Students' explanations for poor lecturing include a non-responsive lecturer, a boring lecture and a lecturer who does not provide opportunities to ask questions [ 3].
But unless it visibly reflected in her performance (unfair marking, poor lecture-delivery), I don't think it matters.
In some cases, she says, attendance is so poor lectures are being given with nobody in them apart from the tutor.
Today, when higher education has become addicted to finding technical solutions to educational problems it is inevitable that all the buzzwords – innovative teaching, active learning, student engagement – are hurled at the poor old lecture and it is found lacking.
It was rumored that his English was poor, his lectures unintelligible, and his scientific methods disturbing to the neighbors and that for those reasons he was asked to vacate his post.
However, poor results from lecture-taught topics never lead to the removal of those lectures or their conversion into PBL problems.
In a lecture-based curriculum where the lectures are poor, the students can still study the lecture content themselves, but if PBL tutorials are poor, the students will be demotivated and little new knowledge will be constructed.
Lecturing poor countries about weak governance, while providing precious little money for technological advance, public health and other needs, is cheap all right.
And yet we still send our workers to developing countries to "build capacity"; we send young volunteers there to help out in their gap year; and we constantly lecture poorer countries about the vagaries of everything from corruption to inequality.
