In the summer of 2013 Daisy Christodoulou published an e-book called "Seven Myths About Education in which she questioned the validity of what she characterised as universally accepted norms in teaching methods and teacher training.
There's a useful blog about Christodoulou's book here: http://headguruteacher.com/2013/08/05/a-perspective-on-seven-myths/
Since the book was published a discussion between what many have described as the New Traditional set vs the Progressives has been taking place on Twitter. It's an age old debate about whether teaching should be student or teacher centric. Whether transmission teaching is appropriate and acceptable. If group and topic work are valid.
Many claim that to set the two approaches as binary opposites from which we must choose our teaching methods is a false dichotomy and obfuscates the reality that we all make choices from a spectrum of methods that lie at varying points between the two styles. Others say this is impossible especially as this would mean occupying two stances simultaneously - ideas articulated well by David Didau here: http://www.learningspy.co.uk/featured/dichotomies/ and challenged equally expertly in the comments section of that blog and in this piece http://logicalincrementalism.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/a-tale-of-two-blobs/
So, what does this mean for FE. After all, the debate has mainly centred around primary and secondary teaching. In my training in 2009 progressive methods were the only approach put forward and were described as ideologically superior to transmission and rote learning. We looked at learning styles, VAK, group learning uncritically and accepted them as the best approaches. Is this the case for training today and for our CPD?
Let's get together and discuss our teaching methods tonight at 9pm and uncover in what ways the Progressive and New Traditional debate is relevant to Further Education.