Has pedagogy, technology, and Covid‐19 killed the face‐to‐face lecture?

Abstract

The lecture has been around for centuries and has featured as a popular and frequent component in higher education courses across many disciplines including anatomy. In more recent years, there has been a growing shift toward blended learning and related pedagogies that encourage active participation of students in both face‐to‐face and online learning environments. Unfortunately, in many cases, the lecture, which has typically focused on the transmission of information from educator to student has not been adapted to become a more learner‐oriented approach with opportunities for students to actively interact and engage. As a result, the future of whether the lecture should continue has once again become a center of debate. The consequence of the Covid‐19 pandemic and its aftermath have added to this with institutions now looking to stop all lectures or offer them in an online format only. This commentary argues that lecture‐style components could still feature within face‐to‐face and online provision, but only if they are used sparingly within a blended curriculum, have a defined use that aligns well to learning outcomes, are assessed as the most effective method pedagogically, and importantly integrate approaches and activities that promote student engagement. Anatomy educators have demonstrated for years that they are able to be at the forefront of pedagogical change and evidenced during the pandemic their agile and innovative ability to adapt and do things differently. Therefore, the fate of the lecture, at least in anatomy, may well be in their hands.

INTRODUCTION

For anatomists, the question of whether dissection should feature as a significant component of anatomical education has been a fundamental debate for many years; however, the question of the purpose or place of the lecture in teaching has also been the subject of significant discourse in many disciplines including anatomy. Some educators advocate that the lecture epitomizes university education, whereas others view the lecture as an outdated approach that does little to promote student learning. The disruption to higher education caused by the Covid‐19 pandemic has once again shone a spotlight on the appropriateness of using lectures in the future.

Although educators might see the use of lectures in a variety of ways, traditionally, a lecture has been referred to as a largely uninterrupted talk from a teacher which focuses on a one‐way communication or monologue to a passive audience (Bligh, 1998; Twigg, 1999). The adoption of the lecture as a popular teaching method traces its way back to medieval times when books were scarce and expensive. Ever since, the lecture has been a mainstay of teaching and is still one of the most commonly used approaches in most higher education institutions. This is despite advances in pedagogy, the emergence of new technologies and our understanding of what enables effective learning. The tradition of the lecture and its perceived benefits, by some, has allowed there to be strong resistance to dismissing the lecture from many courses. However, Covid‐19 forced a whole‐scale shift to remote delivery for most institutions and as such saw the lecture become a largely online entity. Although some educators had been using this approach for many years (Nieder & Nagy, 2002; Beale et al., 2014; Tang et al., 2018), for others this was new and often resulted in delivering their typical 50–60‐min lecture live online or recording and uploading it for later viewing. Those more conscious about enabling effective learning in an online environment incorporated lecture elements interspersed with other learning approaches and activities. Whatever the case, educators and universities responded to the disruption with anatomical science educators demonstrating the ability to adapt to a purely online delivery environment (Evans et al., 2020; Longhurst et al., 2020; Pather et al., 2020).

In response to changes made as a result of the pandemic, a number of universities in Australia are considering or have decided to remove all lectures from their courses in future (Gwynne, 2021; Hall, 2021; Study International, 2021), while others have agreed that lectures should remain in an online format only. The reasons given appear to range from students not attending face‐to‐face lectures, lectures seen as outdated modes of teaching delivery, efficiency of provision, and students preferring to view lectures online at a time that suits them best. So, is it time to lay the lecture to rest or does it still have a role to play in higher education and specifically anatomy?

THE EFFECT OF PEDOGOGICAL CHANGES ON THE LECTURE

The word “lecture” comes from Medieval Latin meaning to read or recite aloud and as such is used in teaching as a means of transmitting knowledge often to a large audience of students (UNSW, 2021). But can the educator really transmit knowledge to the student? Students construct their knowledge, partly from the information exposed to them from the educator but also as a result of thinking and analyzing and through practical endeavors (Andresen, 1994). Therefore, it could be argued that most lectures are simply the relaying of information that the educator assesses is important for the students to learn and as Donald Bligh points out, because the student is a passive receiver a lecture does not typically promote thought or inspire changes in attitudes (Bligh, 1998). Further to this, lectures have been criticized for not promoting learner‐centeredness, not enabling long‐term retention, not requiring higher level cognitive skills that encourage deeper or effective learning, communicating knowledge that can be easily sourced elsewhere, rarely encouraging dialogue or reflection, and treating all students the same irrespective of learning backgrounds. In addition, a lecture does not allow for appreciation of the typical attention span of most students and appears largely as an opportunity for the sage (lecturer) to be on the stage.

