Much has been written and argued in opposition to the “long form”. Whether it is opposition to textbooks or lectures, those thinking something different is required argue that the long form is too passive, too boring, and not sufficient to develop the skills required for some new form of job or citizenship. I am careful to use the term “argued” because to my knowledge there is little data to authenticate these claims. Reliance on argument over data seems a more acceptable practice in politics and social sciencs in constrast to what are typically labeled “the sciences”.
One of the challenges in evaluating “logical” claims is evaluating such claims without bias. We tend to accept what we think should be.
When someone offers a defense of the “long form”, what is your approach in interpreting the arugments advanced? It is challenging to recognize that similar arguments can be advanced for competing positions.
If you are in favor of active thinking, how do you interpret the position that active means developing the capacity for sustained attention and personal processing of information provided by others (thinking and note taking related to lecture)? How do you interpret the position that what the future requires is the capacity to critically evaluate the positions taken by others and contrast them with your own. What do think “spoon fed” implies – extended arguments by experts or isolated bits of experience assuming the capacity to integrate? Where should the personal commitment (motivation) to learning originate – the student or the instructor?
