Wednesday, 28 February 2007
"The more traditional approach "
I read with interest a part of Donnelly's book where he pits Spady's views of OBE against "a more traditional approach". He does this all through the book, but this caught my eye.
"The more traditional approach to curriculum is based on the belief that not all students are equally motivated or have the same ability and, as a result, some will pass and some will fail. Classes are streamed in terms of ability or interest and students are regularly assessed to ensure they focus on what is being taught. Those students needing help are easily identifiable. Learning is often accidental in the sense that good teachers take the opportunity, when covering a particular topic or task, to explore ideas and responses as they arise" (Donnelly, 2007, pp.34-35).
Mmmm... Firstly, everyone knows, whether they are of the traditional or other persuasion, that students are unequally motivated! Secondly, the reference to ‘ability’ is something I personally can’t come at. Usually ‘ability’ is only measured by tests, and can, from my point of view, only be truly referred to as ‘achievement’. Thirdly, are students not regularly assessed by adherents of OBE??? Of course they are!
Anyway, my interest was piqued by the statement “Learning is often accidental in the sense that good teachers take the opportunity, when covering a particular topic or task, to explore ideas and responses as they arise”. WHY would good traditionalist teachers instigate learning that was accidental??
I don’t get it. Isn’t this what Donnelly accuses OBE adherents of??
"The more traditional approach to curriculum is based on the belief that not all students are equally motivated or have the same ability and, as a result, some will pass and some will fail. Classes are streamed in terms of ability or interest and students are regularly assessed to ensure they focus on what is being taught. Those students needing help are easily identifiable. Learning is often accidental in the sense that good teachers take the opportunity, when covering a particular topic or task, to explore ideas and responses as they arise" (Donnelly, 2007, pp.34-35).
Mmmm... Firstly, everyone knows, whether they are of the traditional or other persuasion, that students are unequally motivated! Secondly, the reference to ‘ability’ is something I personally can’t come at. Usually ‘ability’ is only measured by tests, and can, from my point of view, only be truly referred to as ‘achievement’. Thirdly, are students not regularly assessed by adherents of OBE??? Of course they are!
Anyway, my interest was piqued by the statement “Learning is often accidental in the sense that good teachers take the opportunity, when covering a particular topic or task, to explore ideas and responses as they arise”. WHY would good traditionalist teachers instigate learning that was accidental??
I don’t get it. Isn’t this what Donnelly accuses OBE adherents of??
Monday, 26 February 2007
Tonight's Difference of opinion
Tee, hee, hee. I watched Difference of Opinion tonight, and 'our Kev' failed miserably. About bloody time that this man was challenged, because his usual forums don't allow for much of that.
Saturday, 24 February 2007
Donnelly in the Australian, 24th Feb, 2007
"At a book launch in Canberra this month, Prime Minister John Howard said approaches to teaching literature, where graffiti and SMS messages shared centre stage with Shakespeare, robbed students of their cultural heritage and that much of the curriculum had been dumbed down and made politically correct"
“Imagine … English courses where great literature is on the same footing as Australian Idol, SMS messages, graffiti and movie posters” (Donnelly, 2007, p. 6).
“ … subjects like history and literature have been dumbed down and made politically correct” (Donnelly, 2007, p. 115).
It seems to me that Donnelly is a ventriloquist.
Besides, "a book launch" was actually Donnelly's book launch. Good on you John - you read the intro and said all the stuff you were meant to. And I love the free advertisement of the book, as well as its launch by Howard, at the end of your column, Kevin.
I'm also wondering if we could now change the three Rs to "recycle, recycle, recycle"??
“Imagine … English courses where great literature is on the same footing as Australian Idol, SMS messages, graffiti and movie posters” (Donnelly, 2007, p. 6).
“ … subjects like history and literature have been dumbed down and made politically correct” (Donnelly, 2007, p. 115).
It seems to me that Donnelly is a ventriloquist.
Besides, "a book launch" was actually Donnelly's book launch. Good on you John - you read the intro and said all the stuff you were meant to. And I love the free advertisement of the book, as well as its launch by Howard, at the end of your column, Kevin.
I'm also wondering if we could now change the three Rs to "recycle, recycle, recycle"??
A big welcome to Kevin
Hi Kevin, Dr D. Now we know you're here, and you say you encourage debate, perhaps you could actually provide that debate.
I can only see a positive in having the opportunity to share our points of view in a forum away from newspapers and populist current affairs where the public only gets told what to think from one point of view. Are you up for the challenge?
I can only see a positive in having the opportunity to share our points of view in a forum away from newspapers and populist current affairs where the public only gets told what to think from one point of view. Are you up for the challenge?
Thursday, 22 February 2007
On the social construction of what counts as knowledge
From Donnelly's book:
“Instead of accepting that what happens in education is inherently worthwhile or a natural part of things, the new sociology of education movement argues that what counts as education and how it is managed is a socio-cultural construct, that is, what counts as knowledge is subjective and relative to one’s culture and what those more powerful in society decide what should be taught” (2007, p. 16, footnote).
