Physicists Seek To Lose The Lecture As Teaching Tool
[L]ecturing has never been an effective teaching technique and now that information is everywhere, some say it’s a waste of time. Indeed, physicists have the data to prove it.
Given that it’s been the form of instruction for such a long time, it must have some effectiveness. I have nothing against improving teaching techniques, but it seems to me this piece is doing a bit of attacking a straw man. It may just be that they have not properly defined the teaching style they are criticizing.
There’s the example of students not understanding that gravitational acceleration is independent of mass of the object, but the students “get it” after seeing the professor drop two balls. To me, that implies that the professor wasn’t doing that demonstration in the lecture. Similarly,
“Students have to be active in developing their knowledge,” he says. “They can’t passively assimilate it.”
implies to me that the professor isn’t doing anything to engage the students. Which, to me, is simply a sign of bad instruction. So if they are against the Buelleresque “In… what… waaayy… does the author’s use of the prison…” where the students are drooling on their desks, I’m there. But is anyone surprised that engaging the students gives better results than one-way verbal-only communication? Because that seems kind of obvious.
If lecturing is no more than reading the notes you prepared, than yes, it is ineffective. Make a video and show that. Even with the demo in it. But when I teach my classes, lecturing is mostly a one way thing, but the interaction with the students makes it effective.
I can see in how they look at me, if they need rewording or extra emphasizing. They will interject if they don’t get it and that is the time you can make the difference as a teacher or lecturer.
I always found lectures to be active, since I had to listen and follow the lecture. When I heard or realized something I particularly wanted to remember, I would write it down. It is possible that fewer students have been developing their listening skills, but being able to absorb information in spoken form is a valuable skill, just as being able to absorb written information.
Pedagogy is full of fads with teachers being pushed to adapt to the flavor of the month. I gather active learning does not mean just active listening, but seems to require gratuitous interaction, perhaps a vote on the wave-particle nature of light to get the students engaged. If the usual pattern presents, we’ll see a number of successes followed by wide spread adoption followed by surprisingly little change.
Maybe this time will be different, but it sounds like a gimmick to me.