I'm confused by "What you work on must have evidence that it's likely to lead to increased learning for your students". How are we supposed to find this out? Surely he's not expecting classroom teachers to spend hours searching through the academic literature? That would contradict his previous point about making the best use of our time.
To some extent I think he is expecting teachers to engage with the academic literature. We claim to be a profession; and with that goes a body of professional knowledge and learning that we should engage with. Having this theoretical underpinning to our work helps makes us better professionals and practitioners.
Hello James and Hugh! I think his point is that we don't necessarily need to read it all ourselves - although I take your point Hugh - but the research has already been done which suggests what makes a difference (eg Wiliam and Black, John Hattie, Sutton Trust stuff). I think he's therefore suggesting that we should respond to that and work in the areas it suggests (eg feedback is seen as crucial by almost all the meta-analyses I've seen), rather than jumping around from one new 'good idea' to the next. It seems like a plea for focus and incremental gains and improvement in key areas, rather than initiative overload. Tom
I'm confused by "What you work on must have evidence that it's likely to lead to increased learning for your students". How are we supposed to find this out? Surely he's not expecting classroom teachers to spend hours searching through the academic literature? That would contradict his previous point about making the best use of our time.
ReplyDeleteTo some extent I think he is expecting teachers to engage with the academic literature. We claim to be a profession; and with that goes a body of professional knowledge and learning that we should engage with. Having this theoretical underpinning to our work helps makes us better professionals and practitioners.
DeleteHello James and Hugh!
DeleteI think his point is that we don't necessarily need to read it all ourselves - although I take your point Hugh - but the research has already been done which suggests what makes a difference (eg Wiliam and Black, John Hattie, Sutton Trust stuff). I think he's therefore suggesting that we should respond to that and work in the areas it suggests (eg feedback is seen as crucial by almost all the meta-analyses I've seen), rather than jumping around from one new 'good idea' to the next. It seems like a plea for focus and incremental gains and improvement in key areas, rather than initiative overload.
Tom
Thanks both.
Delete