Lectures have been part of anatomy teaching for centuries; however, their continued use has also been challenged in recent years both in terms of the educational value but because other pedagogical approaches have been introduced in anatomy courses and used instead of lectures (Nandi et al., 2000; Vazquez et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2012; Estai & Bunt, 2016). The prevalence of blended learning and related pedagogies, which promote active learning and constructive alignment and incorporate face‐to‐face and online components has become widespread not just in anatomy but across disciplines (Mazur, 2009; Freeman et al., 2014). Anatomy has been well placed to engage with a blended and active approach to teaching and learning as practical methodologies such as dissection and living anatomy have been integral elements of teaching anatomy over many years. Indeed, anatomy educators have been at the forefront of the shift in teaching and learning practice with many courses moving to a blended learning construct (Pereira et al., 2007; Green & Whitburn, 2016; Khalil et al., 2018), integrated approaches being introduced (Evans & Watt, 2005; Klement et al., 2011; Johnson et al., 2012; Klement et al., 2017) and a greater use of team‐based and problem‐based learning (Nieder et al., 2005; Yiou & Goodenough, 2006; Durosaro et al. 2008; Vasan et al., 2011; Huitt et al., 2014). As a result, the anatomy lecture has become a less common feature in anatomical sciences education delivery in many courses.

Taken together this would suggest that from a pedagogical perspective, the lecture has no place in a modern curriculum and should not continue. Indeed, some courses and institutions were already making decisions to end the lecture format before Covid‐19 took hold (Kinash et al., 2021). It is, however, possible for a lecture to play an ongoing role in higher education if it has a defined use that aligns well to learning outcomes, is assessed as the most effective method, and importantly where it integrates approaches that promote student engagement. This also requires lectures or lecture elements to be used sparingly and as only one feature within a fully blended curriculum that uses a variety of learning methods and opportunities. A lecture could still be used to introduce new topics, inspire learners about a subject area, tackle key or difficult concepts and areas of weakness, and present engaging discourse. The educator remains the subject‐area expert and as such plays a crucial role in enabling the framing, contextualization, and curation of information and knowledge. But for the educator (including the anatomy educator) is the lecture the best place for this to occur? Whatever the case, the days of including lectures that simply transmit information that is obtainable elsewhere or in other more engaging formats should be over, whether delivered face‐to‐face or online (synchronous or asynchronous).

Lectures that do feature in blended learning formats have often been refined or augmented in order to introduce active learning methods that fully involve the students in practical activities, interactive dialogue, student‐led knowledge‐sharing and formative assessment/feedback. The move toward the “interactive lecture” has also required enhanced presentation and engagement skills of the educator and the introduction of effective technologies. With the increase in active learning and the decrease in lecturer monologue within the interactive lecture, positive learning gain outcomes and increased student engagement has resulted. Versions of the interactive approach to lectures have been demonstrated across a range of disciplines including anatomy (Meltzer & Manivannan, 2002; Durosaro et al., 2008; Alexander et al., 2009; Chilwant, 2012; Mazzolini et al., 2012; Freeman et al., 2014; Chimmalgi, 2019; Concannon‐Gibney, 2021; Nordmann et al., 2022). As a result, there are now well‐recognized sets of activities and approaches that can be used in the design of the interactive lecture, many being used in anatomy (Sugand et al., 2010; Wolf et al., 2015; Chan, 2020). Some anatomy educators have remodeled the face‐to‐face lecture further by shifting to a briefing session approach that aligns to principles of team‐based learning and focuses on exploring core‐concepts with students able to ask questions and interact (Lachman & Pawlina, 2020). The briefing‐debriefing model was developed by the military and has been used in a variety of surgical team settings (Vashdi et al., 2007; Papaspyros et al. 2010).

Universities and colleges have not, at least until recently, been enabling of a more blended approach to learning and have instead often promoted the ongoing use of the lecture, exacerbated by restrictive timetables that allow little time for the employment of more effective approaches, and the need for a cost‐effective approach to delivery where students can be taught in large cohorts in a time‐restricted manner. Whether this approach has really been cost‐effective is questionable when reading books, papers and now retrieving information from the internet are arguably more efficient means of simple information transmission than a lecture. On top of this universities and colleges have had a seemingly never‐ending romance with the traditional lecture hall/theater, which are evident in most buildings on a campus and still feature in the design of some new buildings. Such environments are confining to both the educator and student as interaction and collaboration is often difficult with little opportunity to introduce active learning. The origin of the typical university lecture theater model from a spatial perspective has been attributed to early modern anatomy halls (Haghighi, 2020). Thankfully universities are beginning to respond by removing or repurposing lecture theaters and introducing flexible spaces including collaborative theaters that are designed to promote active learning but can still accommodate some didactic/lecturing elements (UTS, 2014; Rolheiser et al., 2019; Gordon, 2020; Kinash et al., 2021). One particular design that is emerging is the round classroom such as the “learning in the round” room at Monash University in Australia and the round lecture hall at the University of California, Riverside in the United States (Ghori, 2021; Goodyer, 2022). Interestingly, although these circular rooms are somewhat reminiscent of some of the early anatomy halls but in these cases have been designed to deliberately encourage the ability of students to interact and engage with each other and their educators. If students are to be enticed back on campus after the pandemic, then spaces that promote interaction, collaboration and social engagement will be increasingly necessary, but it will also be essential that educators know how to maximize the use of such environments for learning.

