If you haven’t read this great article by Carl Hendricks, Director of Research at Wellington College, on the need for ‘research champions in schools, you should. In it Hendricks persuasively sets out the case for the importance of there being a designated member of staff to champion the cause of education research in every school:
Education research has provided teachers with enlightening and elegant ways of approaching their practice. There is an ever-growing and robust evidence base in a wide range of areas that have improved standards and enfranchised both teacher practice and student achievement. However there has also been a history of ideologically driven, methodologically unsound and politically entrenched dogma in the name of education research that has compromised the very teachers and students it was intended to empower.
This is something I’ve been mulling over for some time. Basically, it would be my dream job. Tom Sherrington says that every school needs someone who reads all the books, blogs and research papers – this is, I’m afraid to say, how I spend my life. I’m also reasonably adept at extracting meaning, condensing the meaning into something comprehensible and communicating it clearly and cogently.
Let’s imagine you’re interested in the idea of employing the services of a ‘research champion’ – what should you hope to get? If you employ an existing member of staff you’ll get someone you know, who in turn knows your school. But I’d imagine in most cases the greater part of their time will be taken up with the vital business of teaching their own classes. The potential advantage of employing someone like me on an ad hoc basis would be that the entirety of their attention would be focussed on just this one are of school life. After all, my view is that schools should be pretty clear about their core purpose; the business of educating young people. As such, designing and conducting your own research questions may divert energies that might be more fruitfully spent exploring how to use the staggering quantity of research that’s already out there and working out how it might be applicable to your unique context. Instead we could explore the possibility of conducting small-scale replication studies, trying to test out the findings of other researchers. I’m also convinced by Dylan Wiliam’s argument that teachers are best concentrating on ‘disciplined enquiry’ rather than actual research. To that end I’m optimistic about the possibilities afforded by rigorously implemented Lesson Study for driving forward real and sustained improvements.
Now, I have no idea about your context but I do have some interesting ideas about how we might make meaningful and measurable predictions of how pupils are likely to react to the introduction of a particular intervention. I’m fairly sure that some conclusions from the realm of psychology are generalisable. That is to say, the ways in which children learn are more similar than they are different. Yes of course every child is unique and has a multitude of competing environmental and genetic influences acting on their behaviour, but in very many important ways, all human beings tend to respond similarly. We don’t have to understand every single child to be able to accurately predict how most children will respond to an intervention.
And if we get it wrong? Well, I’m with Rob Coe on this:
Our strategy should therefore be to make the best choices we can from the best evidence available, to try it out, with an open mind, and see if it works. If it does, we can keep doing it; if not, we will learn from that experience and try something else.
There may be precious few certainties in education, but there are many probabilities.
If all this sounds interesting and you’d like to dip your school’s toes in the rapidly warming pool of education research then as chance would have it I’m currently foot loose and fancy free. I send my time training teachers and working with a number of schools around the country to improve the outcomes for their students. I’d be very excited to work with you to build your own capacity and provide regular ongoing support. And because of the vast sums I get paid to do training, I’m the fortunate position of being able to offer my services at a rate that should be very affordable. If this offer sounds in any way tempting, please email me to discuss the possibilities; I’m sure we can work out something mutually agreeable.
Related posts
#ResearchED – Everything you know about education is wrong
David – cracking article. My dream job too 😉
I’m continually surprised (well, not any more really) that teaching is full of anecdote, received wisdom, acceptance of an “on trend idea” and the cult of “non evidence”.
Teachers seem to have forgotten that at some point in their careers they did an undergraduate degree – and at some point during that degree they would have needed to research something and write it up. Objectively.
Spin forward to PGCE and those old stalwarts like Vygotsky’s ZPD get rolled out – and we are happy to quote others research in those essays we need to write.
Spin forward to post NQT and suddenly we’re happy to roll out SOLO taxonomy without looking at the evidence; ditto 1:1 iPads, single sex classes, purple pens of progress etc etc.
Groups of teachers coming together to pose a question and research it (Action research / PLC) seems to be somewhat of a forbidden term, perhaps as PLCs often get too much direction from SLTs and staff CPD gets hijacked.
Schools are increasingly data rich but information poor. We measure everything, but aren’t sure what we should value. More, we have become very short term – fix the results this year and do it last week.
