Researchers and policymakers to take one of two broad approaches to research. The first is an evidence-based approach, which involves looking for research-based interventions and applying them with the fidelity of following a recipe. The Department for Education’s policy on synthetic phonics - which promotes a specific approach through funding, guidance and regulation - is a case in point.

The second is an evidence-informed approach: using evidence from research to make informed judgements about the next steps to take. This is favoured by the Chartered College of Teaching.

The question is: which of these two approaches gives the best outcomes for teachers and pupils?

A recent Curee study (“Developing Great Teaching”, Cordingley et al, 2015) showed that teachers need to integrate evidence from research with evidence about pupils in their classrooms for research to have a real impact on pupil progress. This means making professional judgements that are based on experimenting with and refining new approaches, rather than just implementing guidance from researchers, however well-founded that guidance might be. In other words, it means a research-informed approach.

Champions of evidence-based practice are often so focused on wanting teachers to take up particular research messages, or protecting them from fads, they risk overlooking the crucial role that a teacher’s judgements and own evidence from learning plays in enhancing pupil success.

Brain Gym ‘inhibiting progress’

Their concerns are not unfounded. Only last week I heard about a school’s commitment to Brain Gym inhibiting pupil progress, even though Brain Gym has been well and truly debunked. However, I am suggesting that what really makes the connection between research and practice secure is to focus on the practicalities of how teachers can use evidence effectively to inform their practice and enhance pupil learning. This starts with understanding what a strong evidence-informed approach looks like. It’s important to first recognise that the classroom is not the best place to start referring to research. Teaching involves making secondby-second decisions in response to learners’ contributions to lessons, which doesn’t allow time to dwell on studies you might have read. Using evidence needs to start further upstream, during the planning process.

Teaching involves making secondby-second decisions in response to learners’ contributions to lessons

Where you are planning for your own classes and you know there are significant and persistent obstacles to the progress of specific pupils, answers won’t necessarily be close to hand. In these situations, systematic reviews of research, which give an overview of the evidence about a particular question and signpost individual high-quality studies, can be useful.

If you are developing a scheme of learning for your team, you will inevitably know less about pupils’ starting points and challenges. In this case, evidence about what strategies work for a representative sample of students in a range of contexts will be easier to assimilate into your scheme.

Ultimately, it is the judgements of teachers that make the difference. Research-informed judgements of this kind are as intellectually demanding as doing the research itself and are crucial to pupil outcomes.

Philippa Cordingley is chief executive of Curee. This is part two of a 24-part series that aims to help teachers become more research-informed