This short peer-reviewed article was published on 24 September 2024 by Impact: The Journal of the Chartered College of Teaching.

Introduction

The evolving landscape of educational ‘best practice’ emphasises evidence-informed practice (EIP), particularly in its scientific form, for enhancing teaching and learning outcomes (Perry et al., 2021). However, balancing EIP with teacher agency presents challenges. Proponents of EIP argue that teaching should align with research evidence, which is often driven by a ‘what works’ agenda, largely based on the ‘science of learning’ (Weinstein et al., 2018), but concerns linger about top-down implementation that restricts professional autonomy and bypasses the complexities of individual classrooms and diverse learners (Simmie et al., 2024). In response, this paper argues that cultivating critical expertise necessitates a nuanced approach that advocates the importance of EIP while acknowledging teachers’ freedom to choose which strategies and interventions work best for their classes and students.

The rise of research-informed practice

Over the past 25 years, there’s been a growing focus on evidence-informed practice (EIP) in education, spurred by David Hargreaves’ (1996) inaugural lecture to the now-defunct Teacher Training Agency, advocating better use of research findings to improve learning outcomes. Organisations like the Education Endowment Foundation and ResearchED have championed this approach, often leveraging insights from cognitive psychology, randomised control trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses (Coe and Kime, 2019; Weinstein et al., 2018; Perry et al., 2021). EIP has also influenced government reforms, as seen in the Department for Education’s initial teacher training and early career framework (DfE, 2024), along with Ofsted’s inspection framework (Muijs, 2019).

In my own school, we have adapted Rosenshine’s (2011) ‘Principles of instruction’ and Dunlosky’s (2013) ‘Strengthening the student toolbox’ to create ‘The Reach Teach Toolkit’, which offers interventions and strategies, trialled by our colleagues, around the themes of retrieval, engagement, knowledge, application and review. We have also formed working parties looking at the implementation of EIP on retrieval practice, dual coding, feedback, interleaving, oracy and homework, among other areas, the findings of which are disseminated through training, share fairs and peer observation. The effectiveness of the toolkit on teaching and learning was recognised by Ofsted in our most recent inspection.

However, while the focus has shifted towards ‘evidence-informed practice’ from ‘evidence-based practice’ (Neelen and Kirschner, 2020), concerns persist about the limitations of a predominantly scientific approach to EIP, emphasising the need for more holistic models in educational research (Biesta, 2023). In my own practice, I still apply the critical, dialogic and activity-based pedagogies taught to me in my training 20 years ago (see, for example, Jones and Hayward, 2000), but I would be wary of advocating or delivering these on the training courses that I now deliver for external providers, regardless of my own experiences, and especially if they cannot be verified by scientific or quantitative data. 

Challenges of top-down EIP

There is a strong argument to be made that uncritically applying educational research in classrooms can be detrimental. It risks oversimplifying the inherent complexities of classrooms and teaching, as well as neglecting the invaluable expertise of teachers themselves (Wrigley and McCusker, 2019). Studies reveal that inadequate training on research utilisation hinders potential benefits, impacting everyone from individual teachers to school leaders and policymakers (Anwer and Reiss, 2023). While research evidence is undeniably valuable, generic EIP agendas, particularly those promoting generalised ‘what works’ approaches, often disregard the unique needs of individual schools, subjects and practitioners (Biesta, 2023). Furthermore, overreliance on quantitative methods overlooks the richness of qualitative research, often underrepresented in the current science-centric configuration of EIP (Simmie et al., 2024). Research has also suggested that top-down initiatives can undermine teacher autonomy and professional judgement, leading to feelings of disempowerment and, ultimately, resistance (Ball, 2021).

The ‘ecological framework’: Balancing EIP and teacher agency

Before discussing ways in which to cultivate critical expertise, it is essential to explore teacher agency, defined as teachers’ ability to purposefully enhance their practice, address classroom challenges and guide their professional development (Priestley et al., 2015). Teacher agency is understood through various perspectives, including sociological, post-structural, socio-cultural and identity- and life-course-centred viewpoints (Eteläpelto et al., 2013). 

