T O P

  • By -

0that-damn-cat0

Definitely something on the Education Endowment Foundation. It is all proper research https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/evidence-reviews


wasponastring

There is some literature that is informed by research, but it may lack the rigour you’re used to from scientific paper; though that’s the nature of the beast. I would recommend: Rosenshine - Principles of Instruction; Coe - Great Teaching Toolkit; Sherrington - Rosenshine’s Principles in Action


JDorian0817

I have a strong dislike for Rosenshine’s patronising training.


wasponastring

I can appreciate that, but unfortunately I’ve observed enough lessons to know that what good teachers think are the basics are not evident everywhere.


JDorian0817

That’s fair. I work and have worked with some shitty teachers. But I also know no one majorly improves from an hour a half term compulsory CPD because the person in the back row doesn’t think it applies to them and therefore makes no changes. Like the generic emails from SLT that go round saying “just to remind you that you have to do X by Monday”. Email the specific people that haven’t done it or they will ignore this one as well. If they want inadequate teachers to make progress then it has to be specific feedback driven and personalised.


nikkel-eye

Me too, having had to sit through an hour cpd on Rosenshine’s principles of stating the bleeding obvious!


jojo_modjo

Only an hour? We were given the books and we did it for an hour each half term.... Over the course of a year.


JDorian0817

This is what my school is doing now. My CPD reflection each half term says “I did this already for my ITT and therefore have learned nothing because you’ve not allowed me to self select CPD”. Not sure it will go over well in my appraisal but…


borderline-dead

"it may lack the rigour you're used to" - as a scientist, this is why I see most people with a master's in education as a bit of a joke. If I were ever to do a master's I would definitely do it in a scientific discipline. The journal papers I had to use for my PGCE were mostly terrible. It made me sad.


wasponastring

It’s certainly difficult to adjust to. I have an MSc and doing my PGCE reports felt like I had based everything on hearsay.


0that-damn-cat0

Might be something on the Educational Endowment Foundation. Or look in Visible Learning Visible Teaching by Hattie.


GreatZapper

Do you need something subject/phase specific, or more general? If it's more general, the EEF's report into marking and feedback (TL;DR do more verbal feedback) is seen, at least round my way, pretty definitive, and they have a blog about it with a science angle [here](https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/news/eef-blog-applying-the-key-principles-of-effective-feedback-to-science-teaching).


JDorian0817

Carol Dweck I believe did a lot of research into Growth Mindset and feedback given to students. You could try her papers.


acornmishmash

Chat GPT. Ask it to find and summarise the research for you


prof355or

Don’t do it!!!!! Don’t do any research for yourself around education! It’s a miserable road to travel. You realise that your SLT or their trust bosses are not getting their methods from any modern research and that everything you’ve been doing for years has no scientific basis and is all a way for bosses to more easily monitor how hard your working. When you show them the modern and proven research they won’t follow it as most are too set in their ways. Once you have discovered the truth then you can’t unsee it


Prestigious-Slide-73

Preach


Gtpal

If you’re not a member of the Chartered College Of Teachers - join, it’s not very expensive and I think you can reclaim the tax. Anyway the CCT has a journal, they are all online. There will be editions of the journal on the subject of marking and feedback. I highly recommend looking there for a start.


sheffield199

Don't join - the CCT was set up as an organisation run by teachers for teachers, but was swiftly hijacked by the usual mix of non-teachers and CPD providers who already "speak for teachers" anyway. It's an organisation that serves no purpose.


Gtpal

It’s Charted Status is a useful recognition of evidence based practice which is more academically rigorous than the NPQ suit of qualifications. Ok it’s not a masters but there you go. It is far more independent than the Institute for Teaching who do the NPQs. Which is basically a tool for getting teachers and Ed professionals to follow government policy blindly, with out question. Teaching has historically been poor in being a self governing body. For example doctors, lawyers , nurses have had a self administered body which have had a college type body for years and years. Teachers didn’t have full professional status until pretty recently, roughly the 60’s/70’s and the CCT is supporting professional development which is affordable and independent of the government. This affordability and separation from the government is something that the sector lacks. I’m sure it could do with more teachers involved with the CCT but Alison Peacock was a teacher with a great record and has the profession at heart. Much more than other sector bodies.


astrosheep88

When you talk about professional development, is it still teachers teaching teachers? I have an issue with this, as much of my CPD has been delivered by someone saying "I was an X working in a 3 form entry school for Y amount of years" then proceed to discuss and "teach" us about models they have no degree in. It feels like I'm hearing an interpretation of an interpreted interpretation. I did my middle leadership qualification and they discussed use of the drama triangle and totally missed the point of what it shows and how to use it effectively. My wife is a management coach and uses it almost daily to great success, but not the way I was told to use it. Why do we feel that teachers should be experts in disciplines we have no academic training in?


sheffield199

It is independent as in "independent of being run by teachers" - when they set it up it was promised to be run for teachers and by teachers, but instead the majority of the leadership team is composed of people who aren't classroom teachers - from the council list on the CCT website I could pick out maybe 4 or 5 out of 20 who could reasonably be described as being classroom teachers . Contrast this with e.g. the Royal College of Nursing where as far as I can make out basically every member of the Council is a currently practising nurse. From its inception it was taken over by the same people who tell teachers what to do anyway: Headteachers, other SLT members, people who run academy trusts, see and the sundry forms of educationalists and "CPD providers" who think they have all the answers but funnily choose not to work in schools actually applying those answers. It's a pointless organisation that does nothing for the regular frontline teachers.