Least dangerous assumption: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Declining submission: not - Submission fails Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and essay - Submission reads like an essay (AFCH 0.9.1) |
Removed opinion to make it less essay like [NOTEssay], added extra context at the beginning. All assertions about this pedagogic concept are now reported, in the style of an encyclopedia, and from secondary sources. the writing is entirely factual. |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
The 'criterion of the least dangerous assumption' encapsulates an orientation to [[ |
The 'criterion of the least dangerous assumption' encapsulates an orientation to [[pedagogy]] and to educational policy (in particular as pertaining to [[Inclusion (education)|inclusion]]). It holds that, 'in the absence of conclusive data educational decisions should be based on assumptions which, if incorrect, will have the least dangerous effect on the student'<ref>Donnellan, A. M. (1984). The Criterion of the Least Dangerous Assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9(2), 141–150. p.142.</ref>. The principle is most closely associated with the areas of [[intellectual disability]] and [[communication disorder]], although it can be applied more generally in the domain of learning and teaching<ref>Emerson, A. (2016). Applying the ‘least dangerous assumption’ in regard to behaviour policies and children with special needs. Pastoral Care in Education, 34(2), 104–109.</ref>, and beyond. In most contexts in which it is used the principle holds that one should, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presume competence, rather than non-competence, in others. |
||
The 'presumption of competence'<ref>Dotger, S. (2011). Exploring new territories: My trajectory toward becoming an inclusive science teacher educator. Reflective Practice, 12(3), 415–426. p.422.</ref> can be regarded as the 'least dangerous' assumption to make about a person because it is |
The 'presumption of competence'<ref>Dotger, S. (2011). Exploring new territories: My trajectory toward becoming an inclusive science teacher educator. Reflective Practice, 12(3), 415–426. p.422.</ref> can be regarded as the 'least dangerous' assumption to make about a person because, the principle holds, it is less damaging to presume competence in another, and to be wrong, than it is to presume non-competence (incompetence) in another, and to be wrong<ref>Ballard, K. (1993). The least dangerous assumption: A response to Jordan & Powell. Disability, Handicap & Society, 8(1), 87–89.</ref>. Take the example of a teacher who is uncertain about the extent to which a given student understands what is said to them. The principle holds that it is less dangerous to assume that the student understands everything that is said to them, and to be wrong about that, than to assume that the student understands nothing that is said to them, and to be wrong in that direction<ref>Emerson, A., & Dearden, J. (2013). The effect of using ‘full’ language when working with a child with autism: Adopting the ‘least dangerous assumption’. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 29(2), 233–244.</ref>. Under the latter assumption the risk is that the teacher speaks too little to the student (or, in an extreme form of the argument, the teacher may not speak to the student al all). Under the former assumption the risk is that the teacher will speak too much to the student, which, advocates of this approach maintain, is less 'dangerous'<ref>Doyle, M. B., & Giangreco, M. (2013). Guiding Principles for Including High School Students with Intellectual Disabilities in General Education Classes. American Secondary Education, 42(1), 57–72. |
||
</ref>. |
|||
The principle comes into play in educational policy and teaching practice under conditions of uncertainty ('in the absence of conclusive data'). Debate on the usefulness of the principle revolves around the question of what constitutes 'conclusive data'<ref>Travers, J., & Ayres, K. M. (2015). A Critique of Presuming Competence of Learners with Autism or Other Developmental Disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(4), 371–387.</ref> when it comes to making complex educational decisions. |
|||
It is essential, when evaluating the worth of this principle (in particular with regards to its implications for practice) to note the precondition for its relevance: 'in the absence of conclusive data...'. Those practitioners who hold to this principle are not in favour of being wrong about a student's competence. It is much, much better (much less dangerous) to be right about this in the first place. The principle comes into play under conditions of uncertainty. It is a starting point for practice when there simply is not enough evidence to go on, in estimating the competence of a student. It is under those conditions that one might argue that presuming competence is less dangerous than presuming non-competence. |
|||
