Planning for engaging students in the curriculum

One way to think of the curriculum is as a map of a country only partly explored. There are aspects – the coastline, a mountain range, some major rivers – that are well known to previous explorers, but there are others, too – the dark interior – that represent an unknown land waiting to be discovered. Of course, some parts of the new world we are told we have to visit, these are the mandatory places every traveller goes to, but there are others only we will find; places for us to explore and put on the map.

In this way we might think of the curriculum as something built in collaboration with a class over the year. Some parts are the prescribed objectives of skills, knowledge and understanding laid down by the National Curriculum. Others though emerge from the work we do as a learning community together in the classroom. For this reason it is important to plan for ambiguity, for openness and for opportunities for the children to contribute their ideas. The activities, questions, and challenges we plan for in advance are like the routes we take as we explore, but much of what we will find we can deliberately leave undecided.

Of course there is a danger in this approach that we will wonder off on a side path and get lost or forget to travel to those places on the map we are obliged to visit. This happened to a friend of mine who, when teaching Nelson with a year 1 class, found she had spent three weeks studying sharks. For this reason the first steps into a new learning context are the most important. It is essential to establish clearly from the beginning what it is we are exploring, for what purpose, and where we hope to end up. Many explorers have lost their way due to bad planning and preparation.

Animal Park

Here is an example from a unit of work for infants. The topic is animals; the mandatory curriculum centres on Key Stage 1 science, but the cross-curricular opportunities include reading, writing, speaking/listening, maths, geography, art and ICT.

In the planned imaginary context, the children work as a team of rangers running an animal park. The park is an ethical business; open to visitors, but with the welfare of the animals as its main priority. There is a wide range of animals at the park – many of them have been saved from poachers, rescued from badly run zoos or treated for injuries. The purpose of the park is to educate people about the animals, to treat them humanely and ultimately, if possible, to return them to the wild.

These are what might be called the ‘givens’, those features already on the map, which we will definitely visit, and some of the main routes and paths we will be taking along the way. When I plan, my purpose is only to decide in advance as much as I have to and to leave as many opportunities as I can for the children to ask questions and contribute ideas. As a principle, I think a child’s idea is always much better than my own, as long as we end up exploring the same curriculum.

So then, in the first steps into the animal park context the teacher asks the children what kind of animal they would like to look after, if they were people looking after animals in a park? This is an easy question for a class of young children. There usually follows a short conversation, something like:

“A rabbit.”

“Oh, do you have several rabbits you look after or just one?”

“Lots.”

“Um, are people who visit the park allowed to pet them?”

“Yes, as long as they are careful.” 

“Of course. Does anyone look after a dangerous animal? 

Several hands go up.

“I look after the lions.”

“Ok, are they together or kept apart? I know sometimes lions can fight.”

And so on. The questions are designed to steer the children’s thinking into the context. To help them understand what it is we are trying to develop together not ‘telling’ them: “Today we are going to build an animal park.” Generally teachers spend too much time telling kids what to do and not enough time listening to them. When asking these questions we are not looking for the right answers, we’re aiming to use them within the context we are building and trying to help extend the student’s thinking.

The priorities at this stage are to firmly establish what the context involves and to engage the children’s interests so they feel they have a contribution to make. As the context develops then the children can start making more of the decisions and contributing more of the ideas, which we can then use as the basis for further classroom activities. In this way the curriculum might be said to ‘emerge’ from the work, much like (to continue the metaphor) a new landscape might be said to emerge before a team of explorers.

The key thing here is to work (as much as the requirements of the mandatory curriculum allow) collaboratively with the children and, in this way, to develop and extend their knowledge, skills and understanding. This approach is called mantle of the expert or imaginative-inquiry, and involves using a combination of different teaching strategies – inquiry, drama for learning, as well as other forms of teaching – to create imaginary worlds for children to explore. These environments, like the animal park context, can work as a sort of evolving storyline, providing setting, narrative and tension to the children’s studies and making the curriculum more purposeful, meaningful and exciting.

Teachers use imaginative-inquiry and mantle of the expert in many different ways, some as a single lesson (perhaps at the end of the week), others as a year-long project incorporating large amounts of the curriculum. It is a flexible approach and has the advantage of drawing on the children’s imagination and energy. Often there is a great deal of detailed planning that has to be done in the beginning to make sure the context will do the job of teaching the curriculum, but once it is established most teachers find the process becomes much easier as ideas emerge from the work.

