Three points that are related:

1. The position that "in the end, you have to just follow your own style and teach whatever way you feel is best, based on your own experience and contextual perceptiveness" is one I understand and respect. However, due to the undoubted...

...complexity of teaching, it is also a position that demonstrates high confidence in one's own capacities. It might often prove correct (and we all think this way to some extent), but it's hard to paint this somehow as a particularly humble view of teaching.

2. If I share something on Twitter, and you honestly think it is flawed or there is a misconception behind it, please tell me. Praise makes me feel valued, but constructive criticism might make me a better teacher. Personally, when it comes to teaching I tend to trust...

...the aggregated advice of the rest of the profession (and systematic attempts by researchers to understand quantifiable parts of the craft) a little more than I trust my own experience and judgement, though the latter obviously plays its part.

3. Advocating that people follow the apparent "best bets" from science is sometimes portrayed as an expression of arrogance, as if the countless researchers trying to understand things through incremental inductive reasoning betrays a kind of certainty. To my mind, this is...

...to fundamentally misunderstand how science is commonly considered. Science is a study of the world that has uncertainty built into its core. It focuses on what is most probable, with certainty an impossible goal and improvements on theories always just a...

...decent set of new data away. Hoping that people trust a sensible interpretation of data a little more and their own instincts a little less, in my view reflects an appropriate humility about the mystifying complexity of teaching.

That's all just my opinion (somewhat ironically). There is no disrespect implied if you disagree.

I'll be quite busy today, so apologies if you reply to this and I don't get back to you.