This past weekend, as part of my ongoing season of national conferences, I went to the American Podiatric Medical Association’s National Scientific Meeting in Nashville, Tennessee. It was held at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center, which was an amazing venue. Great choice APMA!

My trip served two functions: one, to attend the conference, but also to come to our biannual American College of Foot and Ankle Orthopedics and Medicine (ACFAOM) board of directors’ meeting (of which I’m a new board member). If you’re not aware of ACFAOM, this is the nonsurgical College which is the sister organization to the American Board of Podiatric Medicine (ABPM). If you become certified through the ABPM, the next step is to become a Fellow of ACFAOM. This is similar to becoming a fellow of ACFAS except from the (mostly but not entirely) nonsurgical side. By the way, if you don’t feel it necessary to become a member, then you’re mistaken. Variably, 80% or more of most podiatrists’ practices are nonsurgical, so why not become a member of the organization that represents 80% of your practice?

Ok, enough of my soapbox. While at the conference, just like every conference, I heard good lectures and bad ones. I’m not sure how many lectures I’ve seen in my life (probably on the order of thousands), but I definitely know what I like in a lecture and what I don’t enjoy. As a quick example, ACFAOM ran a heel pain lecture series at the conference, which I enjoyed very much for two primary reasons.

The first was getting to see Dr Dan Evans lecture. He’s a professor at the Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine who specializes in radiology, and he’s a very good lecturer, resulting from his comfort on stage and sense of humor with the crowd. The second reason was the interactive nature of the lectures, in which they used a phone Internet survey program to poll the crowd at different points during the lecture series. This engaging technology kept the audience involved and thinking during the entire two hour series.

Watching Dr Evans lecture and seeing some other excellent lecturers had me thinking about the characteristics of a truly good lecture and those of weaker lectures. We all know what we like, but I don’t think we spend much time really thinking about what makes those lectures good. As a teacher myself, I have the obvious interest in this topic because I want to be one of those great lecturers. By the way, if you maintain a growth mindset, you already know that becoming a good speaker takes practice, and no one is innately born with these skills.

To that improvement-oriented end, here’s a random list of the primary characteristics that – in this viewer’s opinion – makes for a good lecture. I think it’s obvious, but I’ll say it anyway: The opposite characteristics on this list will make for a poor lecture.

Characteristics of a Great Lecture

1. The lecturer is confident, enthusiastic, and knowledgeable. There’s nothing more fun than a speaker with a sense of humor that is comfortable and not awkward on stage. This allows the speaker to relax and interact with the audience in an enjoyable way. I want my “edutainment!”
2. A new concept or unique view on a known topic is presented. I love leaving a lecture thinking, “I didn’t know that before.” It’s exciting to learn about a new perspective on an old subject or something completely unique. The most interesting lectures I’ve seen are ones in which an opinion or concept is stated and the lecture makes an argument.
3. PowerPoint^TM slides are ancillary to the speaker. When I come to a lecture, I don’t want the lecturer to read the slides. If that were the case, then I could just read the slides. Instead, the slides should support and enhance the content. Slides should also have minimal text and not pull attention from the speaker.”
4. Are evidence-based but not overly so. Lectures that focus on reasonable scientific evidence to support the speaker’s assertions are much more interesting and convincing. However, an over-emphasis on the data makes the lecture dry and boring. On the other hand, if I hear another lecturer say, “In my hands…” I think I’ll scream. What do I care how well a procedure works in someone else’s hands? It needs to work well in my hands. That’s not science; that’s garbage.
5. The lecture is organized. Speakers should have a reasonable pace that is not rushed. They should spend the appropriate amount of time on each aspect of the material and not have to rush to finish the slides at the end. The lecture itself should also have a logical flow and connection from one concept to the next. Lecturers, stop introducing your speeches with epidemiology and pathophysiology we learned in school and get to the meat of your lectures. I want new content, not old stuff.
6. An interactive lecture is best. I definitely enjoy lectures in which the speaker interacts with the audience in some way. Whether it’s through an engaging delivery style or use of some type of technology, the speaker must interact. I’ve experienced lectures in which it was clear the speaker could have done the lecture to an empty room and it wouldn’t have made a difference. How boring!

A final thought has to do with the podium. I hate the thing. I understand the need for the podium, especially in modern days where the lectures are being video recorded. However, it’s just a crutch for the speaker to stand behind and emotionally hide from the audience. It makes for such a static appearance that the speaker might as well not even be in the room. Get rid of it conference organizers.

I hope your next conference is full of the best speakers with enlightening topics and engaging styles. See you at the next conference!