This blog was first published as an article in Teach Primary Magazine.

10 Comments

Leave a comment
  1. ChemistryPoet February 2, 2014 at 1:24 am #

    Tim, earlier this evening you admonished Harry Webb about his insistence that there was a war going on between progressives and traditionalists. One of the areas that Harry was highlighting as a frontier of this war was the use of words, and the different meanings that different groups ascribed to them. His thesis was that the difference in the philosophical underpinnings of teachers leads to this difference in understanding of meaning of words.

    I think your blog demonstrates this. You appear to be using ‘engagement’ to mean that the children are actively contributing to the decision making process with respect to what they will be studying (albeit, in your example, within a framework of learning determined by the teacher). It is clear from the blog, and the language that you use, that you consider this to be a very desirable part of the learning/teaching process. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that you consider this de rigeur for effective teaching; a learning community. Your understanding appears to be that teaching and learning take place within this learning community, and that it must be recognised by the teacher that the children must have an opportunity to shape this, otherwise there is no learning community. Children must be listened to.

    I am not attempting to critique this approach to learning. The point I wish to make is that it is a distinct approach, and is predicated on a definite philosophical understanding of the education/learning process. It is also very different from the view that the teacher knows the detailed direction in which it is best to take the children. The two philosophical positions lead the teacher in different directions with respect to the pedagogy they will adopt. I think this is inevitable. There is a continuum of teaching approaches, I think, and the possibility that teachers with different philosophical underpinnings will overlap their approaches on occasion, but the distinctiveness is still there. I don’t see this as an impediment for fruitful, constructive debate.

    • Tim Taylor February 2, 2014 at 3:39 pm #

      Thank you for your excellent comment.

      On the meaning of words. This is something which colours the education debate constantly. Even simple words like ‘engagement’ become points of dispute. I’m in agreement with Harry that we need to be clearer, on all sides, what we mean when using terms in technical ways. Posts like Harry’s, and the subsequent debate, can often help to move this process forward.

      I agree with your analysis: “You appear to be using ‘engagement’ to mean that the children are actively contributing to the decision making process with respect to what they will be studying”. This is exactly what I mean. Although I would expand the meaning of engagement further to include the teacher planning to try to make the curriculum interesting and accessible. For me the key element in engagement is the opportunities we create (within the limits of the prescribed curriculum) for students to make contributions and become involved in the process of curriculum exploration. How much this can happen depends on a great number of factors. It is worth remembering I am a primary school teacher, and we spend a lot more time with our students than secondary colleagues. We usually work with a single class of 30 odd children for the entire year. Our aims are both to develop their curriculum knowledge and skills, but, just as importantly, we also aim to develop them “as” learners. This involves, in my opinion, engaging them in a process of curriculum exploration and generation. It is a balance. I look to use a range of different strategies, including direct instruction, discovery, and inquiry in my teaching. I select the best approach to match the learning I want my students to develop. The best description of this is a Trivial approach, as described by Martin Robinson. It means I sit on both sides of the dichotomy, because I believe there is no one ‘best’ approach, but a palette of different approaches, which we, as professionals can choose from. I probably use mantle to teach 60% – 80% of the curriculum, but I have been using the approach for over 15 years. When I first started I used it much less.

      I agree mantle of the expert has a distinct philosophical understanding, one that needs explaining in more detail than I can do here, but it is not ‘progressive’ in the way Harry describes progressivism. There are elements that would certainly be in agreement with that philosophy, but there are others that do not. For example, moe is a community centred approach. It is not child-centred in the way this is often interpreted. Although it involves listening to children (this is key), the primary concern is creating meaning as a community. This often involves children learning to accept their views and ideas are respected but are necessarily the ones we will follow. This is life. Equally, it is our responsibility (students & teachers) to study the prescribed curriculum. All the children’s ideas are subservient to this overarching principle. Therefore, although I will always try to use the children’s ideas to explore the prescribed curriculum (if I can), I will not follow the children’s ideas, where ever they lead, if they take us along a path away from the prescribed curriculum.

      Further, mantle of the expert is not an approach where the teacher sets up activities for the children to ‘discover’ the curriculum. It involves collaboration with the students, where the children and adults work together as part of a community of learning. Of course, one of the teacher’s roles is to lead the learning, but others involves supporting children to lead the learning where appropriate.

