Talk:Lecture 2.0

Creating a solution for a self-invented problem?
While I find a lot of the ideas presented here as a great contribution to the development of e-learning, I don't entirely agree with the stereotyped concept of lecture 1.0. To me, lecture 1.0 is something of a straw man, a self-created problem designed to promote the solution - or at least, only one of many traditional lecture styles. For me, traditional lecture styles come in many flavours. At least one of these flavours is very audience-centered: the professor mainly ad libs on his heavily-prepared subject, detecting the weaknesses and strengths of his audience at every step and modifying the lecture to suit. Recording a lecture like this makes less sense, because it is so audience-specific. --McCormack 04:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * jtneill added the comment An engaging presenter may be able to "reach into audience" - e.g., some speakers are paid large sums and/or attract large crowds to hear them speak. These tend to be the exception, rather than the rule, however. --> perhaps added as a response to my comment above? I like the bit about "paid large sums". If we're talking about exceptions, though, surely what you call "lecture 2.0" is no less an exception than the impoverished ad-libbing audience-pleaser (what I will call "lecture 3.0")? And surely there is no greater and no lesser reason to revise "lecture 1.0" in the direction of "lecture 2.0" than in the direction of "lecture 3.0"? Perhaps we should simply be advocating greater training of university staff in all aspects of advanced pedagogy, both ancient and modern? --McCormack 10:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A few weeks later
Still thinking about this. Perhaps developing the same sceptical idea in a slightly different direction: whatever version of the "lecture" you take, it is the lecturer who counts. Just as a good lecturer can make traditional models shine, so a bad one can ruin the most sophisticated of media-supported networked models. I've rarely seen a good slideshow - yours was unusually good. Perhaps we should version lecture models by the lecturer name and year? As in "Lecture Model JTN08"? --McCormack 13:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For a rather unique combination of slideshow and lecturer (Hardt2005) see what you think of Dick Hardt's Identity 2.0 - maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but those to whom I've suggested it have generally been "wowed" into thinking new ideas about how we might do lectures differently. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Smooth. 5/10. --McCormack 13:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Another idea
Reading through the current minute's version of this fast changing resource, it seems to me to be medium-centered rather than student-centered. The focus is currently on how you do it, rather than the end result. For me, it is the changed state of the student's mind which counts - which is a matter of art, luck and only a little science - perhaps? If "lecture 2.0" is to earn its name, it has to explain why it can deliver a greater percentage of changed, broadened minds. --McCormack 13:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from a famous mind
Years ago, someone told me, in a very witty fashion I will not try to copy, that it was actually the half-baked half-trained lecturers who produced the top minds. I never caught his reasoning. However if I had to choose between engendering either admiration or hunger among students, as an emotional stimulus to hard work, I would choose the latter. --McCormack 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the experiential learning principles we worked with in my earlier career as an Outward Bound instructor was that eventually the instructor would "disappear" or barely be seen or heard. That was "success". Initially the OB instructor is very busy, active, involved, teaching, coaching, providing feedback, supporting skill development, etc. but the goal is for this to be very temporary. A good instructor would eventually have sparked and kindled an ongoing learning process such that a group could journey and navigate, resolve issues, solve problems, etc. themselves. But this meant the instructor needed sufficient ego-development to not need attention, a good program, and sufficent training/coaching/confidence in the experiential style. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great reply! --McCormack 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

September thoughts
This is developing nicely. I didn't quite realise the relation between the two numbered lists under lecture 1.5 for a while (slow brain problem), and I wondered whether my EMAC project was really worth its mention (but thank you all the same!). The layout is better now as well - more interesting to look at. --McCormack 09:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi McCormack, thanks for the feedback - it has helped and continues to challenge/foster my lecture thinking and practice, so feel free to keep musing away. We had a live "lecture is (not) dead" session at the Uni of Canberra today, so have been stimulated by some new ideas which I'll gradually add. Can you tell me more about your EMAC project (maybe slow brain here) - I'm not sure what that is - a naming convention? - if so, this has been very helpful - I realise now that getting people to describe case-study style how and why they deliver lectures could make for valuable research. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * EMAC is the "Educational Media Awareness Campaign", to which you had already added a link in the lecture 1.5 section. It was kind to give a link, but I wondered about the relevance! The EMAC is mainly aimed at getting educators to make better use of Wikimedia Commons in creating Open Educational Resources (of which WV resources are an example). I suppose I can see a link if you regard lecture 1.5+ as a type of OER. Anyway, not a big deal! Minor point. --McCormack 10:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)