Building on problematic ‘evidence relations’ - some findings from a recent systematic review of innovation in teacher education research.

Presenters:

Professor Viv Ellis, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Dr Keith Turvey, University of Brighton, Brighton, England

This long paper is adapted from a completed systematic review:

Ellis, V., Correia, C., Turvey, K., Childs, A., Andon, N., Harrison, C., Jones, J., & Hayati, N. (2023). Redefinition /redirection and incremental change: A systematic review of innovation in teacher education research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, [103918].

The paper has been adapted to respond to the NW10 Teacher Education Research Network call “The Diversity of ‘Evidence-Relations’ in Teacher Education, Politics and Research”

NB Please see uploaded word document of whole paper as required.

Abstract:

In a recent systematic review of innovation in teacher education research (Ellis, Correia, Turvey, Childs, Andon, Harrison, Jones, & Hayati, 2023) the problematic nature of ‘evidence relations’ between theory, policy and practice were evident in a number of different ways. Firstly, policies framing the concept of innovation have led to critiques of innovation as merely a buzzword in the field. Secondly, the meaning of theorisations of some types of innovation (Sternberg, 2003) were found to be too open to subjective interpretations to be of use. Thirdly, innovation as a concept in teacher education research is often undefined and disconnected from wider social scientific theories of change. The inherently problematic character of evidence in teacher education, we suggest is indeed a factor that can lead to political and ideological exploitation if evidence becomes a disconnected ‘rationalized myth’ and used merely to justify policy as Helgetun and Menter, 2020 document. However, our systematic review of innovation in teacher education research also highlighted new opportunities to challenge the ideological exploitation of constructs such as innovation, through reconstructing the governance of evidence (Stilgoe et al., 2013; Owen et al., 2013) as a process of responsible innovation in the field, where a genuine commitment to centring issues of value, purpose and ethical deliberation could be given more priority. This paper will present key findings from our systematic review and also open the discussion to how responsible innovation in teacher education research might enable more agentic and meaningful engagement with evidence.

Long Paper: Please see uploaded paper

Long Paper: Please see uploaded paper

Ellis, V., Correia, C., Turvey, K., Childs, A., Andon, N., Harrison, C., Jones, J., & Hayati, N. (2023). Redefinition /redirection and incremental change: A systematic review of innovation in teacher education research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, [103918]. Helgetun, J .B., & Menter, I. (2022). From an age of measurement to an evidence era? Policy-making in teacher education in England, Journal of Education Policy, 37(1), 88-105. Owen, R., Bessant, J. R., & Heintz, M. (2013). Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley. Sternberg, R. J., Pretz, J. E., & Kaufman, J. C. (2003). Types of innovations. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 158e169). Elsevier Science. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568 - 1580.