I can’t quite come at this statement, which is made to explain that education is in the hands of the Marxists. How on earth can what happens in education be a natural part of things when people decide what happens in education. People have varying points of view (case in point), so when something is chosen as a necessary part of knowledge to be taught, someone made a decision which runs counter to the decision someone else may have made. Thus, education as a socio-cultural construct is accurate. If Shakespeare is a natural part of things, then why might people from backgrounds other than Anglo-Celtic find it does not mean so much to them as other texts? I'm not having a go at Shakespeare, here, just making a point.
The very fact that Donnelly is even having this argument with everyone serves to prove a point he rejects.
“Instead of accepting that what happens in education is inherently worthwhile or a natural part of things, the new sociology of education movement argues that what counts as education and how it is managed is a socio-cultural construct, that is, what counts as knowledge is subjective and relative to one’s culture and what those more powerful in society decide what should be taught” (2007, p. 16, footnote).
I can’t quite come at this statement, which is made to explain that education is in the hands of the Marxists. How on earth can what happens in education be a natural part of things when people decide what happens in education. People have varying points of view (case in point), so when something is chosen as a necessary part of knowledge to be taught, someone made a decision which runs counter to the decision someone else may have made. Thus, education as a socio-cultural construct is accurate. If Shakespeare is a natural part of things, then why might people from backgrounds other than Anglo-Celtic find it does not mean so much to them as other texts? I'm not having a go at Shakespeare, here, just making a point.
The very fact that Donnelly is even having this argument with everyone serves to prove a point he rejects.
I bought the book
I bought the book today - "Dumbing Down" by "acclaimed education expert Dr Kevin Donnelly" (back cover) - and I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So far I have checked the reference list to find Allan Luke featured (as an "educrat" who, as the glossary at the back explains, has been allowed to get away with murder, so to speak), Roy Killen featured once, and only two of Bill Spady's publications (and not his book on outcome-based education). There is absolutely no mention of authentic or productive pedagogy, and none of quality teaching.
I've also noted that in the glossary "fuzzy maths" is explained as maths teaching where teachers focus on real world problems, use cooperative learning, and apparently don't believe anything should be remembered or rote learned.
The back cover is most enlightening, and makes very clear not only Donnelly's stance but what he hopes to eradicate. He laments the apparent passing of rewarding merit or competition (huh?), and the English syllabus allowing Shakespeare and Big Brother to exist anywhere near each other.
I only wish he wasn't getting paid for my buying his book ...
I've also noted that in the glossary "fuzzy maths" is explained as maths teaching where teachers focus on real world problems, use cooperative learning, and apparently don't believe anything should be remembered or rote learned.
The back cover is most enlightening, and makes very clear not only Donnelly's stance but what he hopes to eradicate. He laments the apparent passing of rewarding merit or competition (huh?), and the English syllabus allowing Shakespeare and Big Brother to exist anywhere near each other.
I only wish he wasn't getting paid for my buying his book ...
Thursday, 8 February 2007
Saturation point
... has been reached with almost every day media releases / apperances by Julie Bishop (federal education minister) and Kevin Donnelly (self-proclaimed education expert of Australi).
'Outcomes-based education', 'politically correct', 'left-wing', 'dumbing down' (mainly Donnelly), 'standards', 'literacy and numeracy', 'failing', 'quality' (both Donnelly and Bishop) are terms that feature over and over again in these diatribes.
The flawed logic expressed in the rhetoric of Kevin Donnelly has truly made it to those with the power to manipulate and instigate education policy in Australia, with John Howard (prime minister for those who don't know) launching Kev's new book today. This saturation point should really become a rallying point for those who know better, and for those who care about the possibility that the concept of education will regress to teaching words and numbers without current context, and without any hint of allowing our students to become critical thinkers.
Very little is heard from those who know there are serious flaws in this logic, and newspapers continue to feature it as if it is the only way of thinking about education. Is it because those who can stand up to these ideologues are unwilling? too busy? feeling powerless?
Come on folks - time to start writing in to newspapers, and having your voice heard. You don't need to be an expert, just a voice of dissent (er, with some good justification, of course).
'Outcomes-based education', 'politically correct', 'left-wing', 'dumbing down' (mainly Donnelly), 'standards', 'literacy and numeracy', 'failing', 'quality' (both Donnelly and Bishop) are terms that feature over and over again in these diatribes.
The flawed logic expressed in the rhetoric of Kevin Donnelly has truly made it to those with the power to manipulate and instigate education policy in Australia, with John Howard (prime minister for those who don't know) launching Kev's new book today. This saturation point should really become a rallying point for those who know better, and for those who care about the possibility that the concept of education will regress to teaching words and numbers without current context, and without any hint of allowing our students to become critical thinkers.
Very little is heard from those who know there are serious flaws in this logic, and newspapers continue to feature it as if it is the only way of thinking about education. Is it because those who can stand up to these ideologues are unwilling? too busy? feeling powerless?
Come on folks - time to start writing in to newspapers, and having your voice heard. You don't need to be an expert, just a voice of dissent (er, with some good justification, of course).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)