Observation (3): It takes decades to be an expert lecturer

PHIL240, Introduction to Epistemology
Lecturer: Chris Stephens
24 Nov 2017

I want to discuss Chris’s teaching style, how much it is different from mine, and how much I am puzzled by it.

Chris’s lecture is less like a lecture than a casual discussion. There are no “lecture outline” or learning objectives. There is therefore no clear structure of the lecture. Rather, he begins only with showing on a slide the issues/questions of the lecture (which deal with psychology, epistemology, and the naturalization of epistemology). And then he discusses several different arguments/points/questions, moving from one to another. There aren’t any “clear boundaries” when he moves from one to another. He also takes questions and he replies with clarifications or counter-examples.

Moreover, he uses very few slides. He uses slides only to show quotes, charts, and the issues/questions under discussion. Instead of slides, he mainly uses the whiteboard. And the way he uses the whiteboard is “talk and write”. That is, while talking, if he thinks the point that he is making is important, he will write it down on the board.

What impresses me the most is, despite the lack of structure, which I thought was necessary for maintaining students’ attention and helping them understand the material, Chris’s students seemed to be able to follow him quite well. They answered his questions, asked him questions, and laughed at his jokes.

This is clearly not how I teach. I always start a lecture with a clear statement of the main thesis of the article under discussion. And I give a clear structure of the lecture: there is always a clear outline of the lecture, showing its different sections (sections 1, 2, 3…). Each section has its own clear topic. They are also further divided into sub-sections (1.1, 1.2, …) and sometimes into sub-sub-sections (1.1.1, 1.1.2, …). I also use slides extensively.

I have always thought that a clear structure and a clear main thesis statement are required for students’ attention and comprehension. But Chris’s lecture shows that they may not be necessary. But how did he manage to teach so effectively without a clear structure? I asked him, but he didn’t quite have an answer. Ultimately, after reflection, I think I just need to accept that only years (if not decades) of teaching and public speaking experience will help me figure this out.