Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:01:33.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teaching with Lecture or Debate? Testing the Effectiveness of Traditional versus Active Learning Methods of Instruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2008

Mariya Y. Omelicheva  and
Olga Avdeyeva
Mariya Y. Omelicheva
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Olga Avdeyeva
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Lecture is, arguably, the oldest known instructional technique used in the university setting. Since it was first employed in Plato's Academy, lecture has become an indispensable part of teaching favored across the college and university curriculum. Recently, this time-honored method of instruction has come under attack for its presumed inability to foster higher order cognitive and attitudinal goals (Cashin 1985; Day 1980; Frederick 1999; Renner 1993). Critics of traditional lecture-based formats call for their replacement with active learning approaches that provide students with an opportunity to meaningfully talk, interact, write, read, and reflect on the content, ideas, and issues of an academic subject (Meyers and Jones 1993, 6).

Type
The Teacher
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 603 - 607
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antepohl, W., and Herzig, S.. 1999. “Problem-Based Learning versus Lecture-Based Learning in a Course of Basic Pharmacology: A Controlled, Randomized Study.” Medical Education 33: 106–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, G., and Wachowiak, D.. 1977. “The Home-Court Advantage: A Debate Format for the Teaching of Personality.” Teaching of Psychology 4 (4): 190–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, B. S. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
Bonwell, C., and Eison, J.. 1991. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. AEHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.1. Washington, DC.: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Brembeck, W. L. 1949. “The Effects of a Course in Argumentation on Critical Thinking Ability.” Speech Monographs 16: 177–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budesheim, T. L., and Lundquist, A. R.. 1999. “Consider the Opposite: Opening Minds Through In-Class Debates on Course-Related Controversies.” Teaching of Psychology 26 (2): 106–10.Google Scholar
Cashin, W. E. 1985. Improving Lectures. Manhattan: Kansas State University.Google Scholar
Combs, H. W., and Bourne, S. G.. 1994. “The Renaissance of Educational Debate: Results of a Five-Year Study of the Use of Debate in Business Education.” Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 5: 57–67.Google Scholar
Day, R. S. 1980. “Teaching from Notes: Some Cognitive Consequences.” In Learning, Cognition, and College Teaching: New Directions for Teaching and Learning, ed. McKeachie, W. J.. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Frederick, P. J. 1999. “The Lively Lecture: Eight Variations.” In Fieldguide for Teaching in a New Century, eds. Pescosolido, B. A. and Aminzade, R.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 62–71.Google Scholar
Green, C. S. III, and Dorn, D. S.. 1999. “The Changing Classroom: The Meaning of Shifts in Higher Education for Teaching and Learning.” In The Social Worlds of Higher Education: Handbook for Teaching in a New Century, eds. Pescosolido, B. A. and Aminzade, R.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 59–83.Google Scholar
Green, C. S. III, and Klug, H. G.. 1990. “Teaching Critical Thinking and Writing through Debates: An Experimental Evaluation.” Teaching Sociology 18 (4): 462–71.Google Scholar
Hill, Bill. 1993. “The Value of Competitive Debate as a Vehicle for Promoting Development of Critical Thinking Ability.” CEDA Yearbook 14: 1–22.Google Scholar
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., and Bertram, B. M.. 1973. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook II: Affective Domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
McGlone, E. L. 1974. The Behavioral Effects of Forensics Participation. Journal of the American Forensic Association 10 (3): 140–6.Google Scholar
McKeachie, W. J. 1969. Teaching Tips: A Guidebook for the Beginning Teacher, 6th edition. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health.Google Scholar
Meyers, C., and Jones, T. B.. 1993. Promoting Active Learning. Strategies for the College Classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Nandi, P. L., Chan, J. N. F., Chan, C. P. K., Chan, P., and Chan, L. P. K.. 2000. “Undergraduate Medical Education: Comparison of Problem-Based Learning and Conventional Teaching.” HKMJ 6 (3): 301–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Paul, R. 1999. “Critical Thinking, Moral Integrity, and Citizenship: Teaching for the Intellectual Virtues.” In The Social Worlds of Higher Education: Handbook for Teaching in a New Century, eds. Pescosolido, B. A. and Aminzade, R.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 128–36.Google Scholar
Puchot, R. 2002. “Empowering Student Governance and Promoting Activism through Forensics.” Speaker Points from Phi Rho 9 (2). Available at: http://www.phirhopi.org/prp/spkrpts9.2/craft2002/puchot.html. Accessed November 25, 2005.Google Scholar
Renner, P. 1993. The Art of Teaching Adults. Vancouver, BC: Training Associates.Google Scholar
Ruyle, K. 1995. “Group Training Methods.” In The ASTD Technical and Skills Training Handbook, ed. Kelly, L. McGraw-Hill, L. New York:.Google Scholar
Scannapieco, F. A. 1997. “Formal Debate: an Active Learning Strategy.” Journal of Dentist Education 61: 955–61.Google Scholar