Education research: is it a con?

The increased focus on educational research in recent years has led to teachers falling victim to a new phenomenon – ‘research-washing’, warns research lead Mark Enser. Businesses desperate to flog their services to cash-strapped schools are applying a thin veneer of research credibility to their products to suck teachers in. The only way to guard against this, Enser says, is to equip school staff with the research nous to spot snake oil when they see it
30th August 2019, 12:04am
Research: Is It A Con?

Share

Education research: is it a con?

https://www.tes.com/magazine/archived/education-research-it-con

A headteacher sits in yet another local heads’ meeting. He’s trying to concentrate on the presentation rather than the ever-growing to-do list that he has racing around his mind. The consultant on the stage is talking about improving pupils’ resilience, particularly in the run-up to exams.

A few words suddenly make him sit up and take notice: “This research-based approach …”, “proven results”, “… based on the theory of growth mindset …”

He has heard a lot about Ofsted looking for research-based approaches in schools, and growth mindset has been getting a lot of attention. There is an Inset day coming up soon as well. Maybe it is worth getting this consultant’s number after the session …

A phenomenon known as “green-washing” has long been a feature of marketing companies. It refers to companies touting their environmental credentials as a way of making a brand less toxic. Think oil companies trumpeting their relatively minor investments in renewable energy while making the vast majority of their profits from carbon-based fuels, or pro-hunting lobby groups selling the idea that they are focused on conservation efforts.

More recently, the term “woke-washing” has been applied to companies using social concerns to sell their products - slapping a rainbow flag on their goods during Pride week, for example, while doing nothing else to support the cause.

I’d like to propose a new type of “washing”; one that particularly affects the world of education. I’m calling it “research-washing”. It’s the application of a thin veneer of research credibility to a product or idea that’s being sold to schools or teachers.

Examples of research-washing aren’t hard to find. At all. Look for revision advice for pupils approaching their GCSEs and you may stumble on a blog, written by a high-street stationers, that includes lines like “Certain colours have a greater impact on our memory than others, so it’s important for your child to choose the right colours when making revision notes.”

It goes on to say what “studies have shown” about the impact of different colours, without ever citing these studies. It suggests that pupils could associate a particular colour with a certain subject and then wear a loom band in that colour in the exam.

There are many interesting studies around the impact of colour on memory, but I can’t think of one that would suggest that this would be an effective strategy in the exam hall. And, of course, the article doesn’t make reference to one.

Despite the lack of citation to back up the retailer’s various claims about what “studies show”, I have been told by teachers that this article has been shared with teachers and pupils in a number of schools as research-informed revision advice.

Another area where we are seeing an increase in research-washing is around interventions for character education. This is the idea that we can teach pupils to develop certain desirable characteristics such as grit, determination or compassion. It has been championed by a number of education secretaries and one, Nicky Morgan, even went on to write a book on the subject.

All this interest has meant that companies are rushing to offer training to schools and teachers, promising an evidence-based approach to improving resilience in young people. However, as Marc Smith, a chartered psychologist and author of Psychology in the Classroom, explains: “Resilience is marketed to schools on the premise that young people are lacking in it and that buying into an intervention will do everything from prevent mental illness to increase academic achievement. As it stands, the evidence is mixed at best.”

We saw a similar trend around interventions promising to help shift pupils from a fixed mindset to a growth mindset, following the work of Carol Dweck. Some schools have invested a lot of money in such programmes, despite the fact that trials on growth mindset interventions have consistently found it hard to replicate Dweck’s findings. “It might be that companies are offering interventions ahead of research,” Smith says. “Growth mindset was being implemented in schools well before any good trials had taken place.”

This is a real concern. Money is coming out of state-funded schools and going into the coffers of private companies, whose research base may well be lacking (to put it mildly).

But it isn’t just companies that are research-washing. It is also happening directly within schools, where leaders are bringing in “research-based” policies that they expect teachers to follow, despite having very little on which to base their claims.

One school I’ve encountered has a long list of non-negotiables they expect to see in every lesson. One of these is the use of “challenge tasks” that encourage pupils to discuss their ideas; the guidance cites “studies that show” pupils remember 90 per cent of what they teach others but only 5 per cent of what a teacher tells them.

