Watching teacher trainers throw shapes on a dimly-lit dance floor, you would never know what a challenging few months many of them had just gone through.

The crowds of happy delegates at this week’s Universities’ Council for the Education of Teachers (Ucet) conference in Stratford-upon-Avon were clearly enjoying the Dusty Springfield tribute act put on for them to mark the end of day one.

Teacher training: Make master’s compulsory for teachers, say universities

Exclusive: DfE rule sees trainees drop out over classroom ‘shock’

From the magazine: Does cognitive load theory deserve its cult following?

Chatting to one guest in the lift the next day, I learned some people were still up at 2am. (I can’t be sure when the partying came to an end, as I excused myself at around 11pm when Dusty experienced a brief identity crisis and commenced a rousing performance of Lulu’s 1960s hit Shout.)

However, it is fair to say that the evening’s jolly atmosphere cloaked a fair amount of unrest among the providers in attendance.

There are several reasons for this unrest. Uncertainty over the publication date for the refreshed Initial Teacher Training (ITT) Core Content Framework had led to many training providers questioning their ability to implement any changes before courses begin in September 2020.

To the surprise of many in the sector, the document was then published earlier than anticipated - just before Parliament dissolved for the general election campaign.

While the intent behind the framework was fairly uncontroversial, some delegates raised concerns about references to cognitive science - in particular, cognitive load theory (CLT) - which they claim dominate section two of the guidance, dedicated to “how pupils learn”.

CLT is based around the idea that our working, or “short-term”, memory is finite, and an overload of information can have a negative impact on learning. In the context of the classroom, this means teaching should be broken down into small chunks to avoid children becoming overwhelmed.

Although it does not explicitly refer to CLT, the ITT framework lays out its main principles, stating: “Working memory is where information that is being actively processed is held, but its capacity is limited and can be overloaded.”

The key issue that has irked providers is not the inclusion of CLT per se, but the lack of acknowledgement that other theories exist. Some believe the focus on CLT will stifle debate among their trainees.

The previous framework did mention cognitive load, but it was not presented as the only theory. It actually encouraged trainees to consider a variety of approaches.

“Providers should ensure that trainees are familiar with a range of techniques,” it said.

“Trainees should be introduced to important factors affecting pupils’ education such as cognitive load, motivation, understanding and focus.”

The issue was raised at the conference during a heated question and answer session with Sam Twiselton and James Noble-Rogers, two members of the expert panel that advised the government on the framework.

Simon Gibbons, director of teacher education at King’s College London, told the pair he was concerned that some schools may interpret the document as “validation” of their own practices, which could isolate those who subscribe to different theories. His comments were met with a round of applause from the audience.

Intrigued by the strength of feeling in the room, I later spoke to David Spendlove, who is strategic director of initial teacher education at the University of Manchester.

“The reading list for section two reads like Nick Gibb’s bookshelf - not that I have seen it,” he said.

“This is a very narrow collection of references on how pupils learn and advocates particular ways of teaching and learning consistent with government rhetoric,” he added.

But Professor Twiselton has previously told Tes that, while “the terminology is different” in the new framework, “practices may not change for some providers”.

So, is the new framework stifling debate? There’s no doubt it’s got providers talking, but ultimately, it is the trainees who need to develop their critical thinking and apply it to the classroom.

If we are going to teach our trainees “how pupils learn”, and cannot come to an agreement among ourselves, it only makes sense to acknowledge the complexity of the question.