That's the point, though-- good teachers have ALWAYS used a moderate/combined approach, in every discipline that I'm familiar with.
There is a give-and-take, a sort of dance between instructor and students and material-- and it's unique and ephemeral. Recordings do not-- and cannot-- capture it, no matter how gifted the instructor him/herself might be. Because it's "flat" without the student interaction.
I'm reminded of the poignant editorial from some months past-- in which the author explains that even in a "lecture" format, a live instructional space is very much a dynamic exchange. It moved me to tears-- because I am
so frustrated that we would undervalue something so precious.
Would one GIVE UP live theater as "inefficient" relative to television or film? It's fundamentally a different experience, right? Actors certainly say that there is no comparison, and as a theater supporter, so would I. No two performances are ever identical-- not even in the best theaters in the world-- and that is where the magic happens.
Why do fans still clamor to go to LIVE sporting events? They could watch it later on their TiVo, but many people would say that is an anemic substitute for the "real" experience.
WHY?http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jun_10/article05.htmhttp://eprints.lse.ac.uk/50929/1/Karnad_Student_use_recorded_2013_author.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495235/http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/williams.htmlhttp://www.iamse.org/artman/publish/printer_406.shtmlPlease note that most of the research into whether or not recorded instructional modules are "effective" is based on research in post-secondary settings.
Interestingly, students THINK that the recorded snippets/lectures are
more effective and efficient, but the data does NOT bear that out in most instances. It works okay for memorization-based material. But little else.
The problem with canned instruction isn't easily resolved, and it's fundamental among students who are not autodidacts, and there fore require, you know-- instruction:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-reality/2012/07/22/gJQAuw4J3W_blog.html While I don't agree with everything in that article, it's got some interesting points. Fundamental among them is that while YouTube and Khan, etc. have made viewing instructional content EASIER for students...
that on-demand "instruction" doesn't necessarily help them to understand that, no, THIS is the part that they don't completely understand, and that is why this seems confusing. There is NO substitute for a teacher who is paying attention to HOW students are thinking about material. While flipped classrooms are great for
revealing those gaps-- they are not very good at remediating them to start with.