Here’s a challenging (academic) paper that casts doubt upon many of the assumptions embedded in teacher training and professional development. Its conclusions are at odds with many of the ways we are told ‘how to teach’ by external consultants and courses gearing teachers towards ‘Ofsted lessons’. Would be interested in hearing what others think of it …
Search this site
-
Join 634 other subscribers
Search by category
Search by tag
- APA
- Assessment for learning
- Bad education
- Behaviour for learning
- BLP
- Closing the gap
- Coaching
- Coe
- Creativity
- Differentiation and challenge
- Dunlosky
- Dweck
- education research
- EEF
- Engagement and motivation
- Evidence
- Geary
- Goldacre
- Growth mindset
- Guided instruction
- Hattie
- Haydn
- Ideas
- Intelligence
- Kirschner
- Learning
- Lesson study
- Marking
- Marzano
- Maths
- Meta-analysis
- Metacognition
- Misconceptions
- Murphy Paul
- Observation
- Ofsted
- Petty
- Planning
- Praise
- Psychology
- researchED
- Resources
- Revision
- Science
- Simon
- Student voice
- Sutton Trust
- TED
- Willingham
- Working memory
-
Recent Posts
- Putting evidence to work
- No, don’t forget everything we know about memory
- Eliminating unnecessary workload
- Lesson observations: Would picking a top set get you a better grading?
- Attachment Theory: Why teachers shouldn’t get too excited about it.
- Germane load: The right kind of mental effort?
- Goodbye Mr Chips: can research tell teachers how to teach?
- Psychology of behaviour management (part 3)
- The psychology of behaviour management (part 2)
- The psychology of behaviour management (part 1)
- The ‘artificial science’ of teaching: System vs Individual competence
- The ‘artificiality’ of teaching
Pingback: Knowledge vs Understanding | Evidence into practice @ Turnford
Pingback: Does teaching style really matter? | Evidence into practice @ Turnford