Rieger, Wilf2023-11-012023-11-012011-01-012012-11-04Rieger, W. (2011). Uncle Arthur’s posthumous rejoinder. <em>TEACH Journal of Christian Education, 5</em>(1), 17-23. doi:10.55254/1835-1492.1054https://doi.org/10.55254/1835-1492.1054https://research.avondale.edu.au/handle/123456789/03446239<p>One person sees a vase, another sees two black</p> <p>faces looking at each other. Another image: Is</p> <p>it a fashionable young lady or an old woman?</p> <p>In classic figure / ground visual perception</p> <p>experiments, viewers’ ‘perceptual sets’ and</p> <p>their personal interests, including emphasising</p> <p>some shapes and contours, may strengthen one</p> <p>‘interpretation’ more than the other, according to</p> <p>psychologists.</p> <p>The article critiquing my <em>Bedtime stories</em>,</p> <p>published in a recent issue of <em>Teach journal of</em></p> <p><em>Christian education</em>,2 appears to focus on only one</p> <p>interpretation, an imbalance that I believe needs</p> <p>addressing. I acknowledge the critique’s generosity</p> <p>(however muted) regarding certain aspects of the</p> <p><em>Bedtime stories </em>series and take note of some of</p> <p>the perceived weaknesses in my children’s texts.</p> <p>Notwithstanding that Nicholls and Reynaud write</p> <p>from the vantage point of the 21st century and with</p> <p>hindsight, there is merit in scrutinising the validity of</p> <p>some of their arguments. Before embarking on this</p> <p>task, however, it seems instructive to provide some</p> <p>general context through reflecting and personal</p> <p>reminiscing.</p>en-usUncle Arthur’s bedtime storiesJournal Article