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.
Tony O’Reilly, Nell McCafferty, Ian Bailey and more: 50 people who died in 2024
Changing career midlife: ‘At 45 I thought I was finished... But it didn’t even occur to me that I could do anything else’
Restaurant of the year, best value and Michelin predictions: Our reviewer’s top picks of 2024
Women are far more likely to re-gift unwanted presents than men
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.