You really haven't engaged with any of the articles referenced in good faith. To my reading, the chair article is more concerned about how learning science "evidence" is being used to market expensive chairs with little proof of efficacy.
The "hysterical call-to-action" article (as you call it) criticises EBP as bereft of robust evidence, overly simplifying practice, narrow and problematic - what is hysterical about these claims?
More importantly, that article clarifies "the essential inclusion of explicit teaching within inquiry based teaching".
Problematising. It’s what academics do when their critical theory turf is threatened by something more useful from ed psych or the reading sciences. Also, it’s satire.
I suppose my confusion stems from satire usually being directed towards things that are obviously stupid or ridiculous - the articles referenced bring up good points.
I'm not sure what work is done by reinforcing a false binary between critical theory (academics) vs. ed psych/reading sciences (teachers)?
Ok, you sound like a more generous person than I am. If comparisons to eugenics and a headline like 'escape oppression now!' does not seem antagonistic to evidence-based practice then we probably just have very different readings of the articles.
‘It's not us vs. them. It's only us. There's room for good ideas from all camps.’ - is there really ‘only us’, though? And is there really ‘good ideas from all camps’. Not in my classrooms.
I do relate (to an extent) with your point about, er, ‘problematising’ the divide between academic critical theory and practice — or characterising ed. Psych/reading sciences vs. academic critical theory as some sort of monolithic ‘clash of the titans’. I don’t think this was Rebecca’s intent with her writing, though. Indeed, I think she’s criticising via satire the ‘us v. them’ framing of the paper through its authors’ polemic language. Well, that’s my take, anyway. Happy to stand corrected by the author herself though!
Back to your ‘there’s room for…all camps’ comment though, which I find the most puzzling after all your questioning of the article. I’ve already spent too much time writing this as a procrastination from marking, so here are just a few camps that will never again pitch a tent in my classrooms for (in my professional view) good reasons: differentiated instruction*; whole language theory and its bastard child balanced literary; ‘21st century’ skills, 4C’s, or ‘Future focus’ learning; the use of cloze passages in writing instruction; the use of paragraph scaffolds with no accompanying instruction at the sentence level; the use of ‘how to’ writing guides without accompanying models; and the expectation (unfortunately rife in secondary English education) that there is only enough instructional time to focus on developing strategic/conceptual reading and writing skills like understanding genre, verbal reasoning and audience/purpose/context relationships, at the expense of developing word recognition and transcription skills, which are (incorrectly) presumed to be at or close to automaticity in secondary students.
There are other dodgy camps, but I hope you get my point. I reserve the right to declare on behalf of my students — after a decade of practice and so-called ‘professional learning’ imposed by schools and the department — there are no ‘good ideas’ in any of those camps.
So yes, I agree, the binary you refer to is indeed false. That said, I respectfully disagree in your assertion there’s ’only us’.
*there is differentiation in my classroom (or as I prefer to call it, adaptive teaching & learning during the ‘we do together’ phase), just not at the point of instruction.
Hi Dave - thanks for the considered response and continuation of the conversation. When I said "There's room for good ideas from all camps", I was referring specifically to the false binary set-up in the blog post between critical theory vs. EBP/direct instruction - and I still believe, in good faith, that there are good ideas in both.
To be clear, what I'm not saying is that all ideas are equally good and useful; definitely not.
I absolutely take your point that there are dodgy "camps" particularly around professional development - of which I've attended too (or rather, been subjected to).
I suppose where I differ in my opinion, is that when I read the article referenced, I didn't get the "polemic language" (aside from the heading) which would warrant a satirical response. In fact, Brunker highlights that inquiry based approaches INCLUDES direct instruction and has suggested a middle-ground of evidence-informed practice instead of evidence-based practice. To me, this seems entirely reasonable.
And yes, I still stand by my statement that there is only us. For better or worse, we're all in this together and sticking doggedly to our ideological positioning and only superficially engaging with what the "other side" is saying to reinforce and reify our own positions, is unproductive.
Bringing me to my initial question: what work does this blog post do?
Maybe the answer is provide catharsis for burnt-out educators who just want to do their job amidst the on-going arrogance of academics who think they know better. Fair. There are absolutely trash academics - I just don't believe them to be the people referenced in this blog post.
We also have pracademics; teachers who are also academics, with skin in the game and a foot in both "camps".
Well said Rebecca.
Thanks, Richard.
You really haven't engaged with any of the articles referenced in good faith. To my reading, the chair article is more concerned about how learning science "evidence" is being used to market expensive chairs with little proof of efficacy.
The "hysterical call-to-action" article (as you call it) criticises EBP as bereft of robust evidence, overly simplifying practice, narrow and problematic - what is hysterical about these claims?
