Sir, – The Secret Teacher bemoans the existence of the “stereotypical chalk-and-talk breed” of teacher because the “rote-learning skills” they impart will produce “mere regurgitators (who) will . . . probably underperform” in the Leaving Cert (“He has the worst teacher. At this rate, he has no chance of doing higher for the Leaving”, Education, February 27th).
By contrast the Secret Teacher believes that the imaginary “Mrs Leyden”, who encourages regular group activities and is constantly getting the students to correct their own or each other’s work, will ensure that her students will beat the “best of learned-off notes” and will succeed where the former fail.
It’s now educational orthodoxy that how the likes of Mrs Leyden teaches is the best way to educate students because it’s “student focused” and uses “active teaching” methodologies.
In reality, it’s a myth.
Fintan O’Toole: A cunning plan for Ireland’s sweaty moment of exposure to the glare of the orange sun king
‘These things happen’: Book returned to Kildare library after 74 years
Zoorassic Trail: Giant animatronic dinosaurs come to Dublin Zoo
National Concert Hall to spend more than €2½m on ‘world-class’ pipe organ
Simply ask yourself why those involved in the (conservatively estimated) €60 million second-level grinds market rarely employ the so-called “progressive” teaching methodologies that characterise Mrs Leyden’s teaching? Regardless of the reasons as to their existence, why do those businesses who give grinds overwhelmingly use teacher-directed (chalk and talk) learning strategies?
Might it be because economic necessity ensures that they know what successful teaching actually looks like? – Yours, etc,
SEAN KEAVNEY,
Castleknock,
Dublin 15.