I’d love to see some longitudinal research into the employability / incidents of crime etc post full time education. Sure, its a 10 year+ study and won’t fix exam results – but we could nail what really matters to kids – being successful citizens.
David, if you need a data wrangler in you adventures drop me a line 😉
Cheers
Glen
Thanks Glen – that’s an interesting offer! Do you know much about Bayesian probability? Let’s see if anything comes of it…
ANOVA and significance person me 😉
David – keep promoting the idea! We have just started our own “Research Department” at our school in the Swiss Alps, it’s great to be involved and hopefully we can build from here. We have a number of projects starting this semester, if you are interested in seeing what we are doing check out https://sites.google.com/a/public.las.ch/pro-learning/. We have developed our own PD program and we will be presenting in Nice later this year.
Research lead across a family of schools or MAT or teaching school would be much more affordable and very appealing. Also research is available across more than one institution. Could be part of a consultancy option for schools to buy into. Just a thought.
Yep – that sounds like a sensible approach. Thanks Stephen
Thanks for the post. I think the crux of it all lies in the two actions you mention at the end:
“build your own capacity and provide regular ongoing support”.
Here are some thoughts:
*building capacity*
It’s all very well being keen to disseminate research – let alone being able to do the reading, thinking, “digesting”, etc – but it’s the implementation of any findings that is the tricky bit. As far as I can tell it leads to an option: is a Research Lead there to disseminate and instruct (properly researched pedagogy), or is a Research Lead there to help others do research? The answer is not binary, in my view, but a continuum, between a “Research-informed Teaching & Learning Lead” and a “Research methodologies instructor and critical friend.” What is the capacity that you want to build?
*regular ongoing support*
A structure has to be in place to embed research and research-informed practice in the life of a school. Broadly speaking, there were 3 points that I heard at the ResearchED lunch that suggested ways this could be done:
— Dylan Wiliam – teachers should just do it. Even a couple in a school can get the ball rolling and make a habit of doing/disseminating/reading/applying research. Don’t wait for SLT: start and they will follow.
— John Tomsett (and others) – It will only work if it Research Lead role is seamlessly integrated into SLT, CPD, performance management, appraisal, and observation cycle.
— Keven Bartle & Alex Williams- “you can’t control what teachers actually do.” Therefore a Research Lead in a school has more credibility if they ‘speak truth to power’, so to say. A bottom-up Research Lead person would democratise the process and encourage good habits among their peers.
Plenty to muse on (and sorry if I misrepresented anyone!).
The point about ‘What capacity?’ is a good one and would depend on the school(s). Ultimately you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make the bugger drink – or at least that’s not a role I’d be interested in.
Yes maybe teachers should ‘just do it’, but do what? And isn’t it reasonable & desirable for SLT to encourage this endeavour and provide possible directions? (NOT directives!)
My feeling is integrating a role into SLT structure is only necessary if you want to force engagement rather than encourage it. Again, this isn’t something I’m much interested in.
The speaking truth to power is a nice idea – this depends on enlightened SLT being prepared to confront their biases.
I’m more interested in pointing the way, providing opportunities and building the capacity for a school to do without me.
An enjoyable and convincing ‘advertorial’, David.
Having enjoyed Tom Sherrington at ResearchED, I am more convinced than ever that if you are serious about teachers engaging with ‘how we learn what we learn’ – engagement that will have to take place in the thirty minutes they have between putting the pupils on the buses and heading off to feed their own children – then it has to be led by the Head. I can well imagine a Head engaged with the research employing a research leader; I cannot see a Research Leader having much impact in a school where the Head had a fixed view of the learning process.
I’m sure you’re right. And there are plenty of heads with fixed views of the learning process as you put it.
I can’t do anything about them directly, but the pressure we can exert on the system to make tentativity, uncertainty and openness to new ideas and ways of thinking about conventional wisdom might just have an impact.
[…] And long the same lines, @LearningSpy asks, Do You Need A Research Champion in Your School? […]
[…] 10, 2015 by teachingbattleground Back in September 2014 David Didau (@LearningSpy) asked “Do you need a research champion in your school“. Back then, I commented with a “definitive YES“ Recently, I visited a secondary […]
[…] And long the same lines, @LearningSpy asks, Do You Need A Research Champion in Your School? […]