Evidence-based
teaching: advancing
capability and capacity
for enquiry in schools
Case study
April 2017
Dr Joanne Pearson
Teamworks Teaching School Alliance
Contents
Background and methodology ......................................................................................................... 3
Time and personal capabilities ............................................................................................................... 4
Relationships and trust ............................................................................................................................ 4
Defining a research broker .......................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Ethical issues ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Summary.................................................................................................................................................... 7
Data collection and findings .............................................................................................................. 9
Quantitative data ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Number of Alliance Schools involved in January 2015 .................................................................... 10
Number of Alliance Schools involved in October 2015 .................................................................... 10
Number of Teachers involved Research (types 2 and 3) ................................................................. 10
Numbers of schools external to the TSA involved in type 2 research engagement .................... 10
Qualitative data ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Section 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Section 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 13
Section 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 13
Section 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 14
Discussion and recommendations ............................................................................................... 15
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 15
Next steps ................................................................................................................................................ 16
Recommendations beyond the TSA .................................................................................................... 17
References............................................................................................................................................... 18
2
Background and methodology
Teamworks is a Teaching School Alliance made up of two primary Teaching Schools
and, at the time of the project commencement, three primary, one secondary, one special
school and two HEIs as strategic partners. The alliance has been working to develop
their engagement with research since designation in 2013 but up until this point the main
involvement had been to recruit schools to participate in the Closing the Gap project run
by CFBT. In total four partner schools participated in the projects; three as active
partners, one was placed in the control group and did not choose to undertake the
intervention at the end of the period. The aim of this project was therefore to: increase
levels of engagement with research from this initial base; to increase both the number of
schools involved and to broaden the type of engagement in which schools were involved.
For the purposes of the project practitioner engagement with research was considered as
being one of three types:
1.
Schools engaging with existing published research to develop and inform
practices. (For example using the Education Endowment Fund (EEF) toolkit or reading
research journals to develop ITE programmes or adapt classroom practice)
2.
Schools engaging to support the primary research of external organisations. (For
example participating as control or intervention schools in randomised control trials or
providing data for research project ran by Higher Education Institutions)
3.
Schools engaging in their own primary research. (For example identifying
research questions and designing research protocols)
As a Teaching School the idea that teachers should engage with research is taken as a
given indeed Research and Development is one of the targeted ‘Big Six’ areas in which
TSA’s should be leading practice. Improved student outcomes and teacher quality
closely correlate with teachers’ research literacy and practice (BERA/RSA 2014). The
issue of teacher research was raised by Stenhouse (1981) with his vision of the ‘teacher
as researcher’, exploring and identifying issues in teaching and more recently the idea of
a medical model of research as ‘solving problem’ and finding ‘what works’ (Goldacre,
2013). Whilst the two approaches have significant differing emphases, both do raise
and promote the importance of teachers and schools engaging with research.
There are however key issues that have been identified as constraining factors on
teachers’ abilities to engage effectively:

The fragmentation of initial teacher education in England and the decrease in
University involvement (Beauchamp, Clarke, Hulme and Murray, 2014)
3

The lack of ‘the basic structures needed to support evidence based practice’
(Goldacre, 2013 p.15)

Time and personal capabilities (Leat, Lofthouse and Reid, 2014)