For instance, the ‘ecological framework’, influenced by Emirbayer and Mische (1998), perceives teacher agency as emerging from pedagogical knowledge, contextual elements of our day-to-day practice such as collaborative relationships, and environmental factors like curriculum coherence (Priestly et al., 2015). Furthermore, teacher agency is also influenced by past experiences, future aspirations and present circumstances. Importantly, this framework acknowledges that teachers aren’t passive recipients of research but active agents who critically analyse and apply evidence to their specific contexts, making it particularly relevant when considering the promotion of EIP in schools. Thus, cultivating critical expertise within this framework entails:

• Empowering teachers to critically engage with research: This requires providing opportunities for teachers to develop research literacy skills, participate in collaborative inquiry practices and engage in meaningful dialogue about the strengths and limitations of different research methodologies (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2009).
• Prioritising teacher autonomy in pedagogical decision-making: As already suggested, while evidence can inform practice, it should not dictate it. Teachers retain the expertise and professional judgement to adapt evidence-informed strategies to their specific students and learning environments, as well as their subject areas. In this sense, EIP should not undermine the integrity of the teacher in defining, directing and improving their professional practice and identity (Biesta, 2023).
• Fostering a culture of open inquiry and collaboration: Collaborative learning communities, where teachers share best practice, discuss research findings and support each other’s professional development, are crucial for creating a culture of critical expertise (Fullan, Rincón-Gallardo and Hargreaves, 2015).

Therefore, achieving the delicate balance between EIP and teacher agency requires several practical strategies:

Empowering leadership

Effective leaders play a crucial role in cultivating critical expertise. They can achieve this by encouraging teacher involvement in decision-making, celebrating innovative approaches and providing meaningful professional development opportunities that equip teachers with the skills to critically engage with research and adapt it to their specific contexts (Leithwood and Levin, 2011).

One example of this in action is our school’s approach. We integrate research within our performance management system, offering teachers opportunities to pursue targeted inquiries aligned with both the school’s development plan and their personal interests, which, in turn, allows them to lead on training and development of particular areas of interest, such as impactful homework or interleaving strategies. Additionally, our five-year CPD (continuing professional development) plans encourage engagement with EIP through research-based courses and the development of relevant strategies, allowing colleagues to emerge as experts in their chosen research areas. We further demonstrate our commitment by subsidising tickets to research conferences and ensuring that half of our senior leaders are actively participating in research-informed CPD programmes.

Diverse research utilisation

School leaders, mentors, and trainers can further support critical expertise by encouraging teachers to explore diverse research sources beyond quantitative studies (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2009; Simmie et al., 2024). This includes qualitative research, practitioner narratives and action research, each offering valuable insights into classroom dynamics, individual learner experiences and teacher-led improvement within their own settings.

In our experience, while cognitive science plays a role in our EIP initiatives, we value other approaches as well. These include encouraging peer observations through Lesson Study and participation in qualitative practitioner-focused research programmes like HertsCam (www.hertscam.org.uk) and CamStar (www.camstar-research.co.uk) research networks. This triangulation of research sources fosters a comprehensive understanding of effective practices. It allows teachers to engage with both whole-school training and targeted studies aligned with their specific contexts and needs.

Fostering critical reflection

We acknowledge the limitations of the ‘what works’ mentality and champion the importance of considering educational values and the broader impact that our practice has on learners (Biesta, 2023). This is reflected in our school’s approach, which avoids mandating uniform EIP strategies across all lessons or subjects. Instead, we facilitate discussions and critical engagement with line management to ensure that teachers consider best practices and their potential benefits in light of individual student needs and learning contexts. For instance, our working groups follow these steps in adopting, contextualising or rejecting research-informed practices:

1. basic training on research methods, including the difference between quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods
2. engaging with research in their given area, to identify best practice and techniques to trial
3. developing plans and resources to trial with one or more teaching groups
4. carrying out a trial over an agreed period of time, allowing for critical, self- and peer-reflection 
5. sharing feedback and experiences within their group, allowing critical discussion and suggestions for improvement from colleagues
6. identifying the techniques and resources that worked best among working party members
7. sharing these with the wider school, devising generic resources based upon them that can be adapted by any department if feasible
8. adding resources to the toolkit for others to use.

By implementing these strategies – empowering leadership, utilising diverse research sources and fostering critical reflection – we can cultivate a thriving culture of critical expertise. This benefits both teachers and students, equipping teachers with the knowledge and agency to personalise and refine their practice, ultimately leading to improved learning outcomes.

