Faculty Development and Diversity

The evidence against the effectiveness of lecturing for student learning is growing. A study published in Science describes the results of an experiment in a large introductory physics class at the University of British Columbia.

In week 12 of the semester, one section received traditional instruction from an experienced professor using lecture, PowerPoint, and clicker questions. Two inexperienced teachers trained in deliberative practice led another section using interactive exercises. The experimenters took care to establish ground rules for this learning contest. Both sets of instructors agreed on the learning objectives and a multiple choice quiz at the end of the week.

The results were not even close. The experimental group saw greater student engagement, attendance, and significantly higher scores on the post-test. The authors acknowledge that the intervention required significant outlay of time (20 hours of preparation for the first class), but gradually decreases over time. Moreover, students wished that the entire class were conducted using the interactive methods. The only barrier to change is inertia.

Researchers at the University of Hertfordshire have analyzed submissions to the annual Tutor of the Year award. By counting how many times the nominations mentioned a specific trait, they were able to rank the elements in an educator most valued by students.

Not surprisingly, the most common quality in a nominee was "great teaching." Thirty percent of the nominations mentioned that. More revealing was the least mentioned item: feedback and assessment. Just four percent of students cited that as a reason to recognize their instructors. Also highly ranked: positive outlook, influential, and edutaining.

It is not too helpful for an educator looking to improve her skills to know that students want "great teaching." But the lack of interest in feedback seems to go against many current pedagogical trends. Is this a case where the patient does not know what is good for him? I would be curious to see a longitudinal study that follows up on the students at intervals after the class is over. With time, do they come to appreciate different qualities about an instructor?

A new report by professors at UCSF encourages a rethinking of traditional medical education. One area for reform is the time necessary to receive the M.D. degree. Why four years for everyone? If students learn at different paces and have different interests, why not a more flexible schedule?

The proposal would make medical school more like doctoral programs, whose curricula are much less rigid. At the same time, recent critics of ten-year-long Ph.D. programs have called for graduate study in the arts and sciences to be more like medical school.

I'm inclined to favor more rigid timelines for medical school but more loose guidelines for residency. Sharing a common experience of courses over four years provides benefits that outweigh accommodating individual learning styles.