What are History lectures for?

Dr Simon Peplow (Associate Professor of Modern British History), University of Warwick

‘Lecturing is that mysterious process by means of which the contents of the note-book of the professor are transferred to the note-book of the student, without passing through the mind of either.’ – Harry Lloyd Miller

‘A lecture is much more of a dialogue than many of you probably realize.’ – George Wald

Despite facing much criticism, ‘traditional’ forms of lecture remain widely used in teaching history in higher education. This is partly due to being perceived as ‘efficient’ in the commodified neoliberal university – in the words of Simon Winlow, ‘the drive is to ensure that every student consumer is given an orderly experience in which key issues are covered in detail and nothing important is left out. The experience should be uniform to ensure no student consumer is disadvantaged and all have what they need to perform well in the eventual assessment.’

Writing in 1981, Graham Gibbs had already provided opposition to suggestions of a ‘uniform experience’ – ‘Students make their own meaning… What students manage to construct out of a lecture will depend on what they already know and can bring to bear in constructing new knowledge’. He also summarised many of the same criticisms that lectures still face nearly 45 years later – their inflexibility, being antithetical to active learning, and that their standard length of about an hour runs counter to accepted wisdom that attention declines significantly after about 15-20 minutes. Although Gibbs attempted to counter rebuttals that his criticisms only actually applied to ‘bad lectures’, subsequent research suggests that the lecturer themselves and their actions can have more of an impact on student’s attention than simply the length of time they’re in the room.

Gibbs himself did believe that ‘worthwhile improvements can be made, though more as a consequence of the introduction of non-lecturing activities during lectures than as a consequence of improved lecturing per se’. So, the question remains – if (for better or worse) lectures are here to stay, what can we be doing to make them as effective as possible?

This was a question posed at a recent History UK Pedagogy Forum event, which saw many colleagues who teach History in UK HE come together to discuss what lectures are actually for. To begin, we shared some student reflections coming out of a wider ongoing project about student engagement across various UK universities. We received a range of responses from students that portrayed lectures as both the single most significant aspect of their learning, as well as many that – particularly in a time of various crises and pressures on students’ time – something that is often seen as non-essential or that can be caught up with later at a time that suits them.

Some students praised lectures for giving effective introductions to topics and overviews of existing historiographical debates, with many positive comments for staff who were clearly passionate about the subject – and, significantly, could also make the subject engaging for the listening audience, providing inspiration for their own further explorations. Sometimes, the perceived value of lectures appears more strongly in their absence. At Warwick, our Final Year modules don’t have lectures, and every year students ask us about this – their questions often coming from anxieties that they are losing an important introduction and contextualisation of topics that helps guide their subsequent engagement and research. (However, when our rationale is explained and module feedback subsequently received, widespread praise is often focused on the increased contact hours dedicated to seminar discussions.)

Conversely, a common criticism of lectures from students we spoke with was a lack of flexibility, interactivity, or opportunity to feel they are actively engaging with their learning. As one respondent put it: ‘To me it’s all about taking part in something. I get the concept [of lectures] like they’re a stepping stone for you to do further reading. But from a pedagogical perspective they are not great. I rarely find myself thinking, and instead just absorb information for me to forget pretty soon after.’

Moreover, others recounted examples of simply not going to lectures by staff who were characterised as only talking at great length about their own research, rather than prioritising what students saw as ‘helpful’ information (links with assessments, relevance for their own lives/experiences, etc.). This is particularly true when students have so many more ways to access information than previously. Reduced attendance at lectures is another thing that some staff use to criticise students’ engagement, particularly linked with the thorny issue of lectures being recorded for subsequent viewing – but (and without downplaying the numerous reasons why students may not be able to attend) how much of this is on us to make lectures feel like they’re worth being in the room for?

From the other side of the lectern (side note: how many of the rooms we lecture in actually have lecterns these days – or are even suited for lectures?!), some History lecturers at our pedagogy forum noted the significance of lectures providing a shared learning experience through creating community. In other words, a communal space where, for about an hour at regular intervals, all students on the module can come together to engage with whatever topic was being covered. Similarly, History UK’s Post-Pandemic Pedagogy project found that, during the Covid-19 pandemic, one key aspect that students (and staff!) reported missing out on was ‘the sorts of informal interactions that in-person delivery promotes (e.g., chatting before or after class)’.

However, the obvious question is if fostering a shared learning experience is purely the sole reserve of the lecture, or is it something that other forms of teaching can also provide? Similarly, points often raised as positives of lectures – developing student understandings, challenging preconceptions or assumptions, etc. – again, are these something that can be achieved through things like seminar discussions?

One approach that many of us have utilised, in attempts to address some of the shortcomings of a ‘sage on the stage’ model, is through incorporating more ‘active learning’ elements in lectures – through activities like interactivity (pausing for student questions/voting/etc.), audio/video clips, bringing in objects to study, small group discussions, the ‘minute paper’ writing activity, etc.

However, some studies have suggested that, although students actually learn more through active learning activities, they often think they are learning less – something researchers chalked up to ‘the increased cognitive effort required’ with such approaches. So, is this an issue of perceptions, as much as realities – that perhaps more could be done to explain what we want our students to get out of specific learning activities, and why?

Facing seemingly ever-increasing pressures, it seems like we’re now required to do more than ever with our History lectures – to balance imparting information with interactivity, engage with active learning approaches without alienating students who instinctively feel they aren’t learning as much, and to provide an accessible mix between overview and detail, to name just a few challenges. One colleague at our pedagogy forum compared the pressures of lecturing to being like taking a new stand-up show to the Edinburgh festival each week. And maybe one of the reasons why a lot of my ramblings here have gone back and forth, my own (failed) attempt to resolve mixed feelings about the value of lectures, is the inherent contradiction that they simply remain to be an imperfect but seemingly ubiquitous and still (in some quarters, at least) revered teaching activity?

Please do share below any of your thoughts about lectures, I’d love to hear your take on their place in our history teaching!