Needless to say, whilst one might acknowledge the abstract logic of the argument put forward by its proponents, as soon as a principle such as this meets the complexity of everyday practice, it rightly becomes the subject of intense critical debate<ref>Travers, J., & Ayres, K. M. (2015). A Critique of Presuming Competence of Learners with Autism or Other Developmental Disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(4), 371–387.</ref>. Much of that debate revolves, in effect, around what constitutes 'conclusive data', given how difficult it can be to make the correct inferences about underlying competence, on the basis of assessments of performance. |
|||
Notwithstanding the critiques, this rule of thumb, when thoughtfully applied, encapsulates many principles of 'good teaching practice'. For example, as Donnellan argues, 'the criterion of the least dangerous assumption holds that there is less danger to students if teachers assume instructional failure is due to instructional inadequacy rather than to student deficits'<ref>Donnellan, A. M. (1984). The Criterion of the Least Dangerous Assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9(2), 141–150. p.147.</ref>. One might argue that this is a constructive place for teachers to start, when evaluating their own practice. If a student is failing to learn a thing, and one wants to diagnose why that is happening, it is appropriate to consider whether there are other ways of going about the teaching of that thing. |
|||
== References == |
== References == |
||
Revision as of 20:25, 11 November 2019
 | This article, Least dangerous assumption, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. Please check to see if the reviewer has accidentally left this template after accepting the draft and take appropriate action as necessary.
Reviewer tools: Inform author |
Comment: This reads like journal article abstracts / excerpts. Needs context as to what this is about. See WP:NOTJOURNAL AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The 'criterion of the least dangerous assumption' encapsulates an orientation to pedagogy and to educational policy (in particular as pertaining to inclusion). It holds that, 'in the absence of conclusive data educational decisions should be based on assumptions which, if incorrect, will have the least dangerous effect on the student'[1]. The principle is most closely associated with the areas of intellectual disability and communication disorder, although it can be applied more generally in the domain of learning and teaching[2], and beyond. In most contexts in which it is used the principle holds that one should, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presume competence, rather than non-competence, in others.
The 'presumption of competence'[3] can be regarded as the 'least dangerous' assumption to make about a person because, the principle holds, it is less damaging to presume competence in another, and to be wrong, than it is to presume non-competence (incompetence) in another, and to be wrong[4]. Take the example of a teacher who is uncertain about the extent to which a given student understands what is said to them. The principle holds that it is less dangerous to assume that the student understands everything that is said to them, and to be wrong about that, than to assume that the student understands nothing that is said to them, and to be wrong in that direction[5]. Under the latter assumption the risk is that the teacher speaks too little to the student (or, in an extreme form of the argument, the teacher may not speak to the student al all). Under the former assumption the risk is that the teacher will speak too much to the student, which, advocates of this approach maintain, is less 'dangerous'[6].
The principle comes into play in educational policy and teaching practice under conditions of uncertainty ('in the absence of conclusive data'). Debate on the usefulness of the principle revolves around the question of what constitutes 'conclusive data'[7] when it comes to making complex educational decisions.
References
- ^ Donnellan, A. M. (1984). The Criterion of the Least Dangerous Assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9(2), 141–150. p.142.
- ^ Emerson, A. (2016). Applying the ‘least dangerous assumption’ in regard to behaviour policies and children with special needs. Pastoral Care in Education, 34(2), 104–109.
- ^ Dotger, S. (2011). Exploring new territories: My trajectory toward becoming an inclusive science teacher educator. Reflective Practice, 12(3), 415–426. p.422.
- ^ Ballard, K. (1993). The least dangerous assumption: A response to Jordan & Powell. Disability, Handicap & Society, 8(1), 87–89.
- ^ Emerson, A., & Dearden, J. (2013). The effect of using ‘full’ language when working with a child with autism: Adopting the ‘least dangerous assumption’. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 29(2), 233–244.
- ^ Doyle, M. B., & Giangreco, M. (2013). Guiding Principles for Including High School Students with Intellectual Disabilities in General Education Classes. American Secondary Education, 42(1), 57–72.
- ^ Travers, J., & Ayres, K. M. (2015). A Critique of Presuming Competence of Learners with Autism or Other Developmental Disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(4), 371–387.