A few members of staff found the link to Kevin Donnelly’s article in the Australian recently which is, as they say offering a different opinion to the one I’m putting forward and suggested I read it.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24005037-25192,00.html
A few quick comments on his article, if I may
1. His comment about history saying the 70’s etc… innovations failed – whose history is he talking about – and to suggest that the poor need the discipline subjects [read traditional] more than the rich as they are culturally advantaged goes too far – yes the socio-economically poor need rich curriculum content like everyone does but rich curriculum content does not have to be delivered in traditional ways.
2. The curriculum gave way to learning to work in teams – seems to suggest that curriculum has a body of defined knowledge – does not react to new knowledge [how many planets do we have in our solar system?] and since when does the social aspect of learning or working not warranty attention.
3. Donnelly needs to learn that constructivism is a theory of learning not teaching and is not, as he would suggest, in direct contrast to teaching that make learning goals explicit, or specific feedback to students important. However his final point in this section on direct instruction is most likely the point of his article. Let’s all go back to the empty vessels theory of learning and pour information into student heads and have them restate this in tests and we prove that all is well with the world – forget inert knowledge is forgotten or any of the work of Perkins from Harvard.
Donnelly has been pushing a barrow for a long time – direct instruction – although I note that’s it been softened to direct at the start of lessons or for particular subjects and tries to justify this. Kevin no one is arguing with explicit instruction, challenge and feedback, content rich tasks, with learners inquiring and connecting understandings across disciplines for that’s what the progressive research suggests works.
Get up with it mate!
I shared my views on our leadership wiki and look forward to the continued dialogue.