THE EFFECT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT ON THE LECTURE

Computer‐based educational innovations and interventions are not new to anatomy educators who for many years have been proactive in using a variety of technologies and e‐learning resources as part of the delivery of anatomical science education (Trelease, 2016). Such digital advances have enabled virtual dissection (Darras et al., 2020; Wainman et al., 2021; Duraes et al., 2022), three‐dimensional (3D) printing (McMenamin et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2018; Ye et al., 2020), ultrasound (Swamy & Searle, 2012; Smith & Barfoot, 2021; Lufler et al., 2022), gamification (Ang et al., 2018; Rudolphi‐Solero et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2022) as well as virtual and augmented reality (Moro et al., 2017; Uruthiralingam & Rea, 2020; Zhao et al., 2020) to become included in many courses. Approaches are often integrated with more traditional methods in blended formats and have helped shape the changing learning environments for students and have shown to enhance learning (Estai & Bunt, 2016; Lochner et al., 2016: Pawlina & Drake, 2017).

But what has a focus on digital technology meant for the anatomy lecture? For many educators the ability to use different technologies in the face‐to‐face lecture has enhanced the potential for engagement and fits well with the view of an interactive lecture as outlined earlier. This includes, for instance, alignment with established multimedia learning theories (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). The availability of the learning management system (LMS) as well as online technologies and platforms that enable educators to record and edit information has provided an avenue for augmenting or supplementing the face‐to‐face lecture. This has resulted in live lectures being recorded and uploaded to the LMS or the provision of short edited or adapted lectures or summary screencasts (Nieder & Nagy, 2002; Bacro et al., 2010; Evans, 2011; Nieder & Borges, 2012) as an element of offered online resources. This approach enables students to view lectures they have missed or review lectures or lecture elements again for study or assessment preparation. The provision of online lectures across a range of disciplines has resulted in a number of interesting observations such as when and how online lectures are used (McNulty et al., 2009; Nast et al., 2009; Bacro et al., 2010; Nieder & Borges, 2012), the effect of the availability of online lectures on face‐to‐face lecture attendance (Billings‐Gagliardi & Mazor, 2007: Cardall et al., 2008) as well as academic performance (Brockfeld et al., 2018; Shqaidef et al., 2021; Orellano & Carcamo, 2021. While many educators continue to deliver face‐to‐face lectures in addition to supplementary materials and resources online, some educators have shifted lecture provision to online only. The online or digital lecture includes synchronous delivery of live lectures (sometimes called screen‐to screen sessions, live feeds, live‐stream lectures/tutorials or virtual lectures) or asynchronous delivery of lecture material via recordings of live lectures or online resources created using a lecture format (Singh & Min, 2017; Dost et al., 2020; Harmon et al., 2021; Kurtulmus‐Yilmaz & Önöra, 2022). Where online lecture provision has been assessed and compared with face‐to‐face lectures, students appear not to overtly favor one approach over the other and instead identify advantages of each format for their learning (Beale et al. 2014). When students have been provided with either face‐to‐face lecture or online lectures, similar performance outcomes have been reported (Singh & Min, 2017; Shqaidef et al., 2021).

The arrival of the Covid‐19 pandemic in 2020 caused a major disruption for education globally. In many countries, there were nationwide closures of schools, colleges, and universities as well as other restrictions resulting in teaching being rapidly shifted to remote delivery (Evans et al., 2020; Smith & Pawlina, 2021). For anatomy, the particular challenge for educators was quickly developing alternative approaches to dissection and other practical‐based learning which contributes significantly to most anatomy courses. Given the wide use of lecture capture and pre‐recordings, the anatomy lecture, on the other hand, more easily transferred to online delivery with educators using synchronous and/or asynchronous approaches, sometimes integrating more active‐learning elements into the lectures (Longhurst et al., 2020; Pather et al., 2020; Harmon et al., 2021; Yoo et al., 2021; Attardi et al., 2022). It is unclear whether many anatomy educators used the online learning design opportunity to avoid long‐recorded lectures and instead create sets of mini‐lectures or lecture chunks provided within a more active online blended format, which had been suggested by some anatomists early on in the pandemic as a way of providing a more engaging learning experience (Evans et al., 2020). Such an approach had been encouraged in medical education and more widely previously (Folley, 2010; Tang et al., 2019). This is perhaps a missed opportunity, although it is recognized that many educators were under great pressure during the pandemic to develop materials quickly and may not have been given the time or support to use a pedagogical lens and re‐frame the learning design of the course.