Relationships and trust (Timperley and Parr, 2007)
It is therefore apparent that whilst research informed schools are both desirable and
effective in developing teachers and improving outcomes for children, it is neither a
simple process to embed research effectively in schools nor an automatically positive
experience for staff involved.
The challenge for the project was to find ways in which to increase the research
involvement within schools across the TSA by tackling some of the identified issues
raised by prior research through creating structures to reduce or mediate these tensions.
The first two challenges identified lie at a national policy level so the project design
focused on tackling the latter two bullet points: time and personal capabilities and
relationships and trust.
Time and personal capabilities
In an era characterised by change and pressures on workload engaging in either reading
about or undertaking primary research can appear to be a ‘luxury’ to staff (DfE: Workload
Challenge Survey, 2015). This is particularly the case where individual teachers are
engaged as sole research practitioners within their school. Collaborative approaches,
where teachers have the opportunity to talk through and share their findings and thoughts
with colleagues within the same setting, as well as with those outside the setting appear
to be more successful (Leat, Lofthouse and Reid, 2014). The issue around personal
capabilities is teachers’ ability to find research; most do not have access to peer
reviewed journals. In addition if they have not undertaken a research based masters
programme, teachers may struggle to both critically interpret research data and to design
research methodologies and analytical tools that allow them to undertake meaningful
primary research.
Relationships and trust
Leat et al (2014) argue that there are few examples of bottom up innovation in schools,
where the agenda for school development has been led by classroom practitioners’
questions and research findings. They further argue that school control over professional
development can be seen as a proxy for state control through centralised policies. This
issue has meant, for some staff, that their experience of engaging with research was
negative, especially where ‘real or apparent criticism of current policies or practices’
occurred as a result (BERA/RSA, 2014, p.18).
4
The project design therefore had to attempt to provide staff with: time, personalised
support with finding, interpreting and designing research; relationships, both internal and
external and support with navigating school systems. Our research question became:
Can a dedicated research broker support research engagement in schools?
The aim of the research project was to support the use of evidence in practice through
the use of a dedicated research broker (RB) to connect teachers to relevant published
research and support their capacity to access funding to develop their own research skills
though practitioner enquiries.
The project’s objectives were to:

develop research champions in each school

connect staff with research relevant to their setting and practice

support staff to engage with their own research by connecting them to funding
streams and supporting methodologies.

build research knowledge and capacity across a range of teachers and schools

develop effective dissemination tools to share findings within and beyond the
participating schools.
And the planned outcomes were:

to develop teachers’ confidence and ability in engaging with and undertaking
educational research

to develop a platform for the effective sharing of knowledge about teaching and
learning practices across schools.
Defining a research broker
The role had the following remit:

to maintain an engagement with external research findings and target staff from
across the Alliance with specific pieces of research

to identify opportunities for schools to become involved in external research
projects

to identify sources of external funding streams to support staff to undertake
primary research

to create small research teams interested in submitting research bids
5

to support the team with the writing of research bids

to provide on-going support with research design and data analysis for on-going
primary research

to support the dissemination of research findings beyond the school into the wider
alliance and educational community.
The funding was therefore used to support staff time from the Head of the Teaching
School Alliance who has experience in both educational research and supporting teacher
professional learning to undertake this role.
The role was allocated 38 days across the academic year to allow the remit to be met. It
became very evident that the majority of time would be taken to develop type 3 research
(research designed and completed by staff in school) as this was the area in which
schools had the least experience and confidence. The flow chart below shows the typical
pattern of engagement across the project.
RB identifies funding opportunties relevant to the alliance
Expressions of interest in the project are sent to staff relevant to the areas via email
Initial meeting is set up to establish the bid
RB identifies pre-existing research to inform the bid
RB works with the group around methodology
Bid is submitted
Project group established to manage bid. RB supports and takes on QA role
RB supports group to disseminate findings
The majority of the time was allocated to the preparation of the initial bid with the group of
interested teachers. This was to ensure that:

we had enough interest and staff time to ensure that the project could be achieved

there were real benefits both for the children, staff and schools involved but also
for wider professional knowledge

leadership within the schools of the staff involved were supportive of their time and
involvement in the project (project team meetings were held during the day and
after school)
6

there was robust scrutiny of the data collection and methodologies being adopted.
Where it was felt that we needed additional support this was sought it from partner
HEIs
Methodology
The project was evaluated through two main sources of data:

Quantitative data. The numbers of staff involved in primary research through
working with external providers or through undertaking primary research of their
own. Benchmarking data was taken at the start of the project and on a termly
basis throughout the project

Qualitative data. Questionnaires of teaching staff involved in the strategic partner
schools to assess their: level of active engagement in research; their perceptions
of the role of the research broker role and its impact
The gathering of the quantitative data allowed us to track the number of staff who both
expressed an interest in developing research projects and those who were able to
successfully undertake a project. The limitations of this purely quantitative approach
however are that it alone cannot evaluate the impact of being involved on the staff, their
perceptions and indeed whether some of the limiting factors above were mitigated by
having a research broker. This data will however be gathered through the use of
questionnaires with both closed Likert questions and open ended questions that invite a
personalised response. The design of the questionnaires was informed by the guide
given by Cohen, Manion, Morrison and Bell (2011, p.379). Each questionnaire was
piloted with one teacher to check for issues such as wording and the interpretation of
questions then sent to three distinct groups:

Those directly involved in primary research projects. Each member of staff
identified through the quantitative data was sent a copy of the relevant
questionnaire

A sample of 5 staff from across each partnership school
Ethical issues
Staff were asked to consent to their data being used as part of completing the
questionnaire. Staff were identified in each questionnaire in order to ascertain with which
project they had been involved, however all reported staff data was anonymised for the
purposes of reporting the findings of the study.
Summary
The key question that the project investigated was:
7
can a dedicated research broker support research engagement across a teaching
school alliance?
The sub questions were:
Can a research broker raise the number of staff involved directly in primary research?
Can a research broker develop staff perceptions of the role and relevance of research to
their daily practice?
8
Data collection and findings
Quantitative data
Quantitative data was chosen as the first research approach; for the role of a research
broker to be deemed effective it is important that numbers of staff interacting directly with
primary research increased within the alliance; i.e. engagement types 2 and 3. This data
is also not self-reported but can be verified and therefore has increased reliability over
self-reported data on attitudes and behaviours towards research within the classroom i.e.
engagement type 1.
The numbers of schools involved in primary research within the alliance was monitored
across a ten-month period from January 2015 until October 2015. The involvement was
categorised as either type 2 (external research) or type 3 (their own primary research)
and an additional category detailing the level of their involvement was also noted for type
3 research: involved in the preparation and writing of a research bid/project; involved in
the delivery of a research bid/project; involved in the dissemination of a research
bid/project. Each separate project was counted as a being a new involvement so some
schools are counted twice if they participated in more than one research project.
The research projects that were prepared and submitted for external funding were:

Closing the Gap Test and Learn. Funding granted. Type 2 research January –
June 2015. Completed

Early Years connecting schools and PVI settings to develop outcomes. Funding
granted. Type 3 research January 2015- March 2016

Using small scale randomised controls in education. Funding granted. Type 3
February 2015- October 2015

Phonics improving outcomes using Systematic synthetic phonics. Funding not
granted. June 2015 not begun funding not yet secured

EEF Effective deployment of Teaching Assistants. Funding granted. September
2015- September 2016
9
Number of Alliance Schools involved in January 2015
January 2015
Preparation
Delivery
Dissemination
Type 2
3
Type 3
0
0
0
Table 1: Number of alliance schools involved in January 2015
Number of Alliance Schools involved in October 2015
October 2015
Preparation
Delivery
Dissemination
Type 2
0
Type 3
9
12
4
Table 2: Number of alliance schools involved in October 2015
Number of Teachers involved Research (types 2 and 3)
January 2015
Preparation
Delivery
Dissemination
January 2015
4
October 2015
11
10
2
Table 3: Number of teachers involved research (types 2 and 3)
In addition two of the projects (the Early Years project and the EEF project) were written
to work with schools and settings outside of the alliance. These schools fall into category
2 of the research descriptors. They were participants in the primary research of others
but were not part of the design, delivery and dissemination of the projects.
Numbers of schools external to the TSA involved in type 2 research
engagement
January 2015
October 2015
Schools
external to
the TSA
1
64
Table 4: Number of schools external to TSA involved in type 2 research
10
In terms of quantitative data the figures suggest that there was a positive impact from the
research broker. The numbers of schools running type 3 research projects grew from a
baseline of 0 to 12 (with 1 research project still to be funded in October 2015). Whilst
engagement in type 2 research fell within the alliance over the same period the numbers
of schools outside the alliance engaging with type 2 research grew from 1 to 64 during
the same period.
As table 2 indicates the most common way schools are involved with research is in the
planning and delivery of the project. Once funding opportunities had been identified by
the research broker numbers of staff across a range of schools helped to prepare the
proposal and then carried out the primary data collection once the bid had been
successful. For example the EYFS bid involved a group of five schools sending one or
more members of staff to a small working party to prepare a bid which would support staff
in Private and Voluntary (PVI) settings to develop provision to meet the needs of the
most deprived children. This meant reflecting on their own professional knowledge;
looking for existing research that suggested practice that had made significant impacts
and creating protocols that would allow this practice to be disseminated and evaluated
beyond their own setting. Once the bid was successful the same staff continued to
implement and evaluate the project within their own setting and to train and support staff
in the settings beyond the alliance (in this case 10 PVIs). Whilst the project has not been
completed and is being internally evaluated for its impact on pupils we have also
commissioned an external evaluation from our local HEI for its impact on the staff in the
PVI setting.
The dissemination of the research is the area that is currently showing lowest
engagement levels. This may be because most projects are on-going and have not yet
reached the point of needed to be written up but may also be because teachers feel a
lack of expertise or time to be able to undertake this element fully. This area will require
further data collection at a later date to be able to fully understand why the level of
engagement falls off at this point.
One project, based around effective practices in phonics, has been unsuccessful in terms
of attracting funding. This has meant that, whilst the school/research broker has written
the project and the protocols, the project itself has not been begun. This points to a
possible deficit in the research broker model; if the bids are not successful in finding
funding then they may never get beyond the planning phase.
Qualitative data
In order to assess the impact of being involved in all three forms of research identified a
qualitative data collection was also undertaken between July and September 2015. This
was done with two groups of staff: those who had been directly involved in one of the
research bids listed above and one in alliance schools but with staff who had not been
part of the projects directly. This was to assess:
11

