The motivation for Anthea Millett’s comments on pedagogy (TES, June 12) may be partly political. There appears to be a strong desire in Government circles and elsewhere to establish interactive, whole-class teaching as a superior pedagogy.
It is arrogant and myopic, and also foolhardy and counter-productive, to allow an orthodoxy to develop in any theoretical field, unless it has been clearly demonstrated that the last word on the matter has been said. The hegemony of a single approach is detrimental to the improvement and progress of any field of knowledge.
What is needed is an honest, open debate about the whole spectrum of pedagogical approaches. Anthea Millet does the debate no good by appearing to devalue the role of learning and other outcomes.
Franc Kaminski. Oakfield House. East Road. Tetford, Horncastle. Lincolnshire
