Advertisement

Delivery: Relics of the Past? Rethinking the History Lecture and Tutorial

  • Paul SendziukEmail author
  • Thomas C. Buchanan
Chapter

Abstract

Increasing student enrolments in higher education and burgeoning class sizes have required creative approaches to delivering course material, especially if active learning on the part of the student is the aim. In this context, traditional forms of course delivery such as lectures provided by a ‘sage on the stage’ and tutorials have been criticised as ineffective and expensive. However, thoughtfully designed to accommodate student needs and desires, history lectures and tutorials can still play an important role in higher education.

References

  1. Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2014). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). (2013). Hitting the books: Characteristics of higher education students. 4102.0—Australian Social Trends. Retrieved October 26, 2016 from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features20July+2013#p6.
  3. Al-Shalchi, O. (2009). The effectiveness and development of online discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 104–108.Google Scholar
  4. Angelo, A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Arvanitakis, J. (2014). Massification and the large lecture theatre: From panic to excitement. Higher Education, 67(6), 735–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9676-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Barnes, K., Marateo, R. C., & Ferris, S. P. (2007). Teaching and learning with the net generation. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(4) (Article 1).Google Scholar
  8. BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). (2015). Increase in university students ‘working to fund studies’. BBC News, 10 August. Retrieved October 26, 2016 from http://www.bbc.com/news/education-33843987.
  9. Beidatsch, C., & Broomhall, S. (2010). Is this the past? The place of role-play exercises in undergraduate history teaching. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 71, http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol7/iss1/6.
  10. Berrett, D. (2012). How ‘flipping’ the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 February. Retrieved July 25, 2016 from http://chronicle.com/article/How-Flipping-the-Classroom/130857/.
  11. Berry, G. (2008). Asynchronous discussion: Best practices. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, University of Wisconsin, 2008. Retrieved July 6, 2016 from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/search_detail.cfm?presid=12701.
  12. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Washington, D.C.: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.Google Scholar
  13. Booth, A. (1996). Assessing group work. In A. Booth & P. Hyland (Eds.), History in higher education: New directions in teaching and learning (pp. 276–297). London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Booth, A. (2003). Teaching history at university: Enhancing learning and understanding. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Bos, N., Groeneveld, C., van Bruggen, J., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2016). The use of recorded lectures in education and the impact on lecture attendance and exam performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 906–917. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boud, D. (2001). Implementing student self-assessment. Sydney: HERDSA.Google Scholar
  17. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18(5), 529–549.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bowen, J. A. (2012). Teaching naked: How moving technology out of your college classroom will improve student learning. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education: Final report. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.Google Scholar
  20. Brawley, S. (2004). Using role-play in humanities teaching and learning. UNSW Compendium of Good Practice in Learning and Teaching, 1, 30–40. Sydney: University of New South Wales. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/51449/20060406-0000/www.ltu.unsw.edu.au/documents/compendium_1_june2004.pdf. Accessed 27 October 2016.
  21. Carless, D. (2007). Learning-oriented assessment: Conceptual bases and practical implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 57–66.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290601081332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carlson, S. (2005). The net generation goes to college. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 7 October. Retrieved October 26, 2016 fromhttp://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Net-Generation-Goes-to/12307.
  23. Carnes, M. C. (2014). Minds on fire: How role immersion games transform college. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  25. Clark, J. (2008). Powerpoint and pedagogy: Maintaining student interest in university lectures. College Teaching, 56(1), 39–44.  https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.56.1.39-46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Comer, D. R., & Lenaghan, J. A. (2013). Enhancing discussions in the asynchronous online classroom: The lack of face-to-face interaction does not lessen the lesson. Journal of Management Education, 37(2), 261–294.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562912442384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Covill, A. E. (2011). College students’ perceptions of the traditional lecture method. College Student Journal, 45(1), 92–101.Google Scholar
  28. Cramer, K. M., Collins, K. R., Snider, D., & Fawcett, G. (2007). The virtual lecture hall: Utilization, effectiveness, and student perceptions. British Journal of Technology, 38(1), 106–115. https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ebbeler, J. (2013). ‘Introduction to Ancient Rome,’ the flipped version. Chronicle Higher Education, 22 July. Retrieved June 15, 2016 from http://chronicle.com/article/Introduction-to-Ancient/140475.
  30. Ellis, A. E. (2003). Personality type and participation in networked learning environments. Educational Media International, 40(1–2), 101–115.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0952398032000092152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement: Practical solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Gaughan, J. E. (2014). The flipped classroom in world history. History Teacher, 47(2), 221–244.Google Scholar
  33. Gilboy, M., Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. (2015). Enhancing student engagement using the flipped classroom. Journal of Nutrition and Education and Behavior, 47(1), 109–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.08.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goastellec, G. (2008). Changes in access to higher education: From worldwide constraints to common patterns of reform? In D. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), Worldwide transformation of higher education (pp. 1–26). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  35. Greenfield, S. (2015). Mind change: How digital technologies are leaving their mark on our brains. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  36. HESA. (2016). Students and graduates. HESA Website. Retrieved October 26, 2016 from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students.
  37. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2012). Student participation in online discussions: Challenges, solutions, and future research. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hodgson, V. (2005). Lectures and the experience of relevance. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), Experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (3rd ed., pp. 159–171). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment. Retrieved January 12, 2016 from http://www.ed.ac.uk/institute-academic-development/learning-teaching/staff/advice/researching/publications/experience-of-learning.
