I dont know Kevin Donnelly. Weve never met. Yet, in some ways I do know him. The man who co-chaired the National Curriculum review, who is senior research fellow at Australian Catholic University, contributor to The Conversation & Quadrant has a presence in my professional life thats hard to ignore. He has another article out today where he argues many of his pet lines - that teacher directed learning is best; that inquiry learning leads to student underperformance; that Australia should look to international exemplars in test performance as a standard of effective teaching-in-action. Even though I disagree with much that Donnelly advocates for, Ill give him this - the man can spin an argument. Hes adept at holding the line, using selective evidence and linguistic flourishes to bolster his position and undermine alternatives. Note the use of linguistic hedging in might be in the title. This utilises the use of humility and protects against reader perception of arrogance in the writer. Yet, in the body of the response, the content doesnt lean towards an account that DI might be better. The use of particular pieces of evidence is utilised to show that it is better and all counter arguments relevant to each piece of evidence are omitted. What other selective evidence and linguistic flourishes does Donnelly utilise in his argument? Statistics - Shock & Awe tactics: Seventy teachers from the UK were sent to Shanghai to study classroom methods. Yes, and teachers go studying pedagogy in other countries all the time. But seventy sounds impressive, especially with the addition of sibilance (thats all those s sounds) making the line sound authoritative and cohesive. Compare & Contrast - Shanghai favours DI. UK does not. It has been moving away from this type of teaching. Shanghai PISA results rock. UKs (and by extension, Australias, do not.) Therefore, Shanghai shows DI is better. Inclusive language - we have been misguided. A deft touch of humility here, sharing the blame for being led astray by fad pedagogical approaches. Connotation - fad - undermines the legitimacy of pedagogical alternates that Donnelly groups under this umbrella. Boosters and high modality - Especially in the early primary years... teachers should make better use of whole class teaching. The authoritative voice returns, advising what pedagogy should look like. Claiming the opposing argument - Theres not just one way to teach. By taking the opposing argument, the one utilised against unilateral styles of teaching, the response implies a democratic sharing of pedagogical approaches. But hang on, the response has just sneered and sniffed its way through inquiry learning, active learning and individual learning as alternate approaches. So its theres not just one way to teach but DI is still better. Research & direct quotes - The UK report that supports the position gets a number of mentions, including a direct quote. If Donnelly was captain of his school debate team I imagine hed lead them well. Top marks in NAPLAN written too. :) After all, Donnelly is very good at using the argument form to persuade. The strength of his views grows in the spaces they receive in the media, in professional teaching life, and in policy development. But, his arguments are just that - theyre arguments. Unfortunately, theyre also ones that have far greater consequences on students lives than the simple joy of winning a debate. theconversation/chalk-and-talk-teaching-might-be-the-best-way-after-all-34478
Posted on: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 23:31:27 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015