Research School Network: Ask the expert: Mary Myatt

Name: Mary Myatt.

Role: Works in schools talking to pupils, teachers and leaders about learning, leadership and the curriculum.

What does evidence informed practice mean to you?

Evidence informed practice means two things: reading the headlines of current research and then pursuing further those that are most relevant to my current practice. I think that we have to be pragmatic. Most teachers and leaders have plenty to do, day by day. They are not full time researchers, nor do they have the time to spend ages finding out what is relevant. That is why the Research Schools, ResearchEd, Learning First, the College of Teaching, The Teacher Development Trust, Curee, DataLab, The Education Policy Unit, EEF, Learning Scientists, among others, are playing such an important role in making this complex area accessible. I think this is a significant change in the quality and availability in the last few years. I would have appreciated this wealth of information when I started my career.

Why do you think it is so important to embrace evidence informed practice?

It’s important to remember that the availability of accessible research is relatively recent and we must not take it for granted. Evidence provides the space, at one remove, where we can reflect on what is happening both in the classroom and in the leadership and management aspects of our work. No one has all the answers, and by drawing on the work of those who have gathered evidence across a number of settings, we expand our knowledge and insights of what might be done better. I think that there is a paradox here: that the more we know, the more we realise that there are no quick fixes, but I would argue that it is better to work with a level of uncertainty. I have noticed that when people start talking about research, they become animated due in part, because it is intellectually stimulating. High quality research creates a space to reflect back on our own practice.

Which piece/​s of research has had most impact on you?

I was very influenced by Black and Wiliam’s ​‘Inside the Black Box’ in the late 1990s. Suffolk LA was carrying out research on questioning and assessment for learning in Suffolk classrooms. One of the advisers observed one of my lessons and the feedback transformed the way that I used questions in my classroom.

More recently, in making the case for high challenge, low threat I have drawn on the work of Willingham, Lemov, Brown, Stobart to argue for planning and teaching to the top.

Can you explain why and how you have used this research?

I realised in the Black and Wiliam study that the majority of questions were driven by me. I subsequently built in more time for students to come up with their own questions, based on the material we were studying.

In my role now, I share the high quality work coming from for example, Learning Scientists, Peps McCrea Memorable Teaching, Lemov’s Reading Reconsidered and Willingham’s Why don’t students like school.

There was an interesting exchange on Twitter in the summer about the effects of low stakes testing. Dylan Wiliam commented that the greatest effect seems to be when students mark their own answers and where the results are private to them. I found this very interesting, first because it has greater impact on learning and second because of the implications for teacher workload.

What difference has this made?

For example, I was in a school recently where the Year 11 cohort was being given advice on revision. They were shown the work from Learning Scientists about how to be really effective – how instead of highlighting and rereading they needed to be self-testing, for example. They were then given examples of how to do this on their own.

What would you say are the key ​‘take-aways’ for teachers, from this piece of research?

I would say that from the examples above, we should not be shy of sharing some of the headlines of the research with students: from Willingham, for example ​‘humans are curious, but thinking is hard’. Yes, it should be hard and it does take time, but if it is too easy then the learning is not secure. In primary, many schools have shared Austin’s Butterfly as a way of talking about high quality work, feedback that is both robust and kind, and the sort of effort which needs to go in, over time, in order to produce worthwhile work.

What advice would you give to teachers who are interested in becoming more ​‘evidence informed’?

I think it is important to keep abreast of the headlines and the best way to do this is through the judicious use of Twitter. So, to follow for example ResearchEd, Beyond Levels, Doug Lemov, Daniel Willingham, Learning Scientists, and the Research Schools. Also to sign up for EEF updates, and blogs such as Willingham’s and Durrington’s Class Teaching series. It is also worth checking the hash tags for research conferences, to see what colleagues are currently talking and thinking about. I also think it is worthwhile having another colleague to talk with, openly and honestly about practice and about the insights which have made a difference, or not. Finally, to see how others have used research to shift practice within their contexts: a great example from Adam Boxer who written Evidence Based Practice in Marking and Feedback where he systematically summarises the evidence about feedback in general and marking in particular to make the case that ​‘there are serious problems with the way marking is carried out and the ​“disproportionate value” which is ascribed to it.’ It is this kind of thoughtful collation of the evidence to improve and shift practice, which is of real value to the profession.