'But that would never work here' – Does context matter more than evidence?
Nobody knows more about students’ learning needs than their teachers. Teachers routinely bring their knowledge of context to their planning for their students’ learning. So how should teachers respond to research evidence about effective practice that is broad and does not appear to take account of contextual factors? Teachers may wonder “will this make a difference for my students?”
To make things more challenging, there is sometimes a perceived competition between research evidence and context when it comes to education. The two can be pitted as opponents, resulting in some evidence-based practices being dismissed as “not relevant” or “unlikely to work” due to contextual factors.
At the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO), we believe research evidence and context are important teammates. A recent report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) explores how knowledge about context should work together with external research evidence to inform decision-making.
‘Evidence-based practices’ are backed up by research evidence. This means there is broad consensus from rigorously conducted evaluations that they work (see AERO’s Standards of evidence).
At AERO, we conducted an evidence review on whether context influences the effectiveness of 3 well-established, evidence-based teaching practices – and if so, how. Specifically, we examined meta-analytic reviews of the effect of formative assessment, explicit instruction and mastery learning on student achievement.
The reviews found that formative assessment, mastery learning and explicit instruction are effective teaching practices across a variety of contexts and for different subgroups of students. Studies conducted across various locations provided the following insights.
- has a positive impact on student achievement in mathematics, reading, writing, social science and foreign languages
- works for primary and secondary students
- benefits students with and without additional learning needs.
- has a positive impact on student achievement in mathematics, reading, spelling, problem solving and science
- works for primary and secondary students
- benefits students with and without additional learning needs.
- has a positive impact on achievement in mathematics, sciences, social studies and English and foreign languages
- works for primary and secondary students
- is effective particularly for lower-achieving students, with higher-achieving students also benefitting.
These findings show that formative assessment, mastery learning and explicit instruction are likely to work in a variety of classrooms. This means they are good practices to use to ensure all students are learning.
Mastery learning
Mastery learning is a way of designing units of work so that each set of tasks focuses on a particular learning objective and students must master a task to move onto the next one. By monitoring student progress through informal and formal assessments, teachers can provide additional support or enrichment to students depending on their level of mastery.
Formative assessment
Formative assessment is the practice of gathering and interpreting information about student learning as it is happening in your classroom. It can involve a variety of methods. Using formative assessment helps you know where students are at in their learning so that you can adapt your teaching to meet their needs.
Explicit instruction
Explicit instruction involves breaking down what students need to learn into smaller learning outcomes and modelling each step so that students can see what is expected of them. Providing explicit instruction limits the mental effort for students allowing them to process new information more effectively.
A meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarise the results of individual studies. It is designed to assess the behaviours that lead to a particular approach working and/or to provide an estimate of how much more likely one approach is to work over another. It is the quantitative version of a literature review or systematic review.
context (or contextual factors)
Context is the social, cultural and environmental factors found in research settings. Taking context into account in research studies is important because context can affect the outcomes of research (i.e. evidence generated in one context may not necessarily apply to a different context). Evidence is most relevant when it has been generated in a context similar to the context in which it will be applied. Examples of ‘context’ may include location, demographics of research participants, or the level of organisational support for the particular approach being researched.