The impact of any direct involvement with research on the teachers involved

The impact of any research in their schools on those staff who were not directly
involved
The data was collected through the means of a single questionnaire designed with a
mixed of closed response and open questions. The questionnaire was split into four
sections:

Section 1. The background of the teacher; highest qualification, length of service

Section 2. The teacher’s view on research in general

Section 3. Their experience of research within their setting

Section 4. Their own direct experience of research
The questionnaire was adapted from a prior study (Borg 2006) into the research
engagement of teachers within English language teaching. This allowed our findings to
be placed within something of a wider context of prior research.
The questionnaire was sent out via Headteacher gatekeepers within each school and
sixteen teachers responded from across four schools. Six of the sample came from staff
that had been directly supported by the research broker (group A) and ten returns were
from staff that had not been part of the project but were employed in the same schools
(group B). The two groups were analysed and their findings compared.
Section 1
The background of the teachers were as follows:
Highest qualification
Length of service
Mean number of schools
employed
Group A
5 (BA/BSc/Bed)
1 masters
19 years (mean)
range: 1-30 years
2
Group B
5 (BA/BSc/Bed)
3 PGCE
1 masters
1 PhD/Ed
14 years (mean)
range: 1-38 years
6
The majority if the staff in the sample had had no additional academic qualification since
the completion of their Initial Teacher Education; there were no significant differences in
this regard between the group of teachers involved in the research project and those
outside. The mean length of service in Group A was longer but the mean number of
schools in which they had been employed was significantly less than that of Group B.
12
This sample of teachers was broad in both groups in terms of the range of time in the
classroom and the range of schools in which they had employment experience.
Section 2
In this section the two groups were asked to assess the level of importance of research
characteristics. There was much greater variability in response from Group B than Group
A but both groups had the greatest agreement that the objectivity of the researcher was
the most important feature overall with 100% of Group A identifying it as important;
Group B had the most agreement on this feature but only 50% identified it as the most
important with 40% identifying it as less important. The two groups had similar opinions
on questions that explored methods, sample size and generalisability of findings; for
example ‘a variety of methods is used’ Group A 50% rate as more/most important and
40% of Group B gave this the same rating.
Similarly Group A all identified the topic being of interest to teachers and the results
giving teachers ideas they can use as being of more/most importance however in Group
B 60% of staff rated the topic being of interest at moderate to no importance. They were
more positive about the research being of practical use to teachers with 60% identifying it
as more/most important but 40% also rated this as moderate to no importance. 83% of
Group A felt research conducted by practising teachers was important but 80% of group
B rated this as of moderate to no importance.
Group A were far more likely to see all the categories as having importance than Group
B; Group A gave no returns against any of the categories as unimportant, Group B had
12 responses in this category.
Overall Group A’s lowest ratings were around the size of the sample and the variety of
methods used whereas Group B’s lowest ratings were for the researchers being
practising teachers and the topic being of interest to teachers.
Section 3
This section explored the place of research within their own school. In Group A 100% of
the teachers felt they were encouraged to do research in school, for Group B this figure
fell to 70% with 30% of staff unsure or disagreeing. Group A felt that teachers talk about
research in their setting (100%) and again this was high in Group B (80%). Time
allocated to research within schools was the area both groups highlighted as an issue;
they disagreed that there was time built into the school year to undertake research
(Group A 66%, Group B 40%) but Group A highlighted this issue more than Group B. In
both groups there was a split between access to books and journals with 50% in each
feeling they had this and 50% disagreeing.
13
Section 4
The majority of staff in Group A had been involved in a research proposal with most citing
a project facilitated by the research broker as the example. In contrast 90% of Group B
had had no involvement in research in the previous two year period. Those in Group B
who had been involved in research had done so as part of a course requirement (their
undergraduate dissertation and NPQML projects were cited as examples). A majority of
both groups however had read published research however with 80% of Group B and
84% of Group A answering yes to this question. The most common reason in both
groups for undertaking the research was to find better ways of teaching (100% Group A
and 80% Group B). The two groups also agreed that on the lack of expectation
regarding research from school senior leaders; only 10% of Group B and 33% of Group A
identified senior leadership support as a key factor in undertaking research.
The barriers to developing research identified in the survey were time (66% Group A,
30% Group B) and expertise (33 % Group A and 40% Group B). Group B felt that their
colleagues in school do not do research (40%) whereas only 16% of Group A felt this
was the case. None of the staff involved felt that employers thought research was
unimportant but one teacher (Group A) did raise the issue that Ofsted set the agenda for
school priorities more than anything else.
14
Discussion and recommendations
Conclusions
The purpose of this project was to tackle what Helmsley-Brown and Sharp (2003) identify
as one of the main barriers to teacher engagement in research, the ‘institutionalised
culture that does not foster learning’ (p.46) by providing leadership at an institutional level
in the form of a research broker. The specific aims of the project were to:

