructors may be
very small.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[respectfully suggest that rather
than entrenching our positions on
either side of this issue, we ask