h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: What makes a good lecturer? - A974720
Author: Increase Mathers, Shrubber of Pelamar - Hoping desperately for peace... - U110916

As a University student, I'm fed up with bad lecturing, so I have decided that what we really need is a definition of *good* lecturing that we can give to those in charge and say "This is what you should be doing".

But on my own, this is no good. So if you are, or have ever been, at University, please give me your ideas of what should be in there - and just maybe make Higher Education better for all of us.

Some interesting points here

I've been on both sides of the fence - I've got my degree and I've also taken undergraduate tutorials and given one lecture.

I think it's worth splitting up "lectures", "tutorials", and "marking and assessment" into different areas, as they raise very different issues - though this would make it a far bigger project than it is at the moment.

I'm not sure that I entirely agree about lecture notes. I used to provide tutorial handouts, but that was partly to help everyone keep on track and to cover the ground that I intended to cover, and partly because I'm a nice bloke. But I'm not sure that I would feel obliged to give them. I suppose that it depends on the subject matter - if there really are lots of facts / graphs / tables/ quotes which students would otherwise have to frantically scribble down, then a handout is probably needed. But I do think that students have a responsibility to turn up - or if they don't, to get someone else's notes. I'm not a fan of handing students everything on a plate. I was shocked at how few people managed to turn up to all of my tutorials (and the attendance was higher than average, before anyone blames my teaching ), and I really can't think of valid excuses for the level of absenteeism. Also, notetaking is a useful skill that should be encouraged.

Marking is tricky. When I was teaching, I was on a very low hourly rate for marking which meant that I was working quite hard for very little money by the time that I'd thought long and hard about each mark and written down various comments. I'm not sure that I would have been preparted to do that if I'd have four or five times the marking load, although I would have been very happy to talk over an essay in more detail during office hours. Apparently, a couple of my students thought that I had given them *too much* feedback. Just goes to show.....

I think you should also say that lectures should hang together to form a coherent course - there shouldn't be overlap or underlap, and they shouldn't overrun either.

More later

Otto

Hiya,

Interesting project! Generally I agree with you, there is a huge variety of teaching/lecturing competence in universities - probably because nobody bothers to teach university-level teachers how to teach!

However, I agree with Otto about the different tasks you are dealing with. At the university I went to, the people who did the lectures were generally different from the people who actually taught you in seminars, supervisions etc.

I would be inclined just to pick one aspect - say, lecturing - and deal thoroughly with that.

Many lecturers simply have difficulties addressing a large number of people in a hall. It's not their fault, not everybody is good at public speaking. But it's amazing how many people fail to do the simplest things. I would suggest:

1. Speak slowly and clearly, and try to enunciate properly. You may have a microphone, but the phrase "fndtlly t clm i grndlss" isn't clearer just because it's louder.

2. If you are making an important point, give people time to write it down properly, or repeat it. Otherwise your audience will not be able to appreciate the delicate structure of your argument.

3. Take a bit of time to learn how to use complicated audio-visual equipment. This will prevent embarrassment and delays during your lecture.

4. As far as notes are concerned, you don't need to hand it all to your students on a plate. But if they are constantly scribbling they are not going to be listening to you properly. Key points are helpful.

5. Allowing your audience to participate on occasions can stimulate their interest and make it less tedious for all of you.

6. Develop an endearing trait that students can discuss outside of lectures.

7. Evidently this needs to be said: ensure that your lecture is relevant to the course the students are taking!

1. You may have a microphone, but the phrase "fndtlly t clm i grndlss" isn't clearer just because it's louder.

And if you are given a microphone, *make sure it's switched on*

"3. Take a bit of time to learn how to use complicated audio-visual equipment."

Oh yes... In the final year of my degree, *every* lecture I attended began with the words "Ah... erm... how do I dim the lights..?"

As an extra point, I'd say learn something about the basics of slide design - so many times lecturers present slides (or overheads) crammed with information that is impossible to make sense of while listening to the lecturer and making notes. It may be all in the hand-out, but that's not the point...

"6. Develop an endearing trait that students can discuss outside of lectures."

Definitely! Although beware of making it *so* endearing that it distracts from the lecture Having a gimmick may also help - I hed a lecturer who used to show his holiday snaps, and one who used to start each lecture with a picture of a different wine label. (Obviously, I can't remember much else about those lectures, but it was 8-9 years ago...)

Also, you should have one word that you always pronounce incorrectly (or, at least, differently to the rest of the world). Of course, this should be a word that you use regularly. One that springs to mind was a protein biochemist who always pronounced protein as 'pro-tay-in'. Every lecturer had something similar, and we often wondered if they were assigned a word when they first took up their lectureship.

And try not to be boring Not everyone can be a brilliant, scintillating speaker and entertainer, but there is no excuse for speaking for 1 hour in a dull, quiet monotone and using slides covered in very small, black-on-white type. Conversely, don't try to be a stand-up comedian if you don't have the ability - there is nothing more cringeworthy

Did you (pl) have lecture circuses? We did, but I don't know whether this concept was specific to my subject/university or not.

Circuses?