More importantly, that article clarifies "the essential inclusion of explicit teaching within inquiry based teaching".
I'm not quite sure what your objection is?
Problematising. It’s what academics do when their critical theory turf is threatened by something more useful from ed psych or the reading sciences. Also, it’s satire.
I suppose my confusion stems from satire usually being directed towards things that are obviously stupid or ridiculous - the articles referenced bring up good points.
I'm not sure what work is done by reinforcing a false binary between critical theory (academics) vs. ed psych/reading sciences (teachers)?
Ok, you sound like a more generous person than I am. If comparisons to eugenics and a headline like 'escape oppression now!' does not seem antagonistic to evidence-based practice then we probably just have very different readings of the articles.
You added the exclamation mark. You also note that you have "minimal knowledge of this kind of research in education."
What do you hope to gain by stoking further educative division and tribalism based on an article heading and an abstract?
I'm quite comfortable overlooking antagonism if the arguments are compelling - which I believe they are.
It's not us vs. them. It's only us. There's room for good ideas from all camps.
‘It's not us vs. them. It's only us. There's room for good ideas from all camps.’ - is there really ‘only us’, though? And is there really ‘good ideas from all camps’. Not in my classrooms.
I do relate (to an extent) with your point about, er, ‘problematising’ the divide between academic critical theory and practice — or characterising ed. Psych/reading sciences vs. academic critical theory as some sort of monolithic ‘clash of the titans’. I don’t think this was Rebecca’s intent with her writing, though. Indeed, I think she’s criticising via satire the ‘us v. them’ framing of the paper through its authors’ polemic language. Well, that’s my take, anyway. Happy to stand corrected by the author herself though!
Back to your ‘there’s room for…all camps’ comment though, which I find the most puzzling after all your questioning of the article. I’ve already spent too much time writing this as a procrastination from marking, so here are just a few camps that will never again pitch a tent in my classrooms for (in my professional view) good reasons: differentiated instruction*; whole language theory and its bastard child balanced literary; ‘21st century’ skills, 4C’s, or ‘Future focus’ learning; the use of cloze passages in writing instruction; the use of paragraph scaffolds with no accompanying instruction at the sentence level; the use of ‘how to’ writing guides without accompanying models; and the expectation (unfortunately rife in secondary English education) that there is only enough instructional time to focus on developing strategic/conceptual reading and writing skills like understanding genre, verbal reasoning and audience/purpose/context relationships, at the expense of developing word recognition and transcription skills, which are (incorrectly) presumed to be at or close to automaticity in secondary students.
There are other dodgy camps, but I hope you get my point. I reserve the right to declare on behalf of my students — after a decade of practice and so-called ‘professional learning’ imposed by schools and the department — there are no ‘good ideas’ in any of those camps.
So yes, I agree, the binary you refer to is indeed false. That said, I respectfully disagree in your assertion there’s ’only us’.
*there is differentiation in my classroom (or as I prefer to call it, adaptive teaching & learning during the ‘we do together’ phase), just not at the point of instruction.
Hi Dave - thanks for the considered response and continuation of the conversation. When I said "There's room for good ideas from all camps", I was referring specifically to the false binary set-up in the blog post between critical theory vs. EBP/direct instruction - and I still believe, in good faith, that there are good ideas in both.
To be clear, what I'm not saying is that all ideas are equally good and useful; definitely not.
I absolutely take your point that there are dodgy "camps" particularly around professional development - of which I've attended too (or rather, been subjected to).
I suppose where I differ in my opinion, is that when I read the article referenced, I didn't get the "polemic language" (aside from the heading) which would warrant a satirical response. In fact, Brunker highlights that inquiry based approaches INCLUDES direct instruction and has suggested a middle-ground of evidence-informed practice instead of evidence-based practice. To me, this seems entirely reasonable.
And yes, I still stand by my statement that there is only us. For better or worse, we're all in this together and sticking doggedly to our ideological positioning and only superficially engaging with what the "other side" is saying to reinforce and reify our own positions, is unproductive.
Bringing me to my initial question: what work does this blog post do?
Maybe the answer is provide catharsis for burnt-out educators who just want to do their job amidst the on-going arrogance of academics who think they know better. Fair. There are absolutely trash academics - I just don't believe them to be the people referenced in this blog post.
We also have pracademics; teachers who are also academics, with skin in the game and a foot in both "camps".
It’s struck me as well recently how the chasm between theory and practice in education can be so wide.
I’m really looking forward to taking a proper look at the report (it’s 11pm here and well past my bedtime).
Moreover, I love your writing Rebecca. I could honestly just read and read and read.
Thank you so much Jack! Happy reading.
I am looking forward to reading the 'Smart Study Report' :)
I hope you enjoy it!