There is a pretty sizeable literature you can find with a google scholar search (I just tried it) that notes that various methods that engage students in dicussion and analysis are superior to straight lecture.
Of course, there are many ways to accomplish this and there are many factors that affect this. There is a LARGE literature in the "sciences" such as physics that interactive activities result in far superior learning than do traditional lecture methods. However, once you get into more abstract domains, such as philosophy, where students might not be ready for deeply intricate discussions, then more reliance on lecture can work. One can also lecture with a judicious incorporation of thought engaging "stoppages" (questions, analyses, dissections of arguments) so that it is not a constant rambling on of a talking head. Again, all of these things are more actively engaging and more likely to produce concept formation and/or conceptual change. So yes, the pure traditional lecture is not as effective as other methods and a quick google scholar search will verify this. The more important variable is what are good instructors who rely on lecture really doing? Straight lecture or actual engagement with questions, or solicitation of comments? One does not have to do silly time-wasting activities with little pedagogical bang for the time to be engaged in doing active learning. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [email protected] ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:05:24 -0500 >From: "Bourgeois, Dr. Martin" <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: [tips] News: 'The College Fear Factor' - Inside Higher Ed >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> > > I'll admit ignorance on this topic. Is there any > good empirical evidence that alternative > instructional approaches are as effective as, or > better than, the traditional lecture? I wonder if > there may be some truth to students' perceptions > that some of these methods are " irrelevant > ‘b.s.,’ a waste of time, or simply a lack of > instruction.'" > > ------------------------------------------------ > > From: Christopher D. Green [[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:49 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: [tips] News: 'The College Fear Factor' - > Inside Higher Ed > > An interesting article, especially for those who > prefer not to lecture, in favor of > discussion/participation models of teaching. > http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/18/fearfactor > > Here area couple of tidbits: > > "some students 'interpreted the absence of a lecture > as the absence of instruction.' > > "'Students' firmly held expectations undermined the > instructors’ efforts to achieve their pedagogical > goals,' Cox [the researcher] writes. 'Ultimately, > students’ pedagogical conception led to overt > resistance and prevented them from benefiting from > alternative instructional approaches, which they > perceived variously as irrelevant ‘b.s.,’ a > waste of time, or simply a lack of instruction.'" > > Chris > -- > > Christopher D. Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > Canada > > > > 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 > [email protected] > http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ > > ========================== > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
