Last time I taught this, I gave a synopsis/overview of each chapter. Now I am including more content pieces that expand the ideas in the textbook or enumerate an idea only given scant attention. For instance, one recent lecture focused on Erasmus Darwin, Charles’ grandfather, who had written a clear, concise prose on evolution. The text only gave him two sentences, so I used my lecture time as a way of illustrating his role in the sciences that influenced evolutionary psychology. I want to give the students information about people we don’t hear about who are very influential on history.
I don’t know if this change is good or bad. I think it’s good because the students enjoy learning beyond the textbook. I think it might be bad because I don’t clarify everything that’s in the textbook, and I don’t want to miss any important material. My belief for making this change was that graduate students can seek out more information and can read better, thus negating the need for me to repeat the text material in class. I can address broader implications instead.
I continue to include a lecture segment because I think it forms an anchor. For a piece of the day it seems like we have a "regular" class with a lecturing professor. It’s a security blanket for the students. If I didn’t do it, I think they’d feel adrift or in a foreign universe. Having me give a lecture provides students with some comfort and security.
