"Since the late 1980's after Chickering and Gameson published the now classic Seven Best Teaching Principles for Undergraduate Education * after extensive research, there has been a quiet revolution to reform college teaching practices and promote effective teaching practices including eliminating the famous "dancing with the blackboardâ so common in the math and science departments and replace it with pedagogically, effective active learning."
Despite their research,my opinion stems from personal experience - I could be the exception to the rule.
I find that I learn the best when presented with the blackboard dance, especially in the area of math and sciences. Things that are presented straightforward with proofs and/or theory sink in the best. Then by completing a set of practice problems in the area the knowledge is firmly cemented in my brain. This, of course, provided that I got adequate sleep the night before so I'm not falling asleep in class.
The so called "effective active learning" - which I take to mean things like case studies, or "interactive learning projects" - doesn't teach me as well. Sure, its not as boring sometimes, but most often it just serves to distract me from the essence of the subject material. It tends to gloss over many of the details the can be extremely useful in doing the homework, and in generally understanding the nuances of mathematicall theorems.
But again, I'll have to agree with your first point. It's most often the professor who has the greatest impact. Some of my chem-profs do nothing but "blackboard dancing" and I learn an incredible amount from them, and my fellow students love them. Others try to bring in lots of "real life examples" that most of the time are just irrelevant to the exact subject material, and they are generally disliked.
An engaging and exciting professor always makes learning easier and better - but often, the subject material is engaging enough for the studens. All the professor has to is explain it clearly, thoroughly, and competently. Some of my professors are geniuses who do amazing research, but when it comes to trying to explain the nuances of some chemical processes no one can understand them, save their colleagues. Other professors have less impressive degrees (although I wouldn't say they're less intelligent an other professors), but they can explain things succinctly and clearly - without resorting to "active learning" tricks.
So, to sum up: I doubt even "active learning" techniques has a whole lot to do with being a good or poor professor. It all lies in the professors ability to convey ideas to the class - and the simplest way to do this is most often just with the chalk board.
