I wrote recently about the danger of generalising from a single Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) study to cast doubt on a teaching strategy in its entirety. Now a new EEF study has broken cover, casting doubt on yet another flavour of the month: teacher engagement in research.

The latest bombshell? The engagement of teachers as members of a research learning community over two years did not register in KS2 reading outcomes for Year 6 pupils. Inevitably, headlines took aim at the whole shebang - “Teacher involvement in research has no impact on pupils’ outcomes.”

Had this been reported in one of the many academic education journals, it would not have gained much traction, being buried among tons of treeware. Coming from the EEF, it was bound to be noticed and its import amplified.

All the usual caveats apply. A single study, looking at short-term test outcomes in a specific key stage, leads to questions rather than conclusions. But this study carries a recursive sting because it asks teachers to take note of research that shows that teachers shouldn’t really take note of research. Catch 22.

To be fair, the report is more nuanced, suggesting that outcomes might be improved when teachers show a positive disposition towards educational research - but it does conclude that engagement in research communities has no impact.

Research in context

EEF values research and promotes its use by teachers, not least through the Research Schools Network. Hence the challenge posed by this study. One answer would be to apply the health warning: that conclusions from any study, no matter how methodologically unimpeachable, are closely tied to the specific context of that study. Generalisation attenuates the effectiveness of the strategies under the microscope - and teachers faithfully reproducing them are not bound to succeed.

Results must be handled with care. Teachers need to balance evidence with experience. They shouldn’t adopt the role of white-coated scientist and dispassionate observer. Hard-pressed teachers rely on others’ work to guide them, but in trying things out, they are cognisant of context, understanding how small variations in conditions affect outcomes.

Practising teachers would be well-advised to act less like laboratory scientists and more like anthropologists, embracing the role of participant observer. This fits much better with the expectation that teachers be reflective practitioners and reflects the reality that teaching - and learning - are reflexive activities.

Pupils’ outcomes might be more affected by teachers’ involvement, not in pedagogical research, but in that of the subjects they profess. Teaching strategies, important as they are, are delivery systems. How we teach is important, but what we teach is vital. There is nothing more enlivening than being in on the creation of new knowledge. This isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds. Whether it is doing original genomic research in biology or analysing census enumerators’ returns in history, teachers and students together can add to knowledge. That’s real research - and it works.