Conclusion

Achieving a balance between evidence-informed practice and teacher agency is crucial for cultivating critical expertise in education and delivering the further gains in achievement that we believe are possible. The ecological framework offers insight into the dynamic interplay between these factors within schools. By empowering teachers to engage critically with research, prioritise autonomy in decision-making and foster collaboration, schools can create an environment conducive to developing critical expertise.

As outlined above, practical strategies such as empowering leadership, diverse research utilisation and encouraging evaluative reflection play key roles in achieving this balance. Effective school leaders provide opportunities for teachers to lead in their areas of interest, promoting ownership of professional growth, which is a key aspect of teacher agency. Encouraging exploration of diverse research sources and fostering collaboration also contribute to a culture of critical expertise. Furthermore, implementing these strategies equips teachers to personalise research evidence to their practice, which again facilitates teacher agency, leading to improved learning outcomes.

References

• Anwer M and Reiss M (2023) Linking research and practice in education: The views of expert researchers in the field. Journal of Education for Teaching 49(2): 326–340.
• Ball SJ (2021) The Education Debate, 4th ed. Bristol: Polity Press.
• Biesta G (2023) The integrity of education and the future of educational studies. British Journal of Educational Studies 71(5): 493–515.
• Cochran-Smith M and Lytle S (2009) Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Coe R and Kime S (2019) Teacher Research: Exploring its Relationship to Professional Knowledge and Professional Development. London: Routledge.
• Department for Education (DfE) (2024) Initial teacher training and early career framework. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/661d24ac08c3be25cfbd3e61/Initial_Teacher_Training_and_Early_Career_Framework.pdf (accessed 20 June 2024).
• Dunlosky J (2013) Strengthening the student toolbox. The American Educator 37(3): 12–21.
• Emirbayer M and Mische A (1998) What is agency? American Journal of Sociology 103(4): 962–1023.
• Eteläpelto A, Vähäsantanen K, Hökkä P et al. (2013) What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review 10: 45–65.
• Fullan M, Rincón-Gallardo S and Hargreaves A (2015) Professional capital as accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives 23: 15. DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v23.1998.
• Hargreaves DH (1996) Teaching as a Research Based Profession: Possibilities and Prospects. London: Teacher Training Agency.
• Jones G and Hayward J (2000) Goodbye chalk & talk. The Philosophers’ Magazine 10(10): 13–14.
• Leithwood K and Levin B (2011) Understanding how leadership influences student learning. In: Järvelä S (ed) Social and emotional aspects of learning. Oxford: Academic Press, pp. 251–256.
• Muijs D (2019) Improving curriculum evaluation in educational inspection. Cambridge Journal of Education 49(3): 306–321.
• Neelen M and Kirschner PA (2020) Educational research in the age of evidence-informed practice. Educational Researcher 49(2): 67–72.
• Perry T, Lea R, Rübner Jørgensen C et al. (2021) Cognitive science approaches in the classroom: A review of the evidence. Education Endowment Foundation. Available at: https://d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/production/documents/guidance/Cognitive_science_approaches_in_the_classroom_-_A_review_of_the_evidence.pdf?v=1718788131 (accessed 19 June 2024).
• Priestley M, Biesta G and Robinson S (2015) Teacher agency: What is it and why does it matter? In: Kneyber R and Evers J (eds) Flip the System: Changing Education from the Bottom Up. London: Routledge, pp. 134–148.
• Rosenshine B (2012) Principles of instruction. American Educator 36(1): 12–19, 39.
• Simmie GM, O’Meara N, Forster A et al. (2024) Towards a model of teachers’ continuing professional development (CPD): A border crossing journey with embedded contradictions, ethical dilemmas and transformative possibilities. Professional Development in Education 50(1): 46–58.
• Weinstein Y, Madan CR and Sumeracki MA (2018) Teaching the science of learning. Cognitive Research 3: 2. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-017-0087-y.
• Wrigley T and McCusker S (2019) Evidence-based teaching: A simple view of ‘science’. Educational Research and Evaluation 25(1–2): 110–126.

Suggested citation: Jones, A. B. (2024). Cultivating critical expertise: Balancing teacher agency and evidence-informed practice in schools. Impact: Journal of the Chartered College of Teaching, 22. https://my.chartered.college/impact_article/cultivating-critical-expertise-balancing-teacher-agency-and-evidence-informed-practice-in-schools/

Picture credit: Sarita Rungsakorn via Rawpixel (published under a Creative Commons Licence)