When Lecturing is not an option: Reflections of a grad student's learning experience in the Middle East

I did not know that there were other teaching strategies that my school teachers and college professors could have used in the classroom, but they simply did not! Some of you will probably laugh, but I am not exaggerating when I state that I do not remember that I ever participated at a group activity in the classroom nor did I attend any class without my giant notebooks. It was simple: listen, write notes, memorize, and prepare for the exam.

That was the way I learned, and I thought it was The only way. But I realized that there were other possible strategies for learning. (I cannot stop thinking of those days when I had to race against time while taking notes at one class on English literature.) In what follows, I shed more light on lecturing from a Middle Eastern perspective within which I examine Cassandra Book's essay on lecture as one teaching strategy that may be effective at times, but ineffective at others. Immediately after reading her essay, I wrote down the following: 

Does lecturing relate to authority and power? Beyond an examination of the effectiveness of lecturing, what does lecturing communicate about the societal and educational structures of non-Western countries? Why did not my college professors adapt other teaching strategies although they received their higher education in British and American universities where lecturing is NOT the only way of teaching?

I cannot answer all these questions in just one post or even in one research paper. I am just attempting to bring to my reader's attention that lecturing can be seen as an "authoritarian tool" that deprives students from developing critical skills necessary to challenge existing ideologies that rely on obedience and submissiveness, not involvement and active participation. It is funny that as I am writing this post, I recalled one very famous Arab proverb that translates as follows: Teach me a letter and I shall become your slave. How can a "slave" question the authority of her/his master?

Unfortunately, Book's examination of lecturing does not shed light on my thoughts on lecturing. Definitely, her essay is important as she reviews literature on the effectiveness of lecturing, but she deprives readers from relating this strategy to authority and power, and equating lecturing with dictating (I see classroom lecturing here as an extension to parental lecturing/dictating and organizational lecturing/dictating). Looking at lecturing this way, I argue that lecturing is a dangerous approach that yields obedience, inability to develop critical skills, and most importantly, limits visions of possible change.

Am I totally against lecturing then? Absolutely not. As a grad student and an instructor, I still believe in the effectiveness of lecturing in the classroom, but I shall not rely on this strategy solely. As a grad student, I am always thrilled that my professor's voice is not THE only voice that we need to listen to (literally and metaphorically speaking). As an instructor, I want my students to appreciate the various ways of learning (I cannot imagine teaching COMM 1010 through lecturing only).

Simply put, lecturing should be discussed within a wider perspective that includes topics on power not only in the classroom, but also in society at large where young generations are expected to listen, understand, and act according to what they have been lectured on. When discussing non-Western cultures, especially the Middle Eastern, academics should understand that authorities are not limited to heads of states, government officials, and state-run media. A clear analysis on authority should include the authority of parents who dictate rather than engage, of teachers who lecture rather than listen, and so on.

Another related point that I would like to briefly discuss here: in her conclusion on lecturing, Book states:
"Regardless of the form, the lecturer must be certain that the content is accurate, through, and elaborated upon in a way that assists the learner in understanding, retaining, and transferring the information" (p. 290).
What I find problematic to me is the part that deals with the goals of teaching. What sort of information does a lecturer have to transfer to her/his students? Here, we are not dealing with lecturing only, but also with lecturing on what the state ALLOWS only. A female professor at one state university in Jordan challenged both the lecturing method as well as the information that students are supposed to receive and understand in her women studies class. She asked students to make videos on sexual harassment (A taboo topic that we never discussed in public). One group uploaded their video on YouTube in which they (all females) exposed the sexual harassment that they were subject to on campus. To make the story short, the professor was fired because she jeopardized the "reputation" of the university. Instead of engaging in a civil dialogue over the video, Jordanians considered it "shameful" and "derogatory." A famous religious clerk considered the professor as one who "lacks decorum," and the comments on the video rarely relate to the problem itself; rather, most comments focused on the dangers of liberal learning that relies on Western strategies of teaching that do not fit the Jordanian culture. What a mess!

Each time I remember this story, I wonder if I shall receive the same treatment if I ever decide to go back to Jordan and choose to teach. How can my educational experience here conflict with this country's educational system that relies on transferring information that best serve its hegemonic values and norms? And this question reminds me of my college professors who received their higher education in Western countries. Did they rely on lecturing only to avoid the fate of that professor? I admit that I have many questions, and this post is a limited space in which I like to further discuss the cultural and political power of lecturing, not only its effectiveness in the classroom.

N.E