I recorded an episode for The Science of Reading podcast with Susan Lambert. I talked about cognitive load theory and my book on the subject — A little guide for teachers: cognitive load theory. I had a great time.
The folks over at the podcast posted a link on LinkedIn which I was happy to share. Then, yesterday, I noticed something strange. Sunil Singh, a maths educator from Canada, posted a comment:
“Before bringing some like Ashman on, you might want to do a background check of his history of abuse against mathematics educators. Is this the kind of association you want?”
I have no ‘history of abuse against mathematics educators’. That’s a defamatory claim that needs substantial evidence. However, Singh also included a screenshot:
I discovered this screenshot is from a post Singh made on Facebook. I found it by searching for ‘Ashman amplify’. The posts starts by Singh linking to a blog post of mine that I wrote in 2017 about a TEDx talk on maths teaching by Dan Finkel. Singh states:
“If you want more evidence that Amplify has pivoted hard right in terms of its philosophy, look no further than promoting Greg Ashman. The same person who ripped apart the great TED Talk by Dan Finkel.”
The ‘hard right’ accusation just seems bizarre. You can read the blog post yourself to decide whether any of this is justified, or you could also consider this reply to Singh from Steven Khan.
“I have reviewed the 2017 blog post - you're overstating it - the word hyperbole comes to mind. There is no 'ripping' in there at all. There is justified and justifiable critique and he's not wrong about what the research says. He does slightly misrepresent Finkel's talk - by claiming he says "start with struggle" vs what was actually said - students need time to struggle. This is how he sets up his own argument to "start with success" which creates a sense of self-efficacy.”
Interestingly, there are also replies from Mike Steele and Jo Boaler. These are the ones Singh included in the screenshot he posted to LinkedIn:
In her comment, Boaler writes that, “He is an abusive person,” in reference to me. This is untrue and unfair. I would like Boaler and Singh to retract their statements that I am abusive. I would also like them to apologise but I know that’s probably too much to ask for so a retraction would be fine.
As I note in my reply, I have criticised Boaler’s conclusions quite a few times, including in the piece I link to. This is mainly because she has such a large profile in the world of mathematics education and I disagree with her views on the subject.
Boaler is entitled to block me on social media and she has no obligation to respond to any of my comments on mathematics teaching. However, disagreement is not abuse and it is wrong to suggest that it is.
Greg, I'm sorry you are being forced to defend yourself for being critical. One of the reasons I have enjoyed being a subscriber to your substack is that I find you present your arguments effectively, clearly, emphatically and fairly. When I read your response to the arguments of another educator I find you attack the arguments, not the person. When the behaviour of another educator is questionable - such as citing references that do not support the argument being made - you disagree with the behaviour and question the behaviour. Thank you for the work you have done, and continue to do, in promoting effective teaching methods.
It is frustrating for sure dealing with a lot of what is posted as educational research much of which is driven by ideology - not evidence. You are a very reasonable voice, rationale and precise - it is your opponents who resort to argumentum ad hominem. I guess some of them have a lot riding on being right as they have often built their reputation on poor or little evidence. Keep up the good work Greg.