develop research champions in each school

connect staff with research relevant to their setting and practice

support staff to engage with their own research by connecting them to funding
streams and supporting methodologies

build research knowledge and capacity across a range of teachers and schools

develop effective dissemination tools to share findings within and beyond the
participating schools.
The quantitative data suggests that the project has been successful in increasing the
number of schools and teachers engaged in research with greater numbers involved in
both type 2 research, participating in projects designed and run externally and type 3
research, participating in projects designed and implemented internally. To this end
there has been some progress made against the aims listed above. Staff within the
project are connected to relevant research; more were involved in primacy research and
reading published reports than in the staff that were not part of the project. However this
finding also shows that the first and last aims of the project are still some way from being
achieved. Whilst the staff involved in the research may be building their own capacity
this is clearly not yet being disseminated to their colleagues; 40 % of staff Group B,
working in the same schools as those in Group A, believe their colleagues are not
engaged in research despite the presence of project work within the school. It is
therefore difficult to argue at this stage that the staff in Group A are ‘research champions’
in the sense of raising the profile of research within their own schools.
Staff who worked with the research broker were far more likely to see the benefits and
applications of research in the classroom than those who did not. As shown in section 2,
83% staff in group A felt that an important feature of research was the involvement of
practising teachers and 84% felt research conducted in real classrooms was highly
important in contrast to 30% in Group B. This latter result correlates with Borg’s (2006)
findings in which his respondents placed real classrooms at the lower end of importance
with 51% rating it as important. It does therefore seem that the experience of
15
undertaking primary research for themselves increases the likelihood of teachers valuing
research being done in classrooms by practitioners; the correlation between the group of
teachers here was stronger than their level of qualification, length of experience or
number of schools suggesting that working with the research broker may have been the
most important factor in this finding.
The survey data also matches previous findings in the drivers and barriers to teachers
undertaking research. Both groups identify time as an important barrier to research as
did Borg’s (2006) sample but Group B were more likely to identify expertise and support
as things holding them back than Group A suggesting that the confidence of staff who
have been working with the research broker is greater. Worrall (2004) and Barker (2005)
also found that a lack of external pressure and personal dispositions were factors holding
back the research agenda; for the former both Group A and Group B’s findings suggest
that there remains a lack of pressure. None of group B identified senior leader
expectations as a factor in undertaking research and only 33% of Group A reported
senior leader expectations as a driving force and whilst this is more positive it still is a
much smaller driver than the desire to ‘find better ways of teaching’ which was the most
important driving factor in both Groups A and B and in Borg’s (2006) study.
The research questions were:
Can a dedicated research broker support research engagement across a teaching school
alliance?
Can a research broker raise the number of staff involved directly in primary research?
Can a research broker develop staff perceptions of the role and relevance of research to
their daily practice?
The data suggests that the role of the research broker did have a positive impact in the
research engagement in the TSA. The numbers of staff and schools involved in type 2
and 3 research did grow over the project’s lifetime and for those staff that worked with the
research broker their perceptions of the role of classrooms and teacher was more
positive than other staff. They had greater access to reading, felt more confident around
methodology and felt more encouraged to undertake research than their colleagues.
Next steps
There are still aspects of the project however that are not as strong. The staff in Group A
have not yet begun to act as champions for this approach with their colleagues in
schools; we have not yet disseminated enough of their own findings or the ways in which
the projects were undertaken and this remains part of the ongoing action plan for the
TSA.
Even with the allocation of a research broker to support staff there remains a perceived
issue with time and workload in Group A that, while less than that of Group B, has not
16
been eradicated as part of this project. The successful allocation of funds has played a
key part in releasing staff and it should also be recognised that where funding was not
found; i.e. the phonics project, the research has not yet been begun. As a result the TSA
has allocated a budget of £4,000 for this current academic year to allow staff and schools
within the alliance to bid for small pots of money to support research going forward.
The research broker has been one step towards altering the ‘institutionalised culture’ but
there is clearly some work remaining to be done with senior leaders in school. Most staff
across both groups did not feel that there was an expectation from senior leaders that
they engage with research to support practice. The reasons for this were not part of the
remit of the questionnaire but in additional comments some staff suggested that both the
‘Ofsted agenda’ and the lack of research experience/understanding within senior
leadership teams may be factors in their reluctance to promote research the performance
management process or within job descriptions.
Recommendations beyond the TSA
Our findings would suggest that the process of allocating a research broker may have
something positive to offer other settings in increasing staff engagement in research.
There are however some aspects that would have to be in place for this to happen:

