YES we are discussing PowerPoint again! Ok, ok so first: If someone says "PowerPoint sucks" And you say "It's just a tool, it depends how it's used" That's right, but it isn't a good argument. Why not? READ ON

Hi Matthew, thank you for this thread, which I think deserves proper scrutiny. I have worked in a school which heavily employs TLAC strategies for 5 years now, and do not recognise your characterisation at all. We do not "emotionally manipulate" our children, and you can spend 40 seconds in the building and see their creativity and the respect which we show them. So I wonder which schools you've visited have led you to believe this - please do let me know. I then move further into your thread, and find things which are either egregious misinterpretations of TLAC strategies, or you just haven't read the book. For example, you say that 'TLAC’s "No Opt Out" technique forces students to answer questions even when unsure' I have no idea how you could read the section on No Opt Out and conclude this. I've attached just one spread from the ten pages on it in TLAC 2.0 just to make it abundantly clear that you are not interpreting correctly. Lemov deals extensively in *helping students* to get it right, the whole point is to get students to the point at which they *aren't* unsure and can achieve success. Sadly, in many classrooms students will say they aren't sure and are never helped by their teacher to become sure. No Opt Out counters this. Not only have you misunderstood sections of the work, but you have also tenuously linked random bits of evidence to it. Linking Piaget's 1973 writings to SLANT for example is extremely strange, given that the two have nothing to do with each other, but you are also selective in your use of evidence. For example: 'TLAC’s "Cold Call" method is intended to keep students alert but often induces stress and fear, which hampers learning. A study by the University of Illinois found that high stress levels negatively affect cognitive function (Karpinski et al., 2013)' You *assert* that it induces stress and fear, but bring no evidence for that, but then jump and say that *given it induces stress and fear* (which you asserted) it is bad, because of evidence piece x. This is not a serious way to use evidence, and can be dismissed summarily. Despite that, I'll still engage the point. Once again, you have misread the CC section in TLAC, which deals extensively with creating psychological safety. Pages 251-253 explicitly address this, and it's worrying that you seem to have not read them. If you look at any of the dozens of videos on the TLAC website about Cold Call, you'll see why your characterisation is not in line with what is being discussed, and is instead a caricature. For example, I don't think anybody could watch this video and think that the questioning induces stress and fear teachlikeachampion.org/blog/… I don't personally use the term "cold call", but I suggest you review some of the evidence on its use before tying it to other unrelated stuff (e.g. here might be interesting for you to check out to start with journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs…) Anyway, I have an evening to get back to, but I think it was worth writing this, because the narrative you have built here is out of line with both the evidence and reality.