Best quote in the responses (By James O’Donnell):
“Universities should be places to learn, not to teach.” (Tapscott)
Always have been. Still are. Hanging in there.
Because future students come on the recommendation of former students, reputation depends on the success of former students, and endowment grows when former students are successful and happy – we are always thinking about and working on making it a better University with better teaching and more effective pedagogy – with encouragement and support from above.
Big classes, however, won’t go away – because the budget must balance.

An overstated stereotype if I’ve ever heard one. And simply not true.
But the same cannot be said of many of the big universities that regard their prime role to be a centre for research, with teaching as an inconvenient afterthought, and class sizes so large that they only want to “teach” is through lectures. (Tapscott)

Ok–I just read the excerpts here.
What is he talking about?
Everyone knows Euro History 101 is a large lecture class, but once you declare your major you move into MUCH smaller classes where discussion is 99% of the class!
FYI–some of the best classes I took were large lecture classes where the Prof was ANYTHING but boring!
Am I missing something here?
It’s been a while since I matriculated.

RJS:
I agree it is a stereotype. But based on my experience of teaching at three large state universities, it is true to a large degree. And students are not stupid. Most of my students agree with me on this one.
“But the same cannot be said of many of the big universities that regard their prime role to be a centre for research, with teaching as an inconvenient afterthought, and class sizes so large that they only want to “teach” is through lectures. (Tapscott)”

On large universities,stereotypes and teaching,here I can only recommend Stanley Hauerwas’ essay “What Would a Christian University Look Like?: Some Thoughts Inspired by Wendell Berry” in The State of the University. Hauerwas addresses the larger question of whether our universities, or anyone in them, are willing to speak truthfully about what our universities are up to
Peace,
Randy

This whole topic makes me anticipate even more an independent grad course I’m taking at my seminary in the Fall. Here’s the course description:
“With an understanding of what makes for an effective preacher, the readings of this course are designed to investigate aspects of being an effective collegiate professor. Topics explored include creation of, and adherence to, an effective and realistic syllabus, characteristics of effective collegiate classroom communication and professorial ethos, and creation of engaging lecture material, both verbal and visual.”
In light of the current post, I see more clearly that I went into the course assuming that lecture is the predominant style of college-level education. But I am relieved to go through the book list and see that discussion and collaboration-based education features heavily in the titles.

I’m familiar with some of Tapscott’s work. I would put him in the same category of someone like Nicholas Negroponte (Being Digital) from MIT; they have an extremely high faith in technology and what it can usher into society. I read these guys listening carefully to their arguments but with skepticism. There is a change in our students due to technology but I have yet to see them use the technology for serious pursuits unless directed/required within the formal structure of a classroom.

To inquire, to have an animated conversation not a lecture, to enjoy an interactive education not a broadcast. That’s what I always hoped for at a church actually. And if that’s the way it’d be done my teenaged daughters and many others will actually look forward to Sunday mornings.
Never quite understood why it’s a called a “service” …
William

Mark,
Isn’t the issue a shift in the brain occurring when one is used to twitter or to FB or to texting? That the brain is not used to the more patient and lengthy approach of a good, even complicated and long, argument?

Scot,
I don’t think that the shift in the brain due to twitter or FB or texting is all that significant. But I do think that methods of teaching should always be changing and adapting to the environment.
The thing that struck me in Tapscott’s column is his suggestion that the availability of information “knowledge” on the web would undermine a monopoly held by Universities. I don’t know about you but I don’t consider the dispensing of “knowledge” or facts to be a significant part of my job. My job is to teach students how to think, how to use the information available and make sense of it, and how to expand beyond our current limits, how to engage in creative problem-solving. The availability of information of the web is a tool that we use to make this easier and more effective.
If I remember you’ve been positive about outcome based teaching on this blog. What would you say is the goal of your teaching – what defines a good “outcome” in your opinion?

This analysis is half true. It is easy for computers and other technologies to replace a lecturer who drones on dispensing facts that may or may not lead to knowledge. But no such technology replaces a professor whose knowledge, skills, and wisdom are conveyed in a lively and thought-provoking lecture. Speaking of knowledge, skills, and wisdom, technology can supply a vast amount of the first, a bit of the second, and none of the last–the goal of an authentic education. In other words, the only aspect of contemporary university education that technology is truly displacing is that dull lecture filled with facts, which is peculiar to the modern “factory-model” university invented in the late 19th Century. To which I say, good riddance!