English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

Talking Our Way Around Expert Caution: A Rhetorical Analysis of VAM