      I think this excellent introduction to moe by Viv Aitken is the best I’ve read.

      • ChemistryPoet February 4, 2014 at 7:14 pm #

        Tim, thanks for your reply to my comment.

        The meaning of the words we use in the debate are very important, as is ensuring that there is a shared understanding of what the words mean. I know this sounds facile, but I suspect this is often not the case: there is often a very emotional response to points put during the course of debate which suggests that a shared meaning has not been arrived at. My view, at the moment, is that underpinning philosophy significantly informs meaning assigned to key words. As an example, take ‘engagement’.

        We have already established what you wish to be understood by the word engagement (…that children are actively contributing to the decision making process with respect to what they will be studying…), and possibly extending this to include ‘actively contributing to creating meaning in the learning community’. When you talk about, or refer to, engagement in the classroom, this is the sort of thing you mean. This meaning derives from your view of children and the learning process, and from your view of where the learning journey should arrive at, with respect to what the outcome for education should be. You aim to develop them as learners (and the meaning you associate with ‘learners’ is another key definition with respect to furthering the debate). Education, for you, I think, is where the children and adults work together as part of a community of learning.

        Now, I suspect that this view is towards one end of the axis that we have been exploring (I am trying to avoid unhelpful labels). I think that we need to distinguish between the philosophical underpinnings (which the above paragraph seeks to outline) and the pedagogical approaches that are possible. I mean, that, for example, MoE is based on a particular philosophical understanding of the child as a learner, but the actual pedagogical technique is one tool that a teacher can use. The teacher doesn’t need to agree with the philosophy to use the technique. The same applies to any other pedagogical technique (direct instruction, discovery, inquiry etc). However, how the teacher approaches these techniques, and how they implement them will be influenced by their own philosophical understanding (even if they aren’t consciously aware of their own philosophical understanding).

        If someone’s understanding of ‘engagement’, or of ‘learner’ is significantly different to yours, then it will be very difficult to have meaningful discourse. For example, if ‘engagement’ is taken to mean ‘a child demonstrating interest and active involvement’ (a lower bar, I think), then an assertion that engagement has been achieved will be met with incredulity if that is not what you think the term means. I think it is clear how much angst this could cause during the Observation process.

        And this is one of the places that the philosophical underpinnings starts to cause dispute, misunderstanding and pain. If Head Teachers, Inspectors and Consultants have this underpinning, but the observed teachers do not (although both parties may not realise that there is a disjunct), then emotional turmoil (and incredulity) ensues on both sides. Note, that so far I have not delved into which view might be correct…..the initial problems with mutual understanding don’t even allow us to start addressing what might be a correct approach. Before meaningful dialogue can take place, a mutually accepted understanding of the issues needs to be in place.

        With respect to MoE. I agree that MoE is not on the extreme end of the axis we have been referring to (not with respect to philosophical underpinning nor pedagogical technique). However, with respect to current practice in schools, it probably is on the extreme end of approaches being used, I think. I have read some of the chapter you referred me to, and will just pick out some phrases (in the light of the paragraphs above):

        “This approach assumes a progressive view of learning, responsive to the needs of the child”
        “The child centrism…” “Co-constructors”
        “…curriculum is encountered in the same way as in real life: not as a set of separated “subjects” or “learning areas”, but as landing points…”
        “In other words, each task is purposeful and occurs within a real-life context.”
        “…shift in power relationships between teacher and student.”

        This is highly entwined with a particular philosophical view of education, and the terms used are difficult to grasp if the reader doesn’t share the same philosophical understanding.

        • Tim Taylor February 5, 2014 at 7:35 pm #

          Thank you once again CP for your very interesting comment

          I’ll answer paragraph by paragraph.

          I agree entirely with the importance of the meaning of words in debate.

          “Education, for you, I think, is where the children and adults work together as part of a community of learning.” – I’d agree with this.

          “The teacher doesn’t need to agree with the philosophy to use the technique.” – I don’t think there is any way it would work properly unless these things were in agreement. I don’t think any teacher would take the time and effort to learn to use moe unless they agreed with it philosophically. This doesn’t mean they wouldn’t use other methods (including DI and discovery) as well as part of their practice.

          I agree with your thoughts on observations and angst. This has happened to me more than once.

          “If Head Teachers, Inspectors and Consultants have this underpinning, but the observed teachers do not (although both parties may not realise that there is a disjunct), then emotional turmoil (and incredulity) ensues on both sides.” – Again I find myself agreeing with you.

          “with respect to current practice in schools, it probably is on the extreme end of approaches being used” – This is probably true. Although I wouldn’t necessarily say ‘extreme’. I prefer ‘unconventional’, although much less so in primary education, where Ofsted are quite familiar with the approach – ask @MaryMyatt

          In conclusion, It is obvious from our conversation that we share the same concerns over the use, misuse and misunderstanding of words. A large part of the problem in this debate (and others) in education is caused I believe by a lack of agreement over the meaning of terms. I hope the many conversations going on in blogs and twitter, start to resolve some of these long standing issues. Thank you once again for time you have spent writing your thoughtful comments.

      • David Didau (@LearningSpy) February 5, 2014 at 10:54 am #

        But Tim, nobody plans to make the curriculum uninteresting or inaccessible, whatever their educational stripe.

        • Tim Taylor February 5, 2014 at 7:42 pm #

          But what? I don’t think I’ve ever said or suggested that. Although I did once read a tweet from a teacher who when a student said their lesson was boring. Replied, “Good.”

  2. Harry Webb February 5, 2014 at 5:35 am #

    A newly promoted colleague of mine informed the staff that she would be visiting lessons. She said that she would expect to see students taking responsibility for their learning in each subject area and doing most of the work in the classroom. No doubt, if I asked her about this, she would say that it was just common sense or something like that – she would not link it to any grand philosophies of education. But it does have a link. It does have a pedigree. Imagine a teacher giving a talk peppered with questions to her class. Imagine this took place for 20 minutes. It is likely to fall foul of my colleague’s prescription and yet I would suggest that this could be a highly effective use of time. So where does her prescription come from?

    The reason for my blog post (mentioned by Chemistry Poet) was that I find it frustrating that I cannot have an open argument. Words dissolve into new meanings. It is not an exaggeration to compare this to newspeak in 1984: the invention of newspeak was designed to prevent people from having certain thoughts by denying them the language with which to think them. Similarly, educationspeak seems to necessarily nudge one unthinkingly in a certain direction. I would rather we debated openly and honestly. However, I often find that I am characterised as some sort of extremist who is inventing conflict where no conflict exists.

    I do not wish to criticise MoE here. That is not my purpose. I would rather set the ground rules in which MoE, direct instruction a la Engelmann, or any other pedagogical approach can be evaluated critically without obfuscation and without offence, real or affected.

    Without implied criticism, I would therefore state that it is quite clear that MoE is a form of progressive education. I know that progressivism represents a complex set of ideas but this does not mean that we cannot identify some key features. Let me give an analogy: I am of the political left; I believe in taxation, public services, a welfare safety-net, gay marriage, industrial intervention, policies to combat climate change etc. However, I do hold a few positions that are not characteristic of the left – my position on progressive education is one of those. This doesn’t mean that I cannot possibly be placed in any sort of category at all. It is clear that I am – broadly – left wing.

    Alfie Kohn is a fan of progressive education so why not examine his definition. This way, we can avoid the pejorative definitions of the opponents of progressivism (and I know that Tim takes note of Kohn’s work). You can find his piece here: http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/progressive.htm

    Here are his key features of progressivism, all of which I think apply to MoE:

    – Attending to the whole child: Progressive educators are concerned with helping children become not only good learners but also good people. Schooling isn’t seen as being about just academics, nor is intellectual growth limited to verbal and mathematical proficiencies.

    – Community: Learning isn’t something that happens to individual children — separate selves at separate desks. Children learn with and from one another in a caring community, and that’s true of moral as well as academic learning. Interdependence counts at least as much as independence, so it follows that practices that pit students against one another in some kind of competition, thereby undermining a feeling of community, are deliberately avoided.

    – Collaboration: Progressive schools are characterized by what I like to call a “working with” rather than a “doing to” model. In place of rewards for complying with the adults’ expectations, or punitive consequences for failing to do so, there’s more of an emphasis on collaborative problem-solving — and, for that matter, less focus on behaviors than on underlying motives, values, and reasons.

