Letter: Let’s talk about how talking heads can improve some ‘traditional’ classes

Re: ‘Talking heads can’t replace a traditional class’ March 14

While our course (LAWS 2908-Approaches in Legal Studies I), was not specifically named in the article, there can be no doubt that the author is describing our course.

Here are some of the facts missing from the original article.  First, the course is designed to do more than just “learn how to do research using search engines and why we do this kind of research,” as described by the author.  The course is also designed to ensure students understand how research in legal studies differs from research in a law firm, including the ways in which to design research questions and research strategies.  Using pre-recorded lectures that address these aspects of the course allows us to ensure that the 500 or so students who take the course each year receive a consistent message about these aspects of the course.  The pre-recorded lectures also allow us to use interviews with legal actors such as legislative drafters.  Most of these interviews were conducted specifically for this course and are not available in any other research courses.  We are also able to use pre-recorded panel discussions with other members of our department who discuss the different ways that they approach their own research within legal studies.  The pre-recorded format of lectures thus allows us to enrich the lecture component of the course beyond what was offered when the course was delivered in multiple sections by rotating instructors.

It is also important to remember that students are also still learning in a live environment in weekly labs run by TAs.  As the article notes, the supervision and training of these TAs is complex. It is also intensive, including 1.5 hours a week of training for each lab as well as detailed preparation for and supervision of assignment marking.  Our TAs are not “thrown into the fire,” as asserted by the author, rather they are among the most carefully prepared and supervised TAs in the University.

We admit that the use of pre-recorded lectures is not perfect.  It does not allow for instantaneous communication with the instructor.  However, there are a number of avenues for personal interaction with the instructor of the course.  The course CULearn site has a number of discussion boards in which students can discuss issues related to the course, ask questions about the course and receive information about assignments.  The course instructor holds both live and online office hours every week.  Finally, the course instructor and TAs all respond to email questions.   As such, the opportunity to have questions answered in a timely manner and even to participate in discussions with classmates, the instructor and TAs remain very much a part of the course as designed.

We take seriously concerns raised about the quality of the audio in the course and the desire for increased in-person contact with the instructors.  We recognize that some students prefer live lectures in all situations.  We invite all concerned students to contact us to participate in focus group discussions to find ways to continue to improve the course.  In our view, this dialogue will be enriched starting from the recognition that the course is not perfect, but it is also not “ridiculous” or a “travesty” as the author so glibly asserted in the article.  In this way our discussion of how to improve the course can reflect one of the goals of the course, namely to encourage meaningful critiques based on arguments supported by evidence rather than hyperbole.