[quoting Padgett, 2 Apr 96] Thus, while I'm sure a class such as Dr. Reeves outlines will be much better than a packed auditorium (heck, I'm sure enough of it that I signed up for the class!), I still worry about the term "learner-centered" as applied to it.
Or, more to the point, is the "learning" and "retention" any different? It's singularly interesting to me that the generation (mine) who experienced the un-centered baby boom educational cycles, managed SAT and GRE scores higher than today's averages. Later, as an undergrad in the 1960's at UGA, many of my non-major core courses were distributed via campus cable to multiple classrooms as talking heads: the instructional drone of which rivaled the clamor of the cicadas on a hot Athens day. Did I hate that kind of instruction? You bet. The "Romance" stage, as Whitehead termed it, was nowhere to be seen. Did I wade through the monadic instructional design to get the material (precision)? You bet--I needed the credits. Did I later apply (synthesize) some of what I had, at first, merely endured. Surprising to me, yes.
I'm not recommending interminable auditorium lectures. I simply wonder if learner motivation comprises so much of the instructional pie, that re-arranging the remaining crumbs and claiming you've changed the dessert is a little presumptuous.