Evidence‐Based Practice for Education?

Marsh, Reg

doi:10.1080/01443410500344738

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As researchers heed the call for education activities to be evidence-based (e.g., Marsh, 2005), they should give greater emphasis to (a) examining the role of teacher-student relationship factors in any tested activity, and (b) comparing effective teaching activities for comparable psychological phenomena to assess whether there might exist activities and methods that constitute empirically validated best educational practices (e.g., Kirk, 2001;Longhurst & Sandage, 2004; but see also Levant, 2004;Pomerantz, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Effective Teaching of Psychology: A Meta-Analytic Integration of Learning Outcomes

Tomcho

Foels

2008

Teaching of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching researchers can assess learning outcome effectiveness as a function of students' graded performance or changes in knowledge, skills and behaviors, or attitudes. We meta-analyzed 197 studies to determine the effectiveness of teaching activities in Teaching of Psychology (ToP) both overall and also as a function of type of learning outcome assessment. We found that, on average, studies evidenced a medium effect size across types of learning outcomes. Given the effectiveness of ToP teaching activities, researchers should address the (a) potential confounding role of teacher rapport, immediacy, and alliance in evaluating teaching effectiveness; (b) ethics of teaching activity development; and (c) appropriateness of using course grades to assess teaching activity effectiveness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Effective Teaching of Psychology: A Meta-Analytic Integration of Learning Outcomes

Tomcho

Foels

2008

Teaching of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The drive for quantifiable evidence of the impact of literacy innovation or intervention aligns with broader trends in evidence-based practice in education that have been gathering momentum for some time (Lather, 2004;Rudolph, 2014). Emphasising that evidence should be used to inform rather than determine professional decisions, advocates have argued that 'hard' evidence offers the best way of judging the impact of interventions as it decouples educational policy from ideology (Goldacre, 2013;Haynes, et al, 2012;Marsh, 2005). These arguments have certainly been influential in shaping the funding policies of governments and other bodies, for example, the Institute for Education Sciences in the United States (IES, 2013) recommends 'scientific' methodologies, while the Education Endowment Foundation in the UK sponsors RCTs (https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/).…”

Section: Part One: Framing the Argument The Drive For Quantifiable Evmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acknowledging and interrogating multiplicities: Towards a generous approach in evaluations of early literacy innovation and intervention

Burnett

2016

Journal of Early Childhood Literacy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At a time of increasing calls from policy makers for the use of 'hard evidence' in driving decision-making at national and local levels in educational contexts, this article contributes to debates about evidence-based practice in early literacy research. It proposes that a reliance on studies designed to generate 'hard' evidence limits understanding about innovations and interventions, arguing that such reliance is not just problematic because interventions and innovations are interpreted differently in diverse sites, or because programmes need to be locally relevant, but because they are constituted differently through different evaluation studies. The article draws on Law's notion of 'method assemblage' to consider how different studies produce different assemblages that have implications for how innovations are conceived. These ideas are exemplified using studies scrutinised through a systematic literature review of one kind of literacy intervention, early years book-gifting, which aims to promote book-sharing in the home. The discussion focuses specifically on how books as mediating objects are instantiated in various ways through different studies, with different implications for how book-sharing, book-gifting and, ultimately, reading are understood. When considered together, these studies construct book-gifting in multiple ways, problematising and complicating the causal relations assumed in methodologies driving for 'hard' evidence. Drawing on the book-gifting example, this article explores what might be gained by embracing 'multiplicities', the multiple ways in which things -such as objects, activities, principles and indeed literacy interventions -are constituted through method assemblage.It argues that literacy evaluations can best serve children and their families, and the organisations, agencies and groups working alongside them, by seeking fluid, open and 'generous' accounts of innovations and interventions. Such accounts, it is argued, are more likely to acknowledge the complex relationships and practices associated with early literacy and to generate new understandings and productive possibilities for early literacy learning.

show abstract

“…Scrutiny and critique of research evidence in education has intensified over the past two decades resulting in various calls for more information on 'what works' for schools, teachers and learners (Marsh, 2005, Tooley & Darby, 1998. This has led to repeated calls for the widespread use of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and associated systematic reviews as a key source of evidence to inform practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Randomised controlled trials and the interventionisation of education

Burnett

Coldwell

2020

Oxford Review of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 1990s there have been repeated calls for the systematic use of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to inform educational decision-making. The advent of the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF)described as England's What Works Centre for Educationin 2011 has made this a reality in England: by 2020, over a third of English schools were involved in such trials. Despite much debate about the value and role of RCTs, less attention has been paid to one specific effect of such trials, a phenomenon we refer to as interventionisation. This article uses two examples, focused on language and literacy education and teacher professional development, to demonstrate how increased use of trials may work to 'interventionise' education through channelling the focus of innovati on and development to tightly structured interventions and generating a series of narrowing effects. It argues that a broad view of research and a diversity of methodologies is needed not only to generate rich understandings of educational practice, but to develop and sustain educational provision that is fit for a dynamic world and which responds to the challenges and opportunities presented in complex educational contexts.

show abstract

Evidence‐Based Practice for Education?

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Assessing Effective Teaching of Psychology: A Meta-Analytic Integration of Learning Outcomes

Assessing Effective Teaching of Psychology: A Meta-Analytic Integration of Learning Outcomes

Acknowledging and interrogating multiplicities: Towards a generous approach in evaluations of early literacy innovation and intervention

Randomised controlled trials and the interventionisation of education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About