Teacher journal clubs: How do they work and can they increase evidence-based practice?

Written by:
13 min read
Continuing professional development (CPD) is an important way of spreading evidence-informed practice (EIP) in schools. But despite widespread calls for more for teachers, most forms of CPD do not work. A review by Yoon et al. (2008) found 20 effect sizes reported from studies capable of identifying causal impacts, eight of which showed an effect on attainment, 12 of which showed no effect. Another review by Blank and Alas (2009), which used statistical techniques to combine 31 findings from different studies, found positive effects from maths CPD but no effect from science CPD. Education Endowment Foundation trials show equally mixed results (Hanley et al, 2016; Worth et al., 2015; McNally et al., 2014). Why is CPD so often ineffective? Most CPD is premised on the idea that informing teachers of research findings, or techniques informed by them, will allow teachers to implement these ideas in the classroom, which will then feed through into improved student attainment (see Figure 1)

Join us or sign in now to view the rest of this page

You're viewing this site as a guest, which only allows you to view a limited amount of content.

To view this page and get access to all our resources, join the Chartered College of Teaching (it's free for trainee teachers and half price for ECTs) or log in if you're already a member.

This article was published in July 2017 and reflects the terminology and understanding of research and evidence in use at the time. Some terms and conclusions may no longer align with current standards. We encourage readers to approach the content with an understanding of this context.

      0 0 votes
      Please Rate this content
      0 Comments
      Oldest
      Newest Most Voted
      Inline Feedbacks
      View all comments

      From this issue

      Impact Articles on the same themes