This paper is about how lectures in a teacher education program can be improved through action research. Lectures have for a long period been a predominant teaching method in higher education. However, due to a changed view on learning, lectures are today often criticised as a pedagogical method and are supplemented by a range of different methods like seminars, workshops and on-line discussions. In Norway where the current project took place, changes in higher education in direction of more student active approaches were initiated by the Bologna process and implemented trough a quality reform (White paper, 27, 2000-2001) in 2003. However, still lectures represent a common teaching method. Although the method has developed and different multimedia tools may be included, it is still mainly a one way communication. Through lectures a particular subject can be presented to a large group of participants, but the learning outcome is put in doubt, and one could ask why we still give lectures.

The study presented in this paper is an action research project in progress conducted in a one year post graduate teacher education program at the University of Bergen, Norway. The participants include 65 students in their second term and their five teachers. The teaching is divided between optional lectures where all students are present and compulsory seminars where they are divided into five fixed groups. In the seminars students meet the same teacher throughout the program. In the lecture hall they meet different teachers, depending on the topic. The course is evaluated every term and the last evaluations reveal that students express some dissatisfaction with the lectures. Even if some teachers were regarded as talented speakers, and some students were satisfied, the lectures were considered the least valued part of the program. Both the practicum and seminars were appreciated. What was questioned was the learning outcome of lectures, the connection between lectures and seminars and the relevance to practice. Some students found lectures boring and the use or misuse of Power Point was criticized.  However, the feedback was vague and it was difficult for the individual teacher to extract exactly how to improve his or her teaching. Furthermore, it was confusing that although the lectures were criticised, a large group of students do attend the lectures. Maybe lectures have a value which was not expressed in the evaluation.

With this as a starting point, we, teacher educators and the authors of the paper, reflected upon how our own lectures could be improved. Since one of us was responsible for the second term course we also wanted to improve the program as a whole and include the three other teachers in the team in the research project, but on their own terms. As teachers we want to be regarded as competent and want to make a difference (Ballet & Kelchtermans, 2009). Therefore it is not satisfying that the teaching is not appreciated; especially in teacher education where teachers are supposed to model exemplary teaching (Loughran, 2006).

Ballet, K. & Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Struggling with workload: Primary teachers’ experience of intensification. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1150-1157. Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education. New York: Routledge.. McNiff, J. (2002).Action research for professional development Concise advice for new action researchers , Accessed January, 14. 2010: http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html Smith, K. & Sela, O. (2005). Action research as a bridge between pre-service teacher education and in-service professional development for students and teacher educators. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), 293-310. (St.meld.27, 2000 – 2001). White paper, 27(2000-2001). Accessed January, 14. 2010: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kd/Documents/Bills-and-white-papers/Reports-to-the-Storting/20002001/stmeld-nr-27-2000-2001-.html?id=194247