The ongoing lecture-active learning debate has generated considerable response in public venues, on social media, and in faculty conversations. These exchanges need to include accurate information as to the instructional methods actually being used in courses. Is lecture as dominant as it once was? How often are active learning activities part of classroom experiences?
In the last national survey of faculty, published in 1998, 60 percent reported that the lecture was their instructional method of choice. That percentage was the same for new and experienced faculty. More recent data have been collected in some fields and from faculty teaching a particular course or set of courses. In a survey of 275 faculty members teaching principles of economics courses at a range of different institutions, those teachers reported spending 70 percent of class time lecturing, 20 percent of the time leading class discussion (an instructional method often dominated by teacher talk), and 10 percent of class time in activities that included experiments, group activities, peer instruction, and clicker question activities. In this discipline, these percentages are comparable with data on instructional methods collected in 1998, 2008, and 2011. In the 2011 survey, the median respondent reported spending 83 percent of class time in these principles courses lecturing.
Equally interesting are the beliefs faculty hold about the instructional methods they are using. In the survey of econ faculty, respondents fell into three categories: those who said they lectured because students learn best from lecture; those who said students don’t learn best from lecture, but they use it because it’s cost-effective (meaning they couldn’t afford the extra effort needed to prepare lecture alternatives); and the final group, who reported selecting other methods because students don’t learn well from lectures. As might be suspected, the cohort who lecture because they think that’s how students learn best reported a lack of familiarity with the pedagogical literature.
A survey of 722 physics faculty across the United States assessed familiarity with and implementation of 24 research-based instructional strategies (such as cooperative group problem solving, peer instruction, and activity-based tutorials), most falling into the active learning camp. Twelve percent of the cohort reported no knowledge of any of the strategies, 16 percent had knowledge of them but had not tried any of them, and 23 percent reported implementing one or more but had since discontinued using them. Of the faculty who tried one or more of the strategies, about a third currently weren’t using any of them, a third were low users (using one or two), and a third were high users (using three or more).
In 2005, a team in geoscience surveyed faculty in the field to determine teaching methods in undergraduate geoscience courses. In the over 2,000 faculty cohort, 66 percent of those teaching introductory methods reported using lecture in nearly every class; 56 percent used it in nearly every class taught for majors. More than half the cohort reported incorporating some interactive activities on a weekly basis, most commonly questions, demonstrations, discussions, and in-class exercises. “Less than 1/3 of respondents use interactive techniques other than lecture with questions or lecture with demonstrations more frequently than several times a semester.” (p. 245)
The diffusion of “innovations” in engineering was tracked with a survey of 197 department chairs representing the various brands of engineering and a range of institutions. They were asked about the use of innovations by faculty within their departments, such as student-active pedagogies (work in pairs or groups performing experiments and interpreting results), service learning projects, first-year design projects, learning communities, and integrated curricula. Overall awareness of these innovations was 82 percent and adoption of them was at 47 percent.
This is not a comprehensive listing, but a sample that illustrates data being collected on instructional methods. It is worth noting that in virtually every case (here and elsewhere in the literature), use of methods is not based on actual classroom observations of teaching, but on the reports of teachers or academic leaders. That does raise some questions about the data. How accurate are faculty estimates of the amount of time each method is used? Are there expectations of the “right,” “best,” or “correct” ways to teach that influence reported percentages?
The discussion of instructional methods needs to be informed by what is known about the current use of various approaches to teaching. The conclusions drawn from the data are what make the conversation interesting.
References: Borregim, N., Froyd, J.E., and Hall, T.S. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99 (3), 185-207.
Finkelstein, M.J., Seal, R.K., and Schuster, J. The New Academic Generation: A Profession in Transformation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.
Goffe, W.L., and Kauper, D. (2014). A survey of principles instructors: Why lecture prevails. Journal of Economic Education, 45 (4), 360-375.
Henderson, C., Dancy, M., and Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M. (2012). Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 8, 1-15.
Macdonald, R.H., Manduca, C.A., Mogk, D.W., and Tewksbury, B.J. (2005). Teaching methods in undergraduate geoscience courses: Results of the 2004 On the Cutting Edge Survey of U.S. faculty. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53 (3), 237-252.
