Secondary school is one thing but in university, lectures aren't there to build your understanding for you. They're there for one of 3 reasons: 1) auditory learning of the same material, 2) to give you additional material not present in reading, or 3) to give a different perspective of the same material. Lectures are also just not long enough to do the work for you - building your understanding is your own responsibility.
I'm also skeptical about this type of complaint on textbooks. I'm not going to say all textbooks are great but this idea that a textbook is a direct impediment or flawed tool for active learning has had no bearing in reality for me personally. Poor textbooks are poor tools. Good textbooks are good tools (I personally don't find there to be a lack of good textbooks). In the subject I majored in at university, mathematics, I can't imagine any amount of teacher input can take the place of problem sets and time spent poring over a textbook struggling to grok something.
I agree that active learning is a necessary part of a successful education. However, almost all the specific targets of this article to be off the mark. In my experience, lectures and textbooks are not what keeps active learning from taking place, in fact they are what necessitates active learning.
I agree with the stated point, however using the university education style as a target frustrates me, because the critique of Mike this article gives is exactly the kind of objection I might have to to claiming that textbooks and lectures are insufficient for learning. Engage, don't just consume!
On more of a quibble than critique, I think 3x playback is poor as the titular metaphor for shallow learning. Listening to an audio book at ordinary speed I find to be far too fast to allow any kind of useful contemplation, and too slow to retain my interest (possibly due to my ADHD, perhaps others find this easier). If I need to think about something, I pause it. Not all information has equal utility, nor do all information streams have equal density. Depending on the narration and content of an audio book I find listening at a higher rate to often be ideal for trialing information for greater analysis. For something else, such as a video feed of a sports game, real time is often too fast for me to even consume all the information I would like (although when watching a sports game I may be more interested in the experience than tactics or particulars of a play).
I'm also skeptical about this type of complaint on textbooks. I'm not going to say all textbooks are great but this idea that a textbook is a direct impediment or flawed tool for active learning has had no bearing in reality for me personally. Poor textbooks are poor tools. Good textbooks are good tools (I personally don't find there to be a lack of good textbooks). In the subject I majored in at university, mathematics, I can't imagine any amount of teacher input can take the place of problem sets and time spent poring over a textbook struggling to grok something.
I agree that active learning is a necessary part of a successful education. However, almost all the specific targets of this article to be off the mark. In my experience, lectures and textbooks are not what keeps active learning from taking place, in fact they are what necessitates active learning.
I agree with the stated point, however using the university education style as a target frustrates me, because the critique of Mike this article gives is exactly the kind of objection I might have to to claiming that textbooks and lectures are insufficient for learning. Engage, don't just consume!
On more of a quibble than critique, I think 3x playback is poor as the titular metaphor for shallow learning. Listening to an audio book at ordinary speed I find to be far too fast to allow any kind of useful contemplation, and too slow to retain my interest (possibly due to my ADHD, perhaps others find this easier). If I need to think about something, I pause it. Not all information has equal utility, nor do all information streams have equal density. Depending on the narration and content of an audio book I find listening at a higher rate to often be ideal for trialing information for greater analysis. For something else, such as a video feed of a sports game, real time is often too fast for me to even consume all the information I would like (although when watching a sports game I may be more interested in the experience than tactics or particulars of a play).