So, if a sermon is an unlikely vehicle for learning, what is to be done?
I think that Erkel's article contains some helpful tips, but to encourage learning requires giving learners a structured experience that goes from context to detail...and back and forth between those levels.
Engagement is critical but the psychological coolness of a sermon, the level of arousal it stirs, or even requires (that is, none, actually) is not conducive to learning, to either transfer of information, building knowledge or transforming belief or behaviour.
For this there is the need to expose one's assumptions, thoughts and beliefs to scrutiny: one's own and others'. This suggests that discussion, dialogue of some form, putting up argument and counter arguments are all required.
The simple idea of pre-reading, using a study guide (and one that doesn't cause bare 'comprehension' level answers to be given), then having those concepts developed challenged in discussion, followed by consolidating reading or even writing up a journal of reflections would be of assistance.
For a biblical example of this, see Acts; where Paul reasoned daily in Tyrannus' hall. This was no one-way discourse, imposed on people, but didactic discussion, where people could test their understanding and its implications with the teacher. For some reason we don't do this in most church contexts. Although, I must say, that at the York St lunch time Bible talks, Justin does invite discussion, and 'tis a great thing.
Linking reading, hearing, reflecting (conversing) and acting are all parts of learning. Just listening is so attenuated as to only allow the very keen to gain anything, IMO.
