Again, I don't have an issue with Meyer's method. (I do appreciate your clarification of what he's doing though.)
There are two parts to the definition (so far) of "pseudoteaching": (1) looks like a great lesson (2) people didn't learn from it.
Just about every post categorized as covering pseudoteaching thus far at Frank Noschese's Web site (including Dan's) follows this pattern: (a) Here's an example of what looked to me like a great lesson (almost always a lecture-style presentation), (b) Here's how it failed.
Good start--evidence. But then, . . .
(c) Here's what I think I can do/could've done to make it not pseudoteaching (almost always an activity, do-it-yourself, discovery thing), and (d) The results were . . . . [silence].
First of all, why is the almost uniform answer in (c) NOT pseudoteaching? Does it NOT look like a great lesson from the outset but yet makes students learn? The world will never know by reading those posts. Second, where is the answer to (d)? And why does the evidence matter when showing why instructivist methods fail but not really important to talk about as one argues for alternatives?
I'm waiting for someone to pop up and declare, "Here's my example of pseudoteaching: the do-it-yourself learning activity that I had planned last Tuesday seemed like it was airtight but kids were completely confused and maybe it would have been easier and more efficient and more effective for learning to just chalk-and-talk the damn thing."
But, Richard, we should probably share a wink and a shoulder punch here. We know that's probably not going to happen.
I think the whole thing's a pseudodiscussion--looks like good analysis but in the end is just confirming a conclusion everyone has already come to.
And not a damn thing is learned about how to educate students.