Again, I don't get all the anti-science rhetoric and anti-intellectualism when it comes to talking about teaching. Was active learning invented in science classes? No. Was John Dewey a scientist? No. Either way, does any of that mean that we should reject something because it was done in the sciences or said by a scientist?

There are whole journals devoted to research on teaching humanities topics: history, philosophy, writing, literature, etc. All ignored in this article.

Again, there is plenty of research showing that active learning is better in areas other than the sciences and math. See the section on History education in the free book How Students Learn, for example: http://www.nap.edu/read/10126/chapter/3

or the book Doing History, or work by Sam Wineburg and other history education researchers.

I wouldnt't call it a "craze" or a "vogue" when people have been arguing for it for over 100 years and there are now thousands of empirical research articles demonstrating that it is superior to traditional lecture. Rejecting active learning in favor of traditional lecture is akin to the 19th doctors who rejected the idea that they needed to wash their hands: https://edtechdev.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/healthcare/

It's not just math and science. There are studies showing active learning is better than lecture for history teaching and other areas, too. Here's just one: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:IHIE.0000047415.48495.05#page-1

Pour le contexte… Girard est instigateur d’un projet qui a donné lieu à un manifeste sur la pédagogie active.

Ce manifeste a donné lieu à un débat.

Le texte de Tisseron auquel répond Girard a été partagé par Jacques Cool sur Facebook (connu sous le nom de « Jacques McCool » parce que la plateforme n’accepte pas son vrai nom).

A /lot/ of time. But it's turning out to be well spent.