  39. James, R., McInnis, C., & Devlin, M. (2002). Assessing learning in Australian universities. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  40. Jennings, M. M. (2012). In defense of the sage on the stage: Escaping from the ‘sorcery’ of learning styles and helping students learn how to learn. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 29(2), 191–237.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1722.2012.01105.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jones, S. E. (2007). Reflections on the lecture: Outmoded medium or instrument of inspiration? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(4), 397–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Knowlton, D. S. (2005). A taxonomy of learning through asynchronous discussion. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(2), 155–177.Google Scholar
  43. Lee, H., Kim, J. W., & Hackney, R. (2011). Knowledge hoarding and user acceptance of online discussion board systems in e-learning: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1431–1437.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lunt, I. (2008). Beyond tuition fees? The legacy of Blair’s government to higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 34(6), 741–752.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980802519001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Macquarie University, Faculty of Arts. (2014). Flipping a program: Final report. Macquarie University. Retrieved October 27, 2016 http://www.mq.edu.au/ltc/altc/FPPdocs/Reports/S2_2014_Reports/arts_flipping.pdf.
  46. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service Center for Technology in Learning. Retrieved July 6, 2016 from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf.
  47. Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. Occasional Report 4, ETL Project, Universities of Edinburgh, Coventry and Durham.Google Scholar
  48. Millis, B. J., & Cottell, P. G., Jr. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix: Oryx Press.Google Scholar
  49. Murphee, D. S. (2014). ‘Writing wasn’t really stressed, accurate historical analysis was stressed’: Student perceptions of in-class writing in the inverted, general education, university history survey course. The History Teacher, 47(2), 209–219.Google Scholar
  50. NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). (2014). Fall Enrollment, In Millions. Digest of Education Statistics: 2014. Retrieved October 26, 2016 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/figures/fig_12.asp?referrer=figures.
  51. O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pena-Shaff, J., Altman, W., & Stephenson, H. (2005). Asynchronous online discussions as a tool for learning: Students attitudes, expectations, and perceptions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(4), 409–430.Google Scholar
  53. Phillips, J. A. (2015). Replacing traditional live lectures with online learning modules: Effects on learning and student perceptions. Current in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 7, 738–744.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2015.08.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rainsbury, E., & Malcolm, P. (2013). Extending the classroom boundaries: An evaluation of an asynchronous discussion board. Accounting Education, 12(1), 49–61.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0963928032000049366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rollag, K. (2010). Teaching business cases online through discussion boards: Strategies and best practices. Journal of Management Education, 34(4), 499–526.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562910368940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schrad, M. L. (2010). In defense of the populist lecture. PS: Political Science and Politics, 43(4), 759–765.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096510001289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schwerdt, G., & Wuppermann, A. C. (2011). Sage on the stage: Is lecturing really all that bad? Education Next, 11(3), 63–67.Google Scholar
  59. See, S., & Conry, J. (2014). Flip my class! A faculty development demonstration of a flipped-classroom. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 6(4), 585–588.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2014.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sendziuk, P. (2007). Virtual museums: Enhancing graduate capabilities and the student experience through an innovative group assessment task. Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship: Proceedings of the 30th HERDSA Conference (pp. 501–509). Sydney: HERDSA.Google Scholar
  61. Sendziuk, P. (2010). Sink or swim? Improving student learning through feedback and self-assessment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(3), 320–330.Google Scholar
  62. Sendziuk, P. (2014a). Student engagement and their perceptions of the effectiveness of different tutorial formats. International Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sendziuk, P. (2014b). Helping students to ‘Think historically’ by engaging with threshold concepts. In C. O’Mahony, A. Buchanan, M. O’Rourke, & B. Higgs (Eds.), Threshold concepts: From personal practice to communities of practice. Proceedings of the National Academy’s Sixth Annual Conference and the Fourth Biennial Threshold Concepts Conference. Dublin: National Academy for Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning. Retrieved October 28, 2016 from http://www.nairtl.ie/workgroupDocs/SendziukPaul.pdf.
  64. Sendziuk, P. (2015). If we build it will they come? Saving the history tutorial and rethinking assessment. History Australia, 12(3), 192–206.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14490854.2015.11668594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stearns, P. N. (1996). Teaching and learning in lectures. In A. Booth & P. Hyland (Eds.), History in higher education: New directions in teaching and learning (pp. 97–110). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  66. Sweeney, J., O’Donoghue, T., & Whitehead, C. (2004). Traditional face-to-face and web-based tutorials: A study of university students’ perspectives on the roles of tutorial participants. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 311–323.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251042000216633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Taras, M. (1999). Student self-assessment as a means of promoting student autonomy and independence. In M. Taras (Ed.), Innovations in learning and teaching: Teaching fellowships at the University of Sunderland (pp. 61–83). Sunderland, UK: University of Sunderland Press.Google Scholar
  68. Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65, 12–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tiene, D. (2000). Online discussions: A survey of advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face discussions. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 369–382.Google Scholar
  70. Universities Australia. (2015). Higher education and research: Facts and figures. Canberra: Universities Australia.Google Scholar
  71. Wang, Q., & Woo, H. W. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272–286.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00621.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Williams, A., Birch, E., & Hancock, P. (2012). The impact of online lecture recordings on student performance. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 199–213.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations