Trying to understand why ‘Progressive’ and ‘Traditional’ teachers disagree

I’ve been re-reading a couple of books by ‘progressive’ academics who have been celebrated for trying to bride the gap between the ‘progressive’ and ‘traditional’ view of teaching and learning.

The longer I’ve spent with each book, the more I suspect that the authors don’t know what ‘traditionalists’ believe or do in the classroom. Reading their books is frustrating – I keep thinking, “But that’s not true!”

Below is a table taken from Guy Claxton’s “The Future of Learning, to which I’ve added a third column where I discuss each point. I agree with some and disagree with others. I hope that there is something in my comments for both ‘progressive’ teachers and ‘traditionalists.’ As a ‘traditionalist’ myself, I’ve benefitted from examining my own beliefs. There are things that we say which I don’t really think are true.

I personally don’t like the terms ‘traditional’ and ‘progressive’ but it’s what Claxton uses in this table, so I’ve stuck with it.

Traditional	Progressive	My Reflections (Ben Rogers)
Emphasis on knowledge	Emphasis on whole child development.	I can see where this idea has come from – ‘traditionalists’ and ‘progressives’ would probably agree with Claxton. Knowledge (and skills) can be assessed so the impact of the teaching can be measured. It allows ‘traditionalists’ to check whether their approach is having an impact. Measuring the whole child development is more challenging (and I think very rare). This leaves ‘Progressives’ relying on their intuition, experience and common sense. ‘Traditionalists’ tend not to trust this. However, there’s a difference between what we say and what we do. Traditional teachers don’t talk as much about ‘the whole child’ but that doesn’t mean it isn’t at the heart of what we do. And I’d be surprised if a ‘progressive’ teacher didn’t care about knowledge.
Preparation for further study	Preparation for life	There’s no philosophical reason for this. ‘Traditionalists’ tend to value being able to measure outcomes and it’s easier to measure preparedness for further study. I suspect ‘progressives’ are more willing to trust their own intuition – or at least to admit that they do. In practise, I suspect this difference is more spoken about than acted upon.
Motivated by grades/ rewards/  punishments	Motivated by intrinsic love of learning	I don’t think this is true. In my experience, young people love the sense of learning and developing expertise. They often love an expert teacher who can make ideas clear to them. As a counter to this, children who feel they aren’t making progress, who feel lost or confused are often demotivated.
Character = good behaviour	Character = adventurous spirit	This isn’t my experience. Most teachers value learners who know how to behave in a productive manner. The also value learners who take risks with their learning, who come up with original and thought provoking ideas. Don’t all teachers want both?
Focus on achievement	Focus on development	This also isn’t my experience. All teachers focus on both.
Content is predetermined and  scheduled	Content can be opportunistic/responsive	This is largely correct. Planning a sequence of lessons is time consuming and rigorous. It often takes groups of experienced teachers working together. Flexibility is unlikely to improve the plan.
Little choice/control by learner	Significant choice/control by learner	The ‘traditional’ view of curriculum planning is that the teacher has oversight of what the learner already knows, what the learner needs to know, and how to plan a sequence of lessons to get there. The likelihood of a learner choosing an effective sequence of learning is small (and likely to be smaller for the learner who has most to learn).
Little space for learners’ own interests	Considerable space for learners’ own  interests	There is usually some space for flexibility in the choice of context and examples, but generally I think this is true. ‘Traditionalists’ generally prioritise a well constructed sequence of learning over a sequence of learning experiences developed specifically for the interests of individuals or groups. I think it would be impossible to match the quality of thinking about sequence if the teacher had to plan the curriculum for each class or individual.
Disembedded from real-life concerns/contexts	Embedded in real-life concerns/ contexts	I don’t think this is necessarily true. While ‘traditional’ teachers will follow a carefully sequenced curriculum, the choice of examples and contexts is often embedded in the real-world and a thoughtful teacher will incorporate interests of the class where possible.
Major emphasis on reading and writing	Emphasis on talk	I can’t see any fundamental reason why this is necessarily the case – though in practice I suspect it is often true. This may be because it is easier to assess writing than discussion. That may not be a very good reason.
Understanding demonstrated by explanation	Understanding shown by making and creating.	I can’t see any fundamental reason why this is necessarily the case – though in practice I suspect it is often true. Making and creating generally take more classroom time and so may be seen as less efficient.
Learning is (primarily) individual	Learning is (equally) social and discursive	Because the ‘traditionalists’ view of learning is related to changes in each individual’s long term memory, learning is individual. But the process of learning in both ‘traditional’ and ‘progressive’ classrooms often involves discussion. I would guess that pair work is more common in ‘traditional’ classrooms and larger groups are used in ‘progressive’ ones. I would also guess that ‘traditional’ discussions are shorter and more closely guided.
Teaching by informing and explaining	Teaching encourages grappling and thinking	‘Traditionalists’ typically start with informing and explaining, but move on to grappling with concepts, applying to new ideas and thinking hard. As Willingham states: “memory is the residue of thought”. I suspect the majority of ‘progressive’ teachers do this too. If they don’t, what is the learner thinking about?
Time to practise skills	Time to experiment and investigate	Cognitive Load Theory shows that students benefit from enquiry pedagogies once they have reached a threshold level of expertise. Before that point, they develop more reliably and efficiently through guided and independent practice. In reality I suspect many traditional’ teachers don’t reach the investigate stage due to a packed curriculum (which they can’t choose). I suspect many ‘Progressive’ teachers use experiment and investigation before their learners are sufficiently expert to benefit.
Learning is memorising	Learning is exploring	‘Traditionalists’ commonly have the view that for learning to take place, something has to change in the long term memory. Quizzes and assessments tend to show only surface level changes. It is much more challenging to show that something subtle has changed. This is problematic because we can’t tell if we’ve been effective.  The ‘progressive’ view (if this is really their view) is also problematic, because exploring does not necessarily lead to the student learning anything – how would you be able to tell?
Points of difference between traditional and progressive approaches to education – Guy Claxton – the Future of Teaching p7		My response.