In Praise of Lectures (2004) [pdf]

I am not aware of any serious studies that show lectures are superior to more active forms of learning and pedagogy. The idea that we evolved to learn from people talking to us is pretty much nonsense, we learn through experience and failure and learning from that. His own comment about the violin demonstrates that point.

Ideas are great, evidence for those ideas is better. This has no evidence besides anecdotes for a reason.

>Why, if lectures have all the disadvantages that I have shown, do they persist in going to them? The surprising answer is that many mathematicians find it easier to learn from lectures than from books

Uh no...people's perception of their learning is rarely connected to their actual learning. Lectures give high perceived learning specifically because the way a lecture works makes it less likely for a learner to encounter evidence of their failure/misunderstanding. lectures persist because they are normed. People keep going because they are the norm and because they are the only way for people to interact with new colleagues or information. Go to an educational research conference and I guarantee you that you can attend a lecture about why active learning is superior to lectures....that isn't evidence that lectures are better, its evidence that people stick to habits and norms over what works.

Also in praise of lectures: "Bruce Charlton on Lecturing" https://researchteacher.com/bruce-charltons-compleat-lecture.... One of his ideas is that we are evolved to learn from people talking to us.

I'm not an academic but I can find a lot wrong with this essay.

> Nor would this student need to take very extensive notes since everything done in the lecture is better done in the textbooks.

Strongly disagree. As an undergraduate I generally found my lecturers to give a more approachable / less bewildering account of mathematical topics than did textbooks. (This is mere anecdote, of course.)

> The experienced observer will note that, though the general outlines of proofs are reasonably well done, the fine detail is often tackled inefficiently or vaguely with, for example, a four line proof where one line will do.

It's teaching material, not a research mathematics publication. The proof should be optimised for approachability/intuitiveness, not density.

> A lecture takes place in real time, so to speak, with 50 minutes of mathematics occupying 50 minutes of exposition whereas a chapter of a book that takes ten minutes to read may have taken as many days to compose

Except it doesn't take ten minutes to read. It's just not the case that students can absorb new material five times faster through reading than through lectures.

Again this seems confused about the target audience. It may be true that for a research mathematician brushing up on a topic they haven't seen in a few years, consulting a book is far more efficient that watching a lecture. That's not who we're talking about, though.

I realise page 3 refutes these earlier points against lectures, but it seems to miss a lot of this.

> We do not learn to play the violin by playing the violin or rock climbing by climbing rocks. We learn by watching experts doing these things and then imitating them.

Not sure about the climbing example. I suspect there are plenty of skilled self-taught climbers.

With all of that said it's an interesting read, and I do like the taxonomy of types of questions, in the final paragraphs.

The author puts across his argument in a humorous style (c.f. his sales pitches for his books on his home page) but he makes several good points. As someone who lectures occasionally (not a lecturer per se) I can say with certainty that lecturing is thoroughly enjoyable for the lecturer but generally a miserable experience for the audience, unless they are tuned in, engaged and sit with pen poised, ready to learn. Alas, this is not the default state of an undergraduate audience. His comment about me being a 'gently babbling source of white noise' hit home.