The time allocated to the research broker role was significant across the year (38
days or 0.2 of a full time contract in term time). The research broker undertook the
bulk of the work in finding funding, pulling together a team of interested staff,
supporting the writing of the bid and finding existing research. We suggest this is
a strong factor in the success in gaining funding and seeing the projects through
from the planning to the operational level.

The research broker needs to have some training or prior background in research
and access to academic journals is a key benefit. This saved considerable time
when pulling together bids and helped to increase the confidence of staff in Group
A that they were going to be able to carry out the projects successfully.

Systems to support the staff in Group A to act as research champions within their
own schools need to be put in place if impact is to be seen in the whole school
setting beyond the life of the project in which they are involved.
17
References
Barker, P. (2005) Research in Schools and Colleges. National Educational research
Forum Working paper 7.2
Beauchamp,G., Clarke, L., Hulme, M., and Murray, J. , (2014) Policy and Practice within
the United Kingdom. BERA (online) (accessed February 6th 2015) BERA online
BERA/RSA, (2014) Research and the Teaching profession. Building the capacity for a
self-improving education system. London: BERA
Borg, S. (2006) ‘Research engagement in English language teaching’ Teaching and
Teacher Education 23 pp 731-747
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011) Research Methods in Education. London:
Routledge
Gibson, S., Oliver, L., Dennison, M. (2015) Workload Challenge: Analysis of teacher
consultation responses London : CooperGibson Research/DFE
Goldacre, B. (2013) Building evidence into education. Bad Science (online) accessed on
February 6th 2015) Bad Science online
Hemsley-Brown, J., & Sharp, C. (2003). ‘The use of research to improve professional
practice: A systematic review of the literature.’ Oxford Review Of Education, 29, 449–
470.
Leat, Lofthouse and Reid, 2014 ‘Teachers’ views: perspectives on research engagement’
Oxford Review of Education, 41 (2), pp 270-286
Stenhouse, L. (1981) ‘What counts as research?’ British Journal of Educational Studies,
29 (2), pp. 103-114.
Timperley, H.S. & Parr, J.M. (2007) ‘Closing the Achievement Gap through Evidencebased Inquiry at Multiple Levels.’ Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 99-115.
Worrall N. (2004) ‘Trying to build a research culture in a school: Trying to find the right
questions to ask.’ Teacher Development, 8, 137-148
18
Crown copyright 2017
The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Department for Education.
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at:
[email protected] or www.education.gov.uk/contactus
19