Traditional lectures versus active learning -- a false dichotomy?

Abstract

Traditional lectures are commonly understood to be a teacher-centered mode of instruction where the main aim is a provision of explanations by an educator to the students. Recent literature in higher education overwhelmingly depicts this mode of instruction as inferior compared to the desired student-centered models based on active learning techniques. First, using a four-quadrant model of educational environments, we address common confusion related to a conflation of two prevalent dichotomies by focusing on two key dimensions: (1) the extent to which students are prompted to engage actively and (2) the extent to which expert explanations are provided. Second, using a case study, we describe an evolution of tertiary mathematics education, showing how traditional instruction can still play a valuable role, provided it is suitably embedded in a student-centered course design. We support our argument by analyzing the teaching practice and learning environment in a third-year abstract algebra course through the lens of Stanislav Dehaene's theoretical framework for effective teaching and learning. The framework, comprising "four pillars of learning", is based on a state-of-the-art conception of how learning can be facilitated according to cognitive science, educational psychology, and neuroscience findings. In the case study, we illustrate how, over time, the unit design and the teaching approach have evolved into a learning environment that aligns with the four pillars of learning. We conclude that traditional lectures can and do evolve to optimize learning environments and that the erection of the dichotomy "traditional instruction versus active learning" is no longer relevant.