I came across this interesting post about the idea of "active learning" being a bad thing. In the sphere of college education, lectures across the country are focusing on pushing active learning: because studies suggest that some people might not learn best from lectures, but do better with more interactive experiences, games, etc. in the classroom.
But does that have to mean the lecture is dead? Can the lecture be replaced completely by the idea that active learning is better and should be use more? I know there are plenty of instructors who would disagree with that, and in my time as TA I also found that lectures of the right sort were just as effective at keeping students involved than active learning techniques (and more effective at getting them to actually learn). It's all about the style of lecture, I think!
I particularly agree with one point that the author makes about using lectures (in conjunction with active learning, instead of abandoning one or the other):
"You have to learn how to learn from a lecture. You have to learn how to learn from a book too. Today’s students learned how to learn from video, from twitter, from instagram, and more. Insisting that they stretch beyond these to new (for them) learning modalities is, itself, an educational mission, and one we ought to embrace, not discard."
We have to learn to learn, and if we don't give students the change to do this, they won't be able to keep pushing that growth on their own!