    – Social justice: A sense of community and responsibility for others isn’t confined to the classroom; indeed, students are helped to locate themselves in widening circles of care that extend beyond self, beyond friends, beyond their own ethnic group, and beyond their own country. Opportunities are offered not only to learn about, but also to put into action, a commitment to diversity and to improving the lives of others.

    – Intrinsic motivation: When considering (or reconsidering) educational policies and practices, the first question that progressive educators are likely to ask is, “What’s the effect on students’ interest in learning, their desire to continue reading, thinking, and questioning?” This deceptively simple test helps to determine what students will and won’t be asked to do. Thus, conventional practices, including homework, grades, and tests, prove difficult to justify for anyone who is serious about promoting long-term dispositions rather than just improving short-term skills.

    – Deep understanding: As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead declared long ago, “A merely well-informed man is the most useless bore on God’s earth.” Facts and skills do matter, but only in a context and for a purpose. That’s why progressive education tends to be organized around problems, projects, and questions — rather than around lists of facts, skills, and separate disciplines. The teaching is typically interdisciplinary, the assessment rarely focuses on rote memorization, and excellence isn’t confused with “rigor.” The point is not merely to challenge students — after all, harder is not necessarily better — but to invite them to think deeply about issues that matter and help them understand ideas from the inside out.

    – Active learning: In progressive schools, students play a vital role in helping to design the curriculum, formulate the questions, seek out (and create) answers, think through possibilities, and evaluate how successful they — and their teachers — have been. Their active participation in every stage of the process is consistent with the overwhelming consensus of experts that learning is a matter of constructing ideas rather than passively absorbing information or practicing skills.

    – Taking kids seriously: In traditional schooling, as John Dewey once remarked, “the center of gravity is outside the child”: he or she is expected to adjust to the school’s rules and curriculum. Progressive educators take their cue from the children — and are particularly attentive to differences among them. (Each student is unique, so a single set of policies, expectations, or assignments would be as counterproductive as it was disrespectful.) The curriculum isn’t just based on interest, but on these children’s interests. Naturally, teachers will have broadly conceived themes and objectives in mind, but they don’t just design a course of study for their students; they design it with them, and they welcome unexpected detours. One fourth-grade teacher’s curriculum, therefore, won’t be the same as that of the teacher next door, nor will her curriculum be the same this year as it was for the children she taught last year. It’s not enough to offer elaborate thematic units prefabricated by the adults. And progressive educators realize that the students must help to formulate not only the course of study but also the outcomes or standards that inform those lessons.

    Of course, I too believe that my preferred methods are those best suited to delivering social justice and some of the other above goals, but that is not the point. Each of these features of progressive education are elaborated and Tim’s blog post above fits these elaborations almost perfectly.

    Tim seems to think that an emphasis on community over the individual child marks MoE out as different to progressive education. However, Kohn thinks community is well within the pantheon. Indeed, this distinction separates social constructivism from radical constructivism – to a degree – and yet both of these philosophies are a common feature of progressive approaches. To return to my political analogy, the early seventies saw an explosion of far-left groups, all defining themselves by their differences to other far-left groups; communists, Trotskyists, Maoists etc. But they were all of the left. The Maoists weren’t somehow in the *middle* of the political spectrum, hanging out with the liberals, simply because they had differences with the Trotskyists.

    And I might be wrong about progressivism. Such methods *may* be more effective than the ones that I promote. But let’s just be honest about where we stand here. There *is* a debate. There *are* alternatives. Once we start examining them properly and somewhat objectively, we will start to become a more mature profession.

    • martin robinson February 5, 2014 at 2:19 pm #

      By describing that some of the above are delivered by traditional education is one thing, but, in my terms, I’m not sure that I believe I share the same implication as to what Traditional education looks like. I’m interested in Kohn’s definitions of progressivism and I’m also not sure I agree with what he says! Community, for example, is very much a part of ‘traditional’ education, certainly in the UK, where one could count Uniforms to be an intrinsic part of the building of community.

      What might be helpful here is a similar list to Kohn’s of what ‘traditional’ education looks like?

    • Tim Taylor February 5, 2014 at 8:36 pm #

      Thanks Harry

      I’ll answer paragraph by paragraph.

      My view on observations is very much in line with the recent views expressed by Prof Coe. I hate being in a position where I have to second guess the educational philosophy of the person observing me. I sympathise with your situation. The same issue applies whatever the dogma. I’ve always been cautious about using moe during Ofsted for this very reason, especially in the early days, when inspectors were unlikely to have heard of it.

