False dichotomies are rife in education. These “either/or” debates frame one approach as inherently superior, reducing complex educational practices to simplistic categories. A prime example is explicit teaching versus inquiry-based learning. But this is just one of many: teacher-centred versus student-centred learning, conceptual versus procedural understanding, standardisation versus personalisation — the list goes on. As you’ll see in the list at the bottom of this post, contributed by people on social media, each of these divides education into a forced choice between opposing philosophies.
Such dichotomies foster “OR” thinking, where a single approach is viewed as the only path to effective education. This mindset is the hallmark of pedagogical puritans—those who hold fervently to specific methods as absolute. Such binary views oversimplify the complexities of teaching, restricting dialogue and generating division. Discussions shaped by “OR” often lead educators to defend their chosen methods rather than engage in open, productive exchange.
“OR” thinking, in short, closes down debate. It also narrows the scope of education. When educators feel they must choose either explicit teaching or inquiry-based learning, for instance, they may miss the potential for each approach to enrich the other.
Consider what happens when we replace “OR” with “AND”. Rather than closing down debate, we open up possibilities. What might it mean to think about learning as both intellectual and emotional? Or as both traditional and tech-enhanced? In the words of Robin Alexander, we create a “refreshingly new and inclusive pedagogy”. Shifting from “OR” to “AND” opens up a world of flexible, responsive teaching that acknowledges the real needs of students and teachers.
In this way, “AND” becomes the guiding principle of pedagogical pragmatists—educators who seek practical solutions and embrace a diversity of approaches. “AND” thinkers recognise that the complexity of teaching and learning defies simple choices. They value flexibility and responsiveness, understanding that combining approaches is often more effective than rigid adherence to a single method.
Take a moment to reflect: where have you transitioned from “OR” to “AND” in your teaching? Perhaps in teaching mathematics, you’ve integrated both conceptual understanding and procedural fluency, recognising that students benefit from a balanced approach. Where else could you embrace “AND” thinking?
By challenging these false dichotomies, we can move toward a more inclusive and flexible pedagogy—one that respects the complexity of education and empowers both teachers and students.
- Explicit vs. Inquiry-Based
- Teacher-Centred vs. Student-Centred
- Content vs. Skills
- Traditional vs. Formative Assessment
- Knowledge Transmission vs. Construction
- Surface vs. Deep Learning
- Excellence vs. Equity
- Standardisation vs. Personalisation
- Theory vs. Practice
- Theory vs. Practical
- Play vs. Academics
- Pure vs. Applied
- Tech-Enhanced vs. Traditional
- Formative vs. Summative
- Assessment vs. Evaluation
- Conceptual vs. Procedural
- Intellectual vs. Emotional
- Tech as a Learning Tool vs. Tech as a Distraction
- VET vs. University Pathways
- Jobs of Today vs. Jobs of the Future
- Summative vs. Formative Assessment
- Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Motivation
- Teacher Autonomy vs. Standardised Curriculum Resources
- Speed vs. Reflection
- Talent vs. Work
- Public vs. Private
- Concrete vs. Abstract
- Conceptual vs. Procedural
- Individual vs. Group Work
- High- vs. Low-Stakes Assessments
- Digital vs. Paper Tasks
- Homework vs. None
- Curriculum Fidelity vs. Make Your Own
- Online vs. Face-to-Face
- Deductive vs. Inductive Instruction
- Disciplinary vs. Cross-/Inter-/Trans-Disciplinary
- Compulsory vs. Elective Subjects
Alexander, R. (2012), ‘Pedagogy, Curriculum and Culture’, in K. Hall, P. Murphy & J. Soler (eds.), Pedagogy and Practice: Culture and Identities, SAGE Publications, United Kingdom. pp. 3-27
Photo by Jeff Nissen on Unsplash
Wonder in Mathematics 