There may be many good reasons for pupils to discuss their ideas, but there are no studies I can find that support the school’s claims.

This seems to be another misapplication of Edgar Dale’s Cone of Experience: a theoretical model of how authentic an experience is, now often shown as a “Cone of Learning” where the authenticity is somehow ascribed values for how much is remembered.

Another school has a long list of non-negotiables, also said to be research-based, including regular written feedback on work, despite a lack of evidence that this form of feedback is more effective than any other.

The same school includes a non-negotiable on positive thinking, which says: “Don’t worry about Dweck and IQ studies, just think of mindsets as being able to ‘get smarter’.” This approach may go some way to explain why growth-mindset interventions in schools have not been more successful.

Research-washing happens for many reasons. One, of course, is financial. There are a huge number of companies competing for an ever-shrinking pot of money from schools. Appealing to the sector’s growing interest in research-informed practice is a way to make your company, and your product, stand out in a crowded field.

The motivations of school leaders bringing in their “research-based” non-negotiables are a little more opaque. These leaders could be concerned about authority. Theirs may be challenged if they introduce something that is hard to justify. The “research” becomes a higher authority to which they can point.

It could also be that they really think the research does support their policies. Many school leaders trained at the same time as I did, when “pupils only remember 5 per cent of what they are told but 90 per cent of what they teach others” and “written marking is a necessary form of feedback” were presented as incontrovertible truths. Many bad ideas linger in the profession because they have not been universally drawn out and challenged.

Does any of this matter, though? Is research-washing really a problem?

One reason why research-washing is damaging is that it is often used to sell services, and these services cost. In a culture of high-stakes accountability, it is not a surprise that school leaders will pay a premium for something they are told has evidence to prove its effectiveness.

But money spent on an ineffective intervention is money that is not available for something that could make a difference.

Even when research-washing doesn’t carry a financial cost, there is still the drain on effectiveness and efficiency. This has a knock-on effect on teacher retention, with workload increasing as everyone tries to keep up with the latest badly implemented, research-based non-negotiable. That veneer of research makes the policy harder to argue with as someone is claiming they have evidence that it works.

So what is the solution? Perhaps to simply turn our backs on educational research and the insights it can offer us?

No. The solution to research-washing is to become more informed about educational research, not less. We need teachers and school leaders who are trained and practised in sifting through the claims made by different companies and who know what questions to ask about these claims.

There is plenty of support on offer to help make the teaching profession more research-informed and so better prepared to deal with these marketing ploys. The Education Endowment Foundation has published a toolkit pointing to what a range of evidence suggests is more or less likely to work and, importantly, it links to the review of research used to make these decisions (bit.ly/EEFkit).

The Chartered College of Teaching produces its own peer-reviewed journal, which seeks to make educational research more accessible to teachers on the ground. It also holds workshops and training events for teachers, including a programme for recently qualified teachers that offers explorations for research-informed practice.

There is also the ResearchEd movement, which holds conferences around the country, and increasingly around the world, where they bring together teachers and academics to share their work in a forum where it can be discussed and questioned before being taken back into schools.

More informal meetings are on the rise again with the grassroots BrewEd movement, which involves teachers meeting up, usually in pubs, to share ideas on what works for them in a place where discussion and questioning is encouraged. All of this a far cry from the slick marketing messages of education companies or the lists of stern research-based non-negotiables imposed by school leaders.

They give opportunities for teachers and leaders to interrogate what is being said and to carefully consider how it would apply to their own context. In other words, it gives teachers the chance to embrace their professionalism.

Mark Enser is head of geography and research lead at Heathfield Community College in East Sussex. His new book, Teach Like Nobody’s Watching, is out now. He tweets @EnserMark

This article originally appeared in the 30 August 2019 issue under the headline “The great research con”

You need a Tes subscription to read this article

Subscribe now to read this article and get other subscriber-only content:

  • Unlimited access to all Tes magazine content
  • Exclusive subscriber-only stories
  • Award-winning email newsletters

Already a subscriber? Log in

You need a subscription to read this article

Subscribe now to read this article and get other subscriber-only content, including:

  • Unlimited access to all Tes magazine content
  • Exclusive subscriber-only stories
  • Award-winning email newsletters
Recent
Most read
Most shared