This is a difficult concept to master, and an incredibly few number of teachers (let alone physicians) effectively accomplish this task.
Most students THINK that a good lecture is one that gives the information in a clear, structured manner, with fluency of the speaker and the details layed out in a sequential order. This is only the fundamental, basest form of a "good lecture." When that lecture can integrate foreign or old topics, demonstrating application of the topic, or creating memory ques to help the learner recall the information at a later time, that is, then, a great lecture.
But most students approach it from the perspective of "I gotta know this for the test." That's what a "good" lecture is to an MS1 or MS2: will it help me on the test. This is why teachers like Pathoma (sattar) or Falcon (Goljan) are regarded as masters. They tell you what you will need to know for the test, give a clever way of remembering it, and so you remember. You might even do well on the test, come test day!
But masterful lecturers, those who really influence the learner, are those who do more than give the information in a linear, fluent manner. Masterful lecturers captivate the audience, draw them in. They inspire them to do the right thing. They retain their attention not because "they have to know what's being said" but because "it makes sense and I want to listen to this." There is a little theatrics in being an excellent lecturer, to be sure. You have to
hook your audience, and keep them going. Learner
engagement is crucial. There cannot be simply passive learning (i.e. "listening") there has to be actual engagement. And factual recall isn't engagement; that's called "pimping" and is anxiety provoking. Building natural bridges, logical connections in sequence, that's what a great lecture is about. But its not about the lecturer TELLING you the connections, its about getting learners to form those connections ON THEIR OWN while assessing those connections have been made.
The true test of a lecturer is not whether they recall the data on a test (unless, of course, your purpose as a teacher is preparation for the standardized exam). Rather, it is how the learner performs when confronted with a real life problem. You see someone with a fever and a headache. Do you get the CT scan because you know they are HIV or do you just do a lumbar puncture because you thought it was meningitis? A patient has a potassium of 7. Do you give a whole bunch of medications to fix it, or do you retest the likely hemolyzed sample?
Fundamentally:
1.
Organization - the more spontaneous a lecture seems, the more rehersed it is (think of people flipping back and forth through a powerpoint slide = bad vs anticipating what is on the next slide with a smooth transition)
2.
Fluency - the speaker has to be able to... speak
3.
Engagement - is teh audience tuned in, are they part of the dialogue, or are they playing flash games at armorgames.com or checking their email every 5 minutes?
4.
Presence - are learners intimidated and fearful of engagement? are learners so jovial that nothing is taken seriously? (Think of the attending who sits down in the front row to lecture = bad)
5.
Focus - if the lecturer knows the audience, the talk will stay on topic. (Think: the biochem PhD talking about his fractal lens machine that can see the shape of sugars = bad)
6.
Meaningful Visuals - reading your slides as a lecture is useless. The visuals -- be they at a white board, powerpoint, or a demonstration -- need to augment and assist what is being said; learners should not be "reading along" (see engagement).
Im sure there is more (I know there is more) but these are the fundamentals that make a great lecturer.
One major thing he does is offer mechanistic explanations that anchor new info to existing knowledge. He also is clear and breaks down topics in to modules, which is consistent with our limited attention spans.
Especially for "millenials" - which is what the current medical students are referred to as. Facebook, twitter, cell phones, laptops... i.e. constant distractions that must be fought against continually by lecturers.
Beyond that, it is character, charisma, and how motivating the lecturer is. Notice that "knowledge" is not up there. In fact, I feel that people who know a topic TOO well, are often TERRIBLE lecturers. My first lecture on Diabetes involved the Dean trial and the Rabbit 2 trial. I remember thinking "diabetes is about sugar, right? It comes from RABBITS!?" Its why it confuses me prep classes and even medical schools SELL that "their teachers are PhDs in their field... best in the world!" Who gives a sh
it. If you cant teach me anything through your microscopic view of the topic and through such a thick accent I can't understand anything you're saying, who gives a flying sexual-intercourse how well you know it? Im a medical doctor, not a post-doc...
Examples of varying degrees of awesomeness for different reasons... all of which are about performing on the test While great inspirations since they are so "good" there is that nagging feeling in the back of my mind that they aren't the true masters, their limitiations being their purpose...a MCQ exam:
1.
Lionel Raymond, Kaplan biochem and pharm. Boring as all hell. Masterfully constructed flow and tying together non biochem/pharm topics so that things fit
2.
Goljan - memory techniques and mechanism
3.
Sattar - memory techniques and mechanism
4.
Conrad Fischer, Kaplan internal medicine - engaging, flamboyancy creates memory, excellent test prep