What's one of those then? (Related to lectures, that is - I mean, I know what a 'circus' is...)

Instead of one lecturer doing a series of 4 or 8 lectures, a circus consists of 8 lecturers doing 1 lecture each on a particular subject - say, tragedy. They are allowed to approach the subject in any way they please.

Hence once a year there would be a Tragedy Circus on the Sidgwick site.

Incidentally, Cambridge English fellows are well known for being very post-modern and ironic about 'tragedy' these days. A few years after I graduated, there was a question on the Tragedy final paper (which is compulsory and everyone freaks out about it cos it's so huge and difficult) which asked students to comment on the following lyrics:

"It's tragedy . . . when you lose control and you got no soul, it's tragedy."

This may come as a surprise, but Medics and NatScis (that's medical students and scientists, for the rest of you ) don't have such things We were too busy cramming endless lists of facts...



And isn't 'Tragedy circus' a definition of the Sidgewick site?

Lots of good points - and I've posted some stuff to the fora at the bottom of the entry, but I have a few points around the subject of handouts.

Basically, all lecturers have different styles of producing them, and they're obviously not all going to suit everyone. I'm a history student, and for me the best have key dates, key debates in the historiography (bones of contention, and key writers on the subject) and the main points the lecturer intends to cover - at most a heading and a little detail, which should then be expanded on in lectures.

You make these points:
"Specifically, information missing from the printed notes should not be essential to the student's later understanding (or revision)."

"Secondly, a completed version should be made available: in an ideal world, every student would attend every lecture, and follow at the exact speed of the lecturer; there are, however, many reasons why this is unlikely, and it is unfair for a student to have no way of retrieving missing parts - even if it was, ultimately, their fault."

which I'd have to disagree with. There's nothing worse than everything the lecturer says being on the handout - extra amusing stories just aren't enough to sustain interest. You've got to go at enough speed to cover your topic, and keep interest, but with enough breaks for students to keep up.
Lecture notes should be a complement to the handout. Copies of handouts should be available post-lecture in the library, on the web, from a department office, or from the lecturer. Your lecture notes are a student's own business, and if you miss a lecture because you can't be bothered it's your own problem if you don't have all the notes.
The courses I have give an overview of the lectures so you can know which you really need to go to. If you're ill of course, then the lecturer should (and in most cases will) be prepared to go over the material covered. If you're not, collect friends in your classes so you can borrow notes when you skive - the lecturer really shouldn't have to be responsible for the fact you didn't get out of bed/went for coffee, you're meant to be grown up by the time you're at uni.

Plus it's often soo much easier to revise from notes you have made -rather than those of anyone else (even lecturers handouts) - you understand your own style and shorthand best.

I absolutely agree with the points you make after the above - about availability of handouts, and being able to annotate them and so on.
I also really really wish lecturers would tell you explicitly how to footnote from their lecture notes for your essay.


On the subject of endearing traits in lecturers - some just can't help it. There are lecturers in my departments held in awe as minor deities because they are just so good, and so interesting, that you can get everything you need from listening to them, and taking down your own notes. Mostly they're highly regarded because they are so enthusiastic about their subjects, and communicate that really well. They're the kind of lecturers I almost don't need handouts from, it's all there for the taking provided you turn up. They're engaging, amusing, available, don't patronise and willing to think on their feet if the lecture takes a bizarre turn (which it often does).

>>>And isn't 'Tragedy circus' a definition of the Sidgewick site?

No, that's the Cambridge ring road.

Isn't the word "lector"?

hi mathers, came by, read your article, liked it; too bad the lecturers in my university never got to read it!!!

gubes, we have your so-called 'lecture circuses' in most faculties here. it was a *pain*, because occasionally you'd get this fellow who actually knew what he was doing, but then four weeks later, up and off he goes, to be replaced by an idiot who reads from sheafs of paper.

speaking of which, i'd like to point out something that makes a *bad* lecturer... (i don't know if anyone's said anything about it, 'cause i didn't read the conversations at the end of the article) i find that the *good* lecturers, when using visual aids (if at all), limit their presentation to key words and phrases (usually in point form); most of the new lecturers, however, seem to try to make up for their sense of inadequacy by trying to *impress*. and when i say impress, i mean *overwhelm* - their visual aids are nothing short of the very latest in technology (usually to the detriment of the class, because at least half of these fellas don't know how to work these things properly, and will thus spend about half the class trying to set it up). when they use ohp's (serious no-no - nobody likes the glare of an ohp), they tend to cram *everything* in. i once had this public health lecturer who bunged in *statistics* (tables, pies, you name it) into her transparencies... i later found them in the textbook we were using. i just don't see the point in putting in tons of stuff like that if you're only going to be spending half a minute on it; i like it even less when they decide to devote most of their time to it as though it were the *word*. stats and details you can look up on your own after lectures! what they should be doing (i mean, what the old generation of lecturers do, and the new ones ignore) is present you with a clear outline of what you're supposed to know, which you are then supposed to read up afterwards.