Since the height of the pandemic, many universities have re‐opened with students able to come back onto campus to engage in their learning. However, in the case of lectures, there have been reports that educators are lecturing to empty lecture halls, with students choosing not to re‐engage with the face‐to‐face lecture (at least not yet) and instead joining in virtually or engaging (hopefully) with the recorded online lecture at a later time (Thorpe, 2022). The response of universities to such observations and to the changes made to lecture provision during the pandemic appears to be for some universities to remove or consider removing lectures entirely from their future course provision, whereas others have decided that lectures can continue online only, although it is unclear whether these would all be recorded or some still delivered synchronously (Gwynn, 2021; Hall, 2021; Study International, 2021). However, simply removing lectures from the timetable or moving them to online is not necessarily the answer unless a deliberate and resourced focus is given by institutions to transforming the way learning opportunities are designed and delivered. This includes understanding the potential purpose and advantage, or not, of continuing to incorporate some lecture elements either face‐to‐face or online. In terms of encouraging online lectures only, one could argue that if a 50‐ to 60‐min face‐to‐face lecture, where it is focused on information transmission, fails to engage most students then transferring to an online format will be an even worse experience and may explain why some students already watch lecture recordings at faster than normal speeds (Murphy et al., 2021). Being able to access learning resources anytime and anywhere does not mean that putting a resource online will mean it will be effective and instead all online learning resources including those that have lecture‐style components must be carefully and thoughtfully designed for and be accessible to the online learner and also take account of the changing learning needs and preferences of students.

DISCUSSION

This viewpoint commentary suggests that if elements of the anatomy lecture are to survive or deserve to continue, whether delivered face‐to‐face or online, a fundamental pedagogical shift in thinking is required. This involves moving away from a largely transmissive format to one where the lecture incorporates a variety of active learning strategies and resources (the interactive lecture), or where lecture‐based elements (not long traditional lectures) form just one part of an interactive, fully blended delivery approach. A number of educators will already have the necessary skills to deliver on these requirements (and probably already are); however, it will be important to provide enablement to those educators who have not yet engaged with such changes or pedagogical approaches. Covid‐19 demonstrated that anatomy educators can respond quickly, effectively and often innovatively in the face of disruption and challenge (Alkhowailed et al., 2020; Byrnes et al., 2021; Kapoor & Singh, 2022). However, institutions will need to actively provide informed, sustained and resourced guidance, training, and support (including time) to all educators if transformative change is to occur. For re‐imagined lecture components this needs to involve emphasizing the need to enhance educator presentational and engagement skills as there still appears to be an assumption that all academics can present and engage well in a formal setting. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and some educators need to be supported to further develop such skills, which will also be transferable to their research endeavors and other academic activities. Taking time to reflect and self‐study can provide an educator with powerful opportunities to assess, revise, and re‐imagine their practice (Concannon‐Gibney, 2021).

CONCLUSIONS

Pedagogical advancements and new digital technologies have reinvigorated the approach to higher education teaching and learning in recent years. The role of the lecture in this transformation is being questioned as the traditional lecture has typically focused on the transmission of information from educator to student and in many disciplines, there has been a failure to adapt the lecture to become a more student‐centered activity. Despite this the traditional lecture has survived in many areas including anatomy but this may only be temporary as the consequences of the Covid‐19 pandemic are resulting in some institutions using the opportunity to stop future lecture provision entirely or keeping it purely as an online approach. If lecture‐style components are to continue to feature within programs such as anatomy, either in face‐to‐face or online format, educators should use them sparingly and as part of a blended curriculum, ensure that they are the most effective method pedagogically, and importantly integrate approaches and activities that promote student engagement. If not, the lecture will and probably should die.

Biography

Darrell J. R. Evans, Ph.D., F.R.S.B, F.R.M.S, F.H.E.A, F.A.S, F.A.A.A., is an honorary professor in the School of Medicine and Public Health at the University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia and an adjunct professor in the Faculty at Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. He has taught in the anatomical sciences for over 25 years. His scholarship interests are in communication, assessment and near‐peer teaching. He has previously held senior learning and teaching portfolios at executive level in several universities and serves as an Associate Editor for Anatomical Science Education.

Evans, DJR. 2022. Has pedagogy, technology, and Covid‐19 killed the face‐to‐face lecture? Anat Sci Educ, 15: 1145–1151. 10.1002/ase.2224