6
Volume 37
Innovation and evidence drive next steps
Alexander Cheesman, Shanae Postlethwaite, Sophie Zhang
The world of education is full of invention. This is both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength in the sense that there is always something new on the horizon and it is a weakness in the sense that there is always something new on the horizon. At worst, a focus on what’s new may result in schools innovating in a shallow way, with last year’s initiative quickly cast aside in favour of the next big thing.
Clarendon’s approach is more long term. Innovation is critical, but it is evaluated against the standard of research evidence. When teachers focus on Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction, it is because there is a large body of evidence, from classroom observation studies to randomised controlled trials, that underpins those principles. And for any initiative to embed in teaching practice, it needs to be returned to year on year. As Greg Ashman, Head of Research, explains, “We are fully aware of the initiatives that are popular across the education system. We know that project-based learning, mindfulness and growth mindset interventions have their advocates, often with good reason.” Yet, he cautions, “I think that what makes us a little bit different at Clarendon is that we ask to see the evidence to support these approaches. We are in it for the long haul and so we want to ensure that we are committing to something substantial. Ideally, we want strong evidence and a plausible underlying theory that aligns with the research on cognition and learning. Of course, we can rarely have all of both, particularly when it comes to something innovative. There is an art to figuring out the next steps in our context.” New educational ideas are invariably innovative, but they also need to align with the evidence to warrant investigation and investment.
