...everybody is for it, except maybe the students

So says James Renfield in a short essay on the Discussion Class (hat tip to Rex at Savage Minds). Renfield writes that while he is in favor of discussion-oriented teaching methods, he finds himself using them less.

one of my students said that he found the previous two classes very helpful. When he said, "You took control," I replied, "You mean I was lecturing." The student who happened to be standing next to him said, "Oh, that's what that's called."

I have a similar reaction to the lecture / discussion continuum. In graduate school, I was convinced that lecture is an evil tool of indoctrination and domination. I became convinced (somewhat self-righteously, which was the currency of my grad program) that learning should be discursive, multivocal, and nuanced. We were into giving everyone voice. However, now that I'm doing this stuff for a full time gig, I'm starting to recognize that a discussion, in order to be productive, needs to be anchored to some kind of authoritative structure.

Renfield references this fear of authority (or in his words, hierarchy) in pedagogy. This distrust of hierarchy is something to be celebrated:

One of the great discoveries of postclassical civilization is that every soul is valuable; everyone has something to say; everyone deserves to be heard. We talk about this when we talk about learning from our students. This is one of the things we teachers say, always with a tone of self-satisfaction.

But free-wheeling ungrounded discussions seem to fail the learning objective. I recall sitting in a discussion-oriented course taught by a colleague where students were offering opinions left and right. Many of these opinions reflected a fundamental ignorance of broader context and specific social dynamics. Sure, as the instructor, I tried to raise these issues discursively; but when all opinions have equal weight, few took my points for what they were: explicit corrections, not suggestions.

Renfield contrasts the free-wheeling, let a thousand flowers bloom discussions with the hole in the board method (characterized by Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller's Day Off). This is discussion in name only... the instructor knows what the right answer is and asks the class to fill in the blank. I used this format today...

me: does anyone know what form of crime is the most costly in terms of property loss?

student1: Burglary?

me: nope, not Burglary

student 2: Arson?

me: nope, something much more benign

student 3: White Collar Crime?

me: we're getting warmer, but that form of crime typically is restricted to elites...

And so it went on for a few minutes before someone finally hit upon occupational theft. This can be an effective way to keep a class engaged; but I find it often backfires as I ask vague, poorly worded questions and students tire of the "guess what Colyer is thinking" game.

We typically see lecture contrasted with discussion. Some argue that there is a disconnect between the learner and the instructor... that lecture is mechanical. Renfeild counters this argument by pointing to one of his favorite teachers, who made exclusive use of the lecture method.

He had extraordinary classes in which he improvised his lectures and was so interactive with the students that they felt part of the process the whole time. At the end of ninety minutes, I'd be astonished to realize that nobody had said a word except Henry. He was learning from his students what it was he could get them to understand, or what he could get away with.

This is the kind of lecturer I aspire to be. I mostly teach large (80 to 100 student) sections of Criminology and Criminal Justice. In the past, particularly in Criminology, I lectured mechanically. I outlined lists and the students copied them down. There was very little dynamic going on. This semester, I'm making a real effort to lecture by pursuing a question. Undoubtedly, I'm going to keep using the Ben Stein hole in the board method... but I will try to be flexible in letting the question emerge as the class moves forward.

I'm glad I found Renfield's essay. His website also includes several other short essays about pedagogy in the University. I'm going to do some more browsing before preparing my next class.