Kevin P

This isn’t a book review - it’s a review of Simon’s professional learning session, which, unfortunately, missed the mark. Rather than fostering a balanced discussion about teaching approaches, Simon used the session to criticise 21st-century pedagogy, insisting that explicit teaching is the only effective method. Simon’s heavy focus on explicit teaching, particularly the “I do, we do, you do” model, raised serious concerns. While explicit teaching has its place, his approach overlooked the knowledge, skills, and social and cultural perspectives students bring to the classroom. By pushing for "I do, we do, you do" as the sole approach, Simon inadvertently framed teachers as the only source of knowledge, disregarding the value of collaboration and the rich insights students can contribute - an essential aspect of social constructivist teaching. One of Simon’s more baffling claims was that only research that has “stood the test of time” is valid, dismissing contemporary studies as irrelevant. This view is baffling, as it fails to recognise how contemporary educational research reflects the evolving needs of modern classrooms. By disregarding the rigour and relevance of current studies, Simon dismissed valuable insights that could enrich teaching practices and better support today’s diverse learners. Simon also highlighted the importance of avoiding cognitive overload, which is a valid consideration. However, his endorsement of explicit teaching seemed to contradict this principle. Explicit teaching often struggles to accommodate the varying working memory capacities of individual students, making differentiation difficult. For some, this rigid approach may even increase cognitive overload, further complicating their learning. Adding to these issues was Simon’s unprofessional response to feedback. When a colleague raised questions about his stance, Simon didn’t seem to take kindly to this and began repeatedly mentioning the colleague by name throughout the sessions. He even made a joke suggesting that the colleague was angered by him when they were absent briefly. This odd behaviour created an uncomfortable atmosphere, breaching trust and stifling open dialogue. Ultimately, the session was disappointing. Professional learning should explore a variety of teaching strategies and encourage critical reflection on how to meet students’ diverse needs. Simon’s narrow focus on explicit teaching, dismissal of alternative approaches, and poor handling of feedback did little to inspire meaningful professional growth. Instead, it reinforced a rigid perspective that felt disconnected from the realities of modern classrooms.