Teaching Experts: Active versus Passive, Part 2

I wrote last post about a reference in a book pointing to a Haidet et al. study suggesting that lecture-based learning could be as effective as more active forms of learning (at least at that particular time for that particular audience–learners with relatively deep knowledge and highly developed learning skills). I’ve been digging around a little, and it’s curious to me that the Haidet study is cited in the medical and pharmacy education literature as an unequivocal endorsement of active learning.

One example is the 2007 follow-up article I talked about last time. Another is a 2012 literature review of team-based learning (TBL) in medical education settings by Ofstad and Brunner that cites the 2004 Haidet et al. article as providing evidence that learners in TBL programs are more actively engaged in the classroom, which it does. However, in the section of the literature review where the authors review the possible shortcomings of TBL, no mention is made of the findings in the Haidet et al. study that TBL was no more effective and less popular than a comparable lecture.

Advertisements

One thought on “Teaching Experts: Active versus Passive, Part 2

  1. Pingback: Teaching Experts: Active versus Passive, Part 3 | Engaged

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s