Is Lecture as a Dominant Form of Teaching Dying?

The article is devoted to the actively debated, difficult and for many teachers a painful problem addressing lecture as a dominant form of teaching. Nowadays, lecture is increasingly seen as an inefficient form of education, hopelessly outdated, with little interest and response among students, useless and, in principle, dying. The authors are firmly convinced that lecture was, continues to be and will be the main and indispensable form of instruction for the reproduction of an intellectual elite. To substantiate this position, the article presents an argumentation system that unfolds in three stages. In the first part of the article, the essence of lecture is revealed in the light of Randall Collins' theory of intellectual interactive rituals. The subject's intellectual creativity is conditioned by his personal contacts “face to face” with other intellectuals, as well as the position of this subject in the intellectual network. There is a demonstration that lecture has all the hallmarks of an interactive ritual, and it is its archetypal case, which ensures the transmission of cultural capital from the older generation of intellectuals to the young one. During this process, its successful participants feel surge of emotional energy necessary for intellectual creativity. In the second part of the article, the distinctive positive aspects of lecture are systematized and discussed, which together make it a unique form of training that gives indispensable experience to both lecturer and participants. The third part of the article, based on the real history of education and providing illustrative examples, is a kind of empirical confirmation of the first two parts. The article may be of interest to teachers, students, as well as anyone who is not indifferent to the current state of education in Russia.

1. Shestak, N.V. (2018). Lecture in Post-Secondary Education Institution within the Context of Competence Approach. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 27, no. 8-9, pp. 43-53. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

2. Duarte, J., Ploeg, M. van der. (2019). Plurilingual Lecturers in English Medium Instruction in the Netherlands: The Key to Plurilingual Approaches in Higher Education? European Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 268-284, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2019.1602476

3. Stratilaki-Klein, S. (2019). Dynamic Conceptions of Plurilingual and Intercultural Competence in the Multilingual Environment of Luxembourg. European Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 300-314, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2019.1623705

4. Zanola, M.T. (2019). Plurilingual Expatriate Teachers at the University: a ‘Fran3ais Langue Etrangure' Case in Italy. European Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 315-326, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2019.1623704

5. Yu, E., Canton, S. (2020). Student-Inspired Optimal Design of Online Learning for Generation Z. Journal of educators online. Vol. 17, no. 1. Available at: https://www.thejeo.com/archive/archive/2020_71/yupdf (accessed 13.11.2020)

6. Seifert, T., Feliks, O., Kritz, M. (2020). Optimal Teaching and Learning Practices in Online Multiparticipant Courses. Journal of educators online. Vol. 17, no. 1. Available at: https://www.thejeo.com/archive/archive/2020_71/seifert_feliks_kritzpdf (accessed 13.11.2020)

7. Dieterich, C., Hamsher, S. (2020). Maximizing Online Instructional Pedagogy in Teacher Education Courses for Career Changers. Vol. 17, no. 1. Available at: https://www.thejeo.com/archive/archive/2020_71/dieterich_hamsherpdf (accessed 13.11.2020)

8. Mullen, C.A. (2020). Does Modality Matter? A Comparison of Aspiring Leaders' Learning Online and Face-to-Face. Journal of Further and Higher Education. Vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 670-688, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1576859

9. Summers, J.J., Waigandt, A. and Whittaker, T.A. (2005). A Comparison of Student Achievement and Satisfaction in an Online Versus a Traditional Face-to-Face Statistics Class. Innovative Higher Education. Vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 233-250, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-005-1938-x

10. Krug, K.S., Dickson, K.W., Lessiter, J.A. end Vassa, J.S. (2016). Student Preference Rates for Predominately Online, Compressed, or Traditionally Taught University Courses. Innovative Higher Education. Vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 255-267. Available at: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/194789/ (accessed 13.11.2020)

11. Collins, R. (1998). The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1098 p. (Russian Translation by N.S. Rozov, Yu.B. Vertgeim, Novosibirsk: Sibirskiy khronograf Publ., 2002, 1280 p.)

12. Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and Social Imagery. 2nd ed. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 203 p.

13. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual. New York: Doubleday, 270 p.

14. Anderson, C.B., Chang, S., and Lee H.Y. (2020). Identifying Effective Mentors in Scientific Communication: A Latent Profile Analysis of Mentor Beliefs. Journal of Career Development. May 13, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0894845320924127

15. Gubanov, N.N., Rokotyanskaya, L.O., Gubanov, N.I. (2019). Theory and Practice of Using Humor in Education. Alma mater (Vestnik vysshej shkoly) = Alma Mater (Higher School Herald). No. 1, pp. 105-111, doi: https://doi.org/10.20339/AM.01-19.105. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

16. Mora, R.A., Weaver, S. end Lindo, L.M. (2015). Editorial for Special Issue on Education and Humour: Education and Humour as Tools for Social Awareness and Critical Consciousness in Contemporary Classrooms. European Journal of Humor Research. 2015. Vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1-8, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2015.3.4.mora

17. Nasiri, F., Mafakheri, F. (2015). Higher Education Lecturing and Humor: From Perspectives to Strategies. Higher Education Studies. Vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 25-31, doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v5n5p26.

18. Lovorn, M., Holaway, C. (2015). Teachers' Perceptions of Humor as a Classroom Teaching, Interaction, and Management Tool. European Journal of Humor Research. Vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 24-35, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7592/EJHR2015.3.4.lovorn

19. Tsaregorodtsev, G.I., Shingarov, G.Kh., Gubanov, N.I. (2014). Istoriya i filosofiya nauki [History and Philosophy of Science]. Moscow: SGU Publ., 461 p. (In Russ.)

20. Vlieghe, J., Zamojski, P. (2020). Entering the World with Notes: Reclaiming the Practices of Lecturing and Note Making. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 21 Mar, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1743271.

21. Sossure, F. de (1972). Cours de linguistique generale. Publ. par Ch. Bally et A. Sechehaye. Paris: Payot, 381 p. (Russian Translation by A. Sukhotina, Yekaterinburg: Ural. Univ. Publ., 1999, 432 p.)

22. Zvegintsev, V.A. Istoriya yazykoznaniya XIX i XX vekov v ocherkakh i izvlecheniyakh [The History of Linguistics of the XIX and XX Centuries in Essays and Extracts]. Available at: http://genhis.philol.msu.ru/f-de-sossyur-kurs-obshhej-lingvistiki-izvlecheniya/ (accessed 13.11.2020). (In Russ.).

23. Belopukhov, L. (2018). Chelovek-legenda XX veka (k 100-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya Richarda Feynmana) [Man-Legend of the XX Century (on the 100th Anniversary of the birth of Richard Feynman)]. Available at: http://kvant.mccme.ru/pdf/2018/2018-09.pdf (accessed 13.11.2020) (In Russ.).

24. Lishevskiy, V. Master lektsii - Aleksandr Grigoryevich Stoletov [Master of Lectures - Alexander Grigorievich Stoletov]. N-T. Ru. Nauka i tekhnika: elektronnaya biblioteka [Science and Technique: e-library]. Available at: http://n-t.ru/ri/ls/up03.htm (accessed 13.11.2020). (In Russ.).

25. Stoletov, A.G. (1950). Izbrannyye sochineniya [Selected Works]. Moscow-Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoye izdatelstvo tekhniko-teoreticheskoy literatury Publ., 660 p. (In Russ.).