      “I often find that I am characterised as some sort of extremist who is inventing conflict where no conflict exists.” – For my part I enjoy our conversations and disagreements, and acknowledge you have strong feelings on these matters.

      “my purpose…[is to] set the ground rules in which a pedagogical approach can be evaluated critically without obfuscation and without offence, real or affected” – A noble cause and one I agree with. It is going to be a struggle though and there will be a lot of disagreement and heated argument. The ‘battlefield’ and ‘war’ analogies don’t help matters, IMO.

      Your political analogy is a good one. ‘Progressivism’ has become a derogatory word recently. Such terms as ‘child-centred’ and ‘child-led’ are used as short-hand, usually in sentences containing ‘failed ideology’ and ’trendy teaching’. Just as people on the left stopped wanting to be called communists after it became associated with Mao and Stalin, so those who advocate a ‘broadly progressive’ ideology (as you call it) are cautious about using the term or having themselves labelled as such. Further, it is a term so widely defined and so often misunderstood that it has lost any real meaning it might have once had. A bit like the archaic political names Whigs and Tories, that once meant one thing and now mean something entirely different.

      There are some teachers who use moe who would (I think) be happy to be called progressive. But I’m not one of them. You might like to call me progressive and I certainly share some progressive views. But I am no more a hard-line progressive than I am a hard-line communist, although I am (on most political issues) broadly left wing.

      You have offered a long list of statements about progressive education. Some of them – Community learning, collaborative learning, social justice, and active learning – are ones that moe would endorse. But others – the definition of intrinsic motivation and deep understanding – less so. The Dewey quote is classic moe. Thank you for finding it. Have you got a reference?

      I’m glad you share some of the same goals. And that is the point really. As Martin Robinson argues, the dichotomy is real, but it doesn’t stop us bridging it. Once I read Trivium i realised the thing that had been eating away at me ever since I became a teacher, was not a new problem, but a very old one. I genuinely think Trivium C21 is a way forward. Not to keep gnawing away at the same old bones, but to start searching for new ways of building a broad agreement. I am genuinely interested in learning about Engelman and DI, not because I want to give up the approaches I have spent years developing, but because I want to widen my range of teaching strategies. That seems like the professional thing to do.

      “Such methods *may* be more effective than the ones that I promote. But let’s just be honest about where we stand here. There *is* a debate. There *are* alternatives. Once we start examining them properly and somewhat objectively, we will start to become a more mature profession.” – I agree with this. But it will be a complex and messy job, and everyone will have to accept there is a great deal of nuance, on both sides.

      Thanks again for the debate Harry.

  3. bt0558 February 5, 2014 at 7:28 pm #

    “The reason for my blog post (mentioned by Chemistry Poet) was that I find it frustrating that I cannot have an open argument. Words dissolve into new meanings.”

    Frustrating or not, it is the case that words can have a range of meanings to a range of people. There are a few blogposters who seem to be of the opinion that their interpretation of the meaning of a word is both the only and the correct meaning. This is cleary the case when it comes to discussing educational issues hence the reason why most people try to agree the meaning of terms before they start to discuss.

    When you say “new meanings” I suspect you refer to meanings that do not agree with yours. To enter into discussion one needs to be flexible and take account of the understandings of others rather than simply considering them to be wrong. Others are probably just as perplexed by your understandings as you are by theirs.

    For me it is the attempt to define an incredibly complex concept with a single word. I do not agree with Aflie on every aspect of his beliefs. I do not agree with Tim on every aspects of his beliefs. I do not agree with you on every aspect of your beliefs.

    When one uses the word “progressive” to mean “everyone who does not agree with my definition of traditional” is when things start to dissolve.

    Where I agree with Tim and Alfie and many others is when they say ……“This approach assumes a progressive view of learning, responsive to the needs of the child”.

    If traitional means “unresponsive to the needs of the child” then yes I am no traditionalist.

    Lastly I would say that one can always rely upon Martin to come up with a gem of wisdom. I would like to see that list of what makes traditional into traditional rather than simply bemoaning extreme definitions of progressive and talking about Rousseau, pupil voice and discovery learning.

    Well done to Tim for a thought provoking post. One might almost call his ideas progressive, if you know what I mean.

Leave a Reply

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: