This is interesting, but it depends on the proposition that "active learning" is clearly better than more traditional education methods. That's not nearly as pl

This is interesting, but it depends on the proposition that "active learning" is clearly better than more traditional education methods. That's not nearly as plain or uncontroversial as the article implies. One issue is that when educational techniques are compared, it is troublingly common for the comparison to be between simplistic and homogenous definitions that are only rarely encountered in real classrooms. Educators and non-trivial courses that depend entirely on lectures or entirely on active exercises are so rare they statistically don't exist. Every class I've taken, taught or observed was a blend of multiple types of learning and instruction, distinctions being ones of emphasis, not of type. The article also seems to assume that there is a best, or at least better, way to teach that is independant of how individual students learn or what particular topic or discipline is being taught. That's, to be frank, ludicrous. It's been clear for a very long time that appropriate and effective educational approaches depend a great deal on what is being taught and who it's being taught to. For example, imagine teaching history without lectures, or programming without hands-on activities. Good educators tailor the mix of approaches to their particular students and topics. I'm baffled why any educator would support the idea that lectures should be completely eradicated. Why not, instead, take a hard look at the curriculum and mode of instruction with an interest in determining the best approach for the most students and then trust your faculty to make appropriate choices on how to tailor it to a class---with the odd lecture once in a while if it's useful. If they've got a problem with some courses or educators depending on lectures to the detriment of students, the solution is to redevelop the curriculum and train the educator on different techniques---not to just outright ban one approach. Medical students are generally top students that are highly motivated. Further, cohorts tend to be in all the same classes with each other, encouraging mutual support. Those traits, along with medical education being task focussed, argue for active learning approaches. But that isn't true of, say, freshman English. Finally, there has always been a circular definition problem with new educational approaches. For example, "active learning" often seems to have an implicit definition along the lines of "self-directed exploration that is sucessful". If you tried it and it wasn't effective, then what you were doing wasn't active learning, QED.