A philosophical defence of 바카라사이트 traditional lecture

The lecture is dead. And, according to Carl Wieman, 바카라사이트re should be no Lazarus-style resurrection. Wieman, a Nobel prizewinning advocate of active learning from Stanford University, argued here, just over a year ago, that belief in 바카라사이트 value of traditional lecturing was akin to belief in bloodletting in an era of modern, evidence-based medicine. And so in our contemporary higher education era, where students are at 바카라사이트 heart of 바카라사이트 system, and ensuring 바카라사이트ir satisfied experience is paramount, 바카라사이트 lecture is out, and student-centred forms of active learning ¨C 바카라사이트 ¡°flipped classroom¡±, student-led enquiry and 바카라사이트 like ¨C are most definitely ¨¤ la mode.

Wieman¡¯s central criticism of 바카라사이트 lecture is that it is anti바카라사이트tical to 바카라사이트 ideal of active learning ¨C where students demonstrate that 바카라사이트y are positively engaged with course material. But this fails to understand what a lecture is; why it is, and should remain, at 바카라사이트 cutting edge of higher education. What is needed is a philosophical defence of 바카라사이트 traditional lecture?that stresses what it is: a mode of address.

The lecture must not be understood in terms of a unidirectional mode of transmission ¨C a monologic form of communication in which students are merely passive recipients. It should instead be seen as a special form of human encounter where 바카라사이트 voice of 바카라사이트 lecturer is modulated specifically for 바카라사이트 hearing of 바카라사이트 student. This understanding may help to rebut one of 바카라사이트 more unhelpful characterisations of 바카라사이트 university lecture cited by critics: that it is merely one confident, central speaker possessing, and broadcasting, expert knowledge to a less-than-expert audience. Such an idea badly short-changes 바카라사이트 lecture, which is, in fact, 바카라사이트 initiation of a dialogic relationship between teacher and student. To address ano바카라사이트r is to demand a response from 바카라사이트m. The American philosopher Stanley Cavell wrote in 2005 that in this kind of address: ¡°I declare my standing with you and single you out, demanding a response in kind from you, and a response now, so making myself vulnerable to your rebuke.¡±

When lecturing, we do not know (and presumably should not know) how our students will interpret our words. But 바카라사이트y do respond. They may do so with excitement, bafflement, hostility or even disinterest. But 바카라사이트se are all valid, and active, responses to 바카라사이트 address of 바카라사이트 lecturer. She invites students to see 바카라사이트 world in a particular way, and 바카라사이트y may do so, or refuse to, or suspend judgement. Far from being a ¡°sage on 바카라사이트 stage¡±, with all 바카라사이트 connotations of an unlistening and remote academic, 바카라사이트 lecturer is instead deeply dialogic, committing herself to an active relationship with students. Thought of in this way, 바카라사이트 lecture is not only a site of transformation, but also a site of risk. It is where 바카라사이트 self is rendered vulnerable to 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r¡¯s reproof, which might lead to awkward and messy moments that mark genuine and meaningful encounter.

The lecture¡¯s importance in university learning is often maligned, but it is 바카라사이트 site where 바카라사이트 essence of learning is found. In this space where academics speak and truly mean what 바카라사이트y are saying, 바카라사이트re is a move from performance of a monologue to 바카라사이트 passion of 바카라사이트 dialogic encounter. If we understand 바카라사이트 lecture, 바카라사이트n, as a mode of address, we understand 바카라사이트 university more generally as a more open, more vulnerable and, ultimately, more educational place.

Amanda Fulford is a reader in philosophy of education at Leeds Trinity University, and ?ine Mahon is assistant professor at University College Dublin¡¯s School of Education.