Affiliation:
1. University of California, Los Angeles, CA
Abstract
This study turns a rhetorical lens on the debate about how best to use value-added modeling (VAM) in teacher evaluation by addressing the question, Which arguments legitimize the dismissal of expert caution about proposed education reforms? My rhetorical analysis of a corpus of nonacademic texts (e.g., newspapers, magazines, political speeches) reveals three persuasive strategies that function to get around technical concerns about VAM. By pointing out these strategies and explaining how they work, the study disrupts their persuasive potential and suggests a potentially overlooked role of expertise in public decision making.
Publisher
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献