Chapter 2: Lectures

Our reliance on lectures is the most glaring example of the problems plaguing education. Lectures are so futile that I would feel foolish describing their inadequacies if they were not so pervasive. Everyone recognizes the basic lecture model: a teacher stands at the front of the room, while students sit quietly taking notes. At university there is no attempt to disguise this model. With enrollment for some classes in the hundreds, there is little chance to do much else. A walk through the halls of any high school will confirm that lecturing is the predominant model there as well. Yet finding data to quantify this image is difficult.

Most research on the inner workings of classrooms comes from elementary schools. High school data is sparse and is often obtained via questionnaires – valuable for determining what people think happens inside classrooms but worthless for measuring what actually happens. Questionnaires are the research equivalent of spam email; they are cheap, easy to distribute, and guarantee the large sample sizes conducive to statistical significance. Conversely, direct classroom observation is time-consuming, expensive, and unwelcome. Most teachers do not want visitors recording and judging their performance in class. Even when direct observation is possible, studies can suffer from “observer effects” if teachers and students behave abnormally due to the presence of a video camera or outside observer.

Several years ago, my school district introduced direct observation to evaluate teachers. Administrators watched teachers during twenty-minute visits, once every three years. Some people saw this program as cutting-edge; others considered it pointless and shallow. Whatever it was, it was not representative. Classroom visits were arranged well in advance. Teachers delivered unusually creative lessons, often joking with each other afterward about having to jump through hoops to get a good “grade”. In a few instances, administrators had to reschedule visits at the last minute; some teachers were irate, as they faced the dilemma of whether to continue teaching units in a logical sequence or set aside carefully crafted lessons to show off at a later date.

Researchers and school boards have an ethical obligation to report accurately on what happens inside classrooms. The only way to accomplish this goal is with secret surveillance. Employers do have a legal right to covertly observe employees at work without notification (they cannot eavesdrop in intimate locations, but they can watch employees doing their jobs). Nevertheless, this type of study is considered unscrupulous spying, which is why it has never been attempted.

Since authentic reports of classroom routines are unavailable, we must turn to a handful of studies that used videotape to record teacher volunteers. While these studies cannot provide a flawless picture, they can hint at the truth and help answer some basic questions. What goes on inside classrooms? Are lectures common? Is instruction interactive or monopolized by teachers talking?

An initial viewing of the videotapes suggests that the similarities among the eighth-grade classrooms we visited were more striking than the differences. Although we were videotaping in three highly distinct cultures, there was nevertheless considerable similarity in classroom arrangement in all countries. In all three nations, classrooms typically contained one teacher and many students. All of the classrooms we visited contained chalkboards, and all contained individual desks for each student.

– TIMSS Videotape Classroom Study

The first major study to videotape teaching was TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study).¹ TIMSS began in 1995 and has been repeated every four years since. Its primary goal is to test the academic ability of students in grades four and eight. Students in dozens of countries participate in written tests. In the past, videotaping was done in a small subset of countries – three in 1995 and six in 1999 – to find instructional practices that might account for differences in test scores. (TIMSS 2003 and 2007 did not include video studies – probably to save money and because obvious patterns had already emerged.)

These landmark video studies, yet to be equaled in size and scope, were good but not perfect. Researchers did not eliminate observer effects: visits were prearranged, no attempt was made to conceal cameras, and teachers in every country reported spending more time preparing for videotaped lessons than for typical lessons. Despite these limitations, and a sole focus on eighth-grade math, the TIMSS studies are the closest thing available to a video record of typical high school classrooms.

Table 2.1: Findings from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study ²

TIMSS paints a clear picture that lecturing is the norm. The only country where chalkboards were used in less than 95% of lessons was the U.S., presumably because overhead projectors were used instead. Internationally, 60% of class time was spent lecturing (euphemistically called “public interaction” in the TIMSS report), with 87% of the dialogue dominated by teachers. Students rarely spoke. When they did, they responded briefly to teacher queries with “yes”, “no”, and other short answers. Only 29% of student utterances were longer than four words. Even when teachers were not lecturing (called “private interaction”), classrooms were far from interactive because students spent 84% of that time working alone at their desks rather than in pairs or groups. Switching between lectures and seatwork (called “shifts”) occurred about six times per lesson. Thus, seatwork was simply an extension of lectures as students took a few minutes to practice the concepts presented in class.

If you think math is more confining than other classes, think again. In one study, teachers were asked to estimate how much time they spent using various instructional practices.³ Data was gathered from interviews rather than via direct observation, likely resulting in underestimation. For example, math teachers estimated that lecturing consumed 51% of class time, which is less than the observed TIMSS value of 67% for U.S. math classes. Although estimates may be low, if all teachers similarly underestimate their lecturing, then we can get a relative sense of how time is spent in different subjects. Since lecturing and audiovisual presentations (i.e. movies) both occur at the same pace for all class members, I have combined these as “whole-class instruction”:

Table 2.2: Percentage of Time Spent in Whole-Class Instruction

Despite minor differences in the amount of whole-class instruction, I suspect the remaining time in all subjects is filled with small chunks of seatwork intended to extend lectures. In other words, regardless of the class, students march in lockstep according to a common pace set by the teacher, with little chance to work independently.

  Also in this chapter ...

• The role of questions in class (from students and teachers)
• What research reveals about the effectiveness of notetaking
• Time in school versus time spent learning
• Alternatives to lectures, including discovery learning, cooperative learning, and individualized instruction

This is an excerpt from Chalkbored: What's Wrong with School and How to Fix It. Order the book here.