Sometimes a report does seem to be written with half an eye, or more, on a more general audience, which is welcome.    At its best, when real dialogue occurs between those who think about education, and those who do it (yes, alright, a gross oversimplification, but you know what I’m getting at), it occasionally throws up ideas that can make a difference, even, ultimately, to that unresponsive bottom line.

The Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) exemplifies this approach at its best.    It is, say its sponsors, the ESRC, “the UK’s largest investment in education research . . . some 450 researchers are involved in over 60 specific projects.    It aims to enhance outcomes for learners in all educational sectors . . . to make research-informed contributions to contemporary discussion of issues, initiatives or events in UK education.”

Improving teaching and learning (t&l) is effectively in three parts:   a set of ten principles outlining what t&l should achieve, each given as a single statement followed by a couple of explanatory sentences;   a section in which these ten principles are unpacked rather more fully;   and a series of 20 outlines of TLRP projects and how they relate to the principles.

The principles are spot on: as good a set as I've seen:   clear, concise, comprehensive, and capturing the true essence of t&l.    For example, t&l:

• "Needs assessment to be congruent with learning"
• "Promotes the active engagement of the learner (6).   A chief goal of t&l should be the promotion of learners independence and autonomy"
• "Recognises the significance of informal learning (8) [which] should be recognised as being at least as significant as formal learning".

The subsequent unpacking and illustration is just as good and, whilst it might be tailored to in-school settings, clearly applies just as well to distance learning.   An excellent report.

Science education in schools is more specialised, and more of a political commentary than a hands-on guide.    But, in its own way, it's just as good.    On the way to its concluding proposals it tackles such vital yet rarely discussed issues as:

• the balance to be maintained between educating future scientists, and educating everyone else into some understanding of science;
• the need to construct a curriculum which consists not just of content (and there is, inevitably, a lot of that) but is also grounded on a real understanding of science, of Kuhn & Popper and all that goes with them.

And, almost in passing, it lets fall such nuggets as (p11):   “assessment policy, in England at least, has been driven by an assumption that testing drives up standards.    There is no convincing evidence for this belief.   Indeed, research points to the contrary.    Increased scores on tests which students have been trained to pass, rather than being used to develop understanding, do not indicate better standards of learning.    And over time, even these scores cease to rise year on year.”    Quite.

As for the conclusions, whilst I might quibble with some, or with the omission of others, I have no doubt that science in schools would get a whole lot better if even just a few of them were implemented.    Good stuff.

Source:    http://www.tlrp.org/pub/commentaries.html