Sir, – Dr Shane Bergin writes (September 19th) to disagree with my science column of September 17th – "Beware of faddish teaching methods that scorn rote learning" – in which I argue that traditional explicit teaching methods are far superior to the popular inquiry learning methods.
Dr Bergin writes as if I had simply made bald, unsupported assertions in my article, saying “Prof Reville’s comments are unwarranted and are not reflective of published findings”. But the truth of the matter is that I took great care to base my arguments on published scientific findings.
My article of September 17th is the second article I have written this year on this important topic. The first article was published in The Irish Times on March 2nd. and is accessible through a live link in the online September 17th article. The scientific publications that support my points are all referenced and openable through links in both online articles. For example, in my March article I describe how the architecture of human cognitive structures prevent minimum-guidance-during-teaching methods from leading to effective learning.
But Dr Bergin doesn’t refer at all to this evidence, or cite any evidence of his own to support his assertions.
Dr Bergin mourns the “lack of genuine understanding of fundamental concepts” displayed by students incoming to the university from second level. Has it not occurred to him that these students are the product of the new teaching methods that have gradually replaced the traditional explicit teaching methods since the 1960s? – Yours, etc,
Prof WILLIAM REVILLE,
Cork.