Enhancing the Lecture: Using the Pause Procedure

Excerpts from Chuck Bonwell's chapter, "Enhancing the lecture: Revitalizing a traditional format" and article "The Enhanced Lecture" describe a simple mechanism for making the traditional lecture a more effective teaching and learning tool.

For many years lecturing has been almost synonymous with teaching. Lately, blue-ribbon commissions and well-known authorities in education research have begun advocating the use of more active teaching approaches to support more effective learning. This discussion has created a tension in higher education between those who advocate new teaching approaches and those who prefer the more traditional lecture approach. Lectures have both their strengths and weaknesses and whether they are appropriate for a particular course depends on the objectives for the course (Cashin 1985).

For faculty who are most comfortable lecturing and believe that approach best fits their course objectives, systematically incorporating brief active learning strategies into lectures can minimize many of the weaknesses of the lecture approach. The "pause procedure," is one mechanism for incorporating active engagement into a lecture with little loss of time and significant increase in student learning.

For purposes of discussion, an enhanced lecture is defined as a series of short, mini-lectures punctuated by specific active learning events designed to meet class objectives. This idea of breaking up the lecture with brief pauses is based on the work of Rowe (1980) and Ruhl et al. (1987). Their research indicates that pausing for a couple of minutes every 12-18 minutes fosters student attention and learning. Ruhl and her colleagues conducted a study comparing students in a traditional lecture class with those in one employing a "pause procedure" every 12-18 minutes. During the pauses students worked in pairs for two minutes to discuss and rework their notes, there was no instructor-student interaction.

After each lecture, students were given three minutes to write down everything they could remember from the lecture (free-recall); 12 days after the lecture the students were also given a 65 item multiple-choice test to measure long-term retention. A control group received the same lectures and was similarly tested. In two separate courses repeated over two semesters the results were striking and consistent--students taught with the pause procedure did significantly better on the free-recall quizzes and the comprehensive test. Moreover, the magnitude of the difference in mean scores between the two groups was large enough to make a difference of up to two letter grades, depending upon cut off points. These results were obtained with a per-class-loss of only six minutes of lecture time.

Stopping the lecture allows students to deal with the physiological and psychological responses that keep them from listening effectively for longer periods, allowing them to return to peak listening efficiency. This approach offers a low-risk, high-gain option for increasing student engagement in the lecture classroom. It's a good idea to mix the pause assignments to include reviewing notes, think-pair-share activities, short writes and formative (ungraded) quizzes.

• Bonwell, C. 1991. The Enhanced Lecture: A Resource Book for Faculty. Cape Girardeau, MO: Southeast Missouri State University, Center for Teaching and Learning.
• Bonwell, C. 1996. Enhancing the lecture: Revitalizing a traditional format. In Using Active Learning in College Classes: A Range of Options for Faculty, edited by T. Sutherland and C. Bonwell. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Cashin W. 1985. Improving Lectures. Idea Paper No. 14. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.
• Rowe, M. 1980. Pausing principles and their effects on reasoning in science. In Teaching the Sciences, edited by F. Brawer. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Ruhl, K., C. Hughes, and P. Schloss. 1987. Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education 10: 14-18.