i'm just going to waste some more electrons by telling you about this lecturer we had for microbial ecology and physiology. before he came along, we used to attend the standard lecture, where the lecturer would write down the main points on the board, or have them printed on transparencies, which you would then dutifully copy down. well, this guy (we called him booster) came into our first class with nothing more than two marker pens. before we could get over our shock, he lobbed a multitude of questions at us - 'you! define ecology!'; 'you! tell me the parameters determining the success of an organism in an environment!'... stuff like that. and when we stared at him, dumbfounded and unable to answer, he insulted us and turned the air blue. in fact, we later learned he *always* conducted classes that way. anyway, this went on, with us being called stupid every lecture. we *hated* him. some people entertained thoughts of violence.

and then we decided we'd outsmart him and all. we'd show up for class all prepared to fling answers back at him. but then we learnt that for every answer you gave, he'd have a question for it. we'd go to class brimming with confidence, and stagger out, egos punctured.

eventually, we got his groove. understood that what he wanted was not solid facts, but solid facts that were intertwined with each other in intricate networks. that it wasn't enough to know, say, the gradients in the soil, but how they affected one another, and thus the organisms living in it. we took to writing down his questions so that we could go to the library and find answers. (of course, he'd distribute notes and recommend journal articles after class - but they were just facts. we'd have to do extra work to link them together. he always said that if you were to write facts in your exam paper, you only deserved a c. to get an a, you would have to put in that extra effort and give him more than he'd given you)

and because none of his lectures were classes, but full-fledged discussions, you'd have to be terribly dense not to be able to remember a word for it. hey, i still remember all he said about sewage management

we aced his class - probably the first batch to do so. (he later told me that we were his best and brightest) i know that most people outside of my class and the class after ours hate him for being terribly strict (they're mostly used to being spoon-fed) and that they've tried over and over again to have him removed, but for someone who never even brought notes to class, he'd given us more than we could've ever imagined. he was definitely one of the best lecturers who ever taught me.

(good grief this is verbose)

Interesting!

We had someone like that, not for lectures but for seminars. If you were the unlucky sod having to give a paper that week, you would go prepared to be torn limb from limb - intellectually speaking.

One memorable seminar on Pound's Shorter Poems turned into a ferocious argument - him against the 15 of us. We all left incredibly shaken up and some people were almost in tears. We found out later from the class that came in after us that this lecturer was also in a bit of a state about it and he apologised the following week. It was the most exciting seminar I ever attended.

A couple of years later this lecturer was in the papers (Daily Mail, I think) because some girl had been interviewed by him for a place at his college and he had apparently laid into her - again, intellectually - as he was wont to do. She was very pissed off and went to the papers with her story. It was another of those 'Cambridge terrorises candidate' stories.

They miss the point somewhat. He was a b*stard, but incredibly knowledgable and passionate about his subject, and always engaging. The point about that argument we had with him was that he absolutely *hated* the poem under discussion, and we found ourselves being forced to defend it, and defend the legitimacy of some of Pound's work, and this has major implications for how you view the 'canon' of English literature, from a literary and a moral point of view. So we learned an important lesson, even if we disagreed with him.

I don't agree that providing lecture notes is necessary to be a good lecturer.

The other thing I think is that you might draw a distinction between science lectures, and arts lectures.

In my lectures in physics, I basically expected to sit there and copy stuff of the blackboard. I expected to make four sides of A4 of notes at the very very most, two sides normally.

My friend said of her theology notes - "oh I don't do much - usually only about 8 sides. I can't write everything down, so me and my friend go over what we've each missed"


The best lecturer I've ever had was for third year semiconductor physics. I hate semiconductor physics. It's boring. Its nitpicky. But our lecturer was great.

He didn't provide full lecture notes. He wrote on the board, and you copied. There were headings. He discussed the point briefly, and wrote it on the board, *whilst reading what he was writing*. This meant you could copy quite quickly, and your notes could be well organised even though they weren't provided on paper. What he did do, though, was in the next lecture, hand out and go through a summary sheet of the previous lecture. Thus, you knew what you had to know, and what was important. He made sure he'd taught the stuff before we had to answer weekly homework questions on it (obvious - you'd think, but often missed out) and went through plenty of examples.

I don't like being provided with lecture notes because in my opinion it gives the lecturer an excuse to whizz through the material at a rate you cannot possibly comprehend. This leads to a tendency to fall asleep in lectures - never good for absorbing information...

well, it all depends on the type of notes, i guess. if it's the sort of notes my lecturer gave out (see above posting), then it would be very much welcome. sort of like... he gives you the details in notes form, but when you come to class, the lot of you launch into a major discussion of the subject, and you don't copy anything (except maybe the discussions, and the questions raised). i hate the sort who read off their notes and then circulate them. (they're becoming increasingly common these days) we were lucky to have a lot of the old-generation lecturers who thought that students should not be too dependent on hand-outs, and ought to be able to think for themselves. (my bacteriology lecturer was another one who never brought any notes in. and he was *good*. although of course, i once got him confused. my senior was terribly amused, as it was reported that *nothing* could confuse that lecturer)

(btw, did i mention that 'booster' took us on a 3-day field trip once - and *cooked* for us on the second day when we were all busy at the beach measuring things? mind you, his cooking *was* good)