This is a great example of a "flipped classroom", which is gaining traction across American higher-ed. A lot of research went into developing the SCALE-UP paradigm, which is a great place to start if you're curious:
Also, different people have different individual learning styles (aural, visual, doing) and learning paces, so when you mix a bunch of folks with those differences, before all of them have mastered the material, some are going to get left behind and others held back. Ideally learning environments and methodologies account for and adjust for that.
To be fair, Vermont Med School's methodology in the article does appear to account for this, requiring some degree of individual mastery before group work:
>A lot of the science of pharmacokinetics is simply mathematical equations. If you have a lecture, it's simply presenting those equations and maybe giving examples of how they work.
>In an active learning setting, you expect the students to learn about the equations before they get there. And when you get into the classroom setting, the students work in groups solving pharmacokinetic problems. Cases are presented where the patient gets a drug in a certain dose at a certain time, and you're looking at the action of that over time and the concentration of the drug in the blood.
>So, those are the types of things where you're expecting the student to know the knowledge in order to use the knowledge. And then they don't forget it.
o_O!?
Fun and easy? I like to think I'm pretty good at giving a lecture, and it takes me real work to give a good one. Especially when teaching to beginners.
And "active learning"--that's even MORE work. Teaching a single sophomore CS class with automated testing running on the assignments was about 50 hours per week of time.
In addition, effective active learning requires that the students have a lot more interaction with the teacher and other students. Now it's not a 3 hour lecture, it probably has to be more like 6 hours. And has to be split across multiple days because holding someone's attention for more than about 3 hours is simply not possible (and even that's difficult).
Lectures persist because active learning would cost a lot more.
As a performer, I enjoy standing in front of a group of people and commanding their attention. It's fun to make them laugh, after all. That said, lectures are pretty easy. Write a story, speak clearly, and write legibly. Congratulations, you did it. Active learning environments require more work from the instructor, but they actually work better.
Lectures persist for a few reasons:
Once you have a notebook of prepared lectures, provided primary compensation is not based on educational outcomes, most faculty will preferentially reuse the work they've already done.
Most faculty, being faculty, are among the small fraction of the population who could learn effectively from lectures. They are inclined to like lectures, and to see nothing wrong with them.
Most university classrooms were built to deliver lectures, not to foster active learning environments. Fixing this would cost more, but a lot of universities are building active learning classrooms because the results speak for themselves.
Teaching qualifications have an effect on teacher performance that is not reliably distinguishable from zero.
EDIT: FWIW, I felt the same way about engineering classes years ago when I ended up learning out of the books and Wikipedia myself.
Giving lectures and having students do problem sets at home still has the students doing a ton of work, but the instructor's expertise isn't utilized efficiently. By having students watch videos/do pre-reading and then work problems in class, the instructor can actually help people how they need it.
You aren't paying someone to do the work for you. You're paying someone to structure the material in a way that helps you learn it. Think of it like you're paying a chef to prepare a meal that you have to chew. They aren't paid to baby-bird it to you.
"Why is tuition so high" is a really contentious question. Not many of those dollars go to instructional staff (I assure you their salaries have not grown alongside tuition). Where has the extra money gone? Buildings, administration, athletics, who knows...
College is expensive because of all the extras (teachers don't earn very much). Also basic overhead, but you can still do that and keep it affordable.
One word: tenure