ABSTRACT

Background

Randomised Control Trials (RCT) involving large numbers of schools, teachers and pupils, can provide statistically significant evidence that an intervention ‘works’, or makes a difference to learning. However, often the quantitative data collected to illustrate the extent of impact is insufficient to illustrate exactly ‘how’ the intervention was enacted, what was done and ‘why’ it was successful. This paper collates a range of forms of data from an innovative professional training programme to indicate the nature of the promoted strategies that comprise the ‘intervention’ and consider how they worked in practice.

Purpose

To illustrate how a mixed methods approach is required to substantiate the nature, as well as the extent of impact, of an educational intervention. Namely, Thinking Doing and Talking Science (TDTS).

Sample

The project reported on here involved 42 schools in a south east county in England, UK. 21 were the ‘experimental’ schools and 21 were ‘control’ schools.

Design and Methods

The project was an Educational Endowment Fund (EEF) RCT designed to assess the impact of the TDTS intervention.

Results

Quantitative data showed TDTS had a statistically significant impact on the academic attainment of nine and ten-year olds, by at least three months. Various forms of qualitative data provided here offer evidential insights illustrating how and why the intervention had the impact it did on thinking and attainment.

Conclusions

Designing research projects that examine both the nature and extent of impact on pupils’ learning requires a mixed methods approach. This necessarily involves the statistical comparison of quantitative evidence from both the experimental and control school groupings. However, in addition to the quantitative data, qualitative evidence is required to elicit the precise nature of the intervention. This included observations during the professional development sessions, lesson transcripts, evaluative questionnaire data and interviews characterise a successful science learning intervention.

中文翻译：

---

做、思考和谈论科学的认识论机会的本质：对促进创造力的有效干预的思考

摘要

背景

涉及大量学校、教师和学生的随机对照试验 (RCT) 可以提供具有统计学意义的证据，表明干预“有效”或对学习产生影响。然而，为说明影响程度而收集的定量数据通常不足以准确说明干预的“方式”实施、完成了什么以及“为什么”成功。本文整理了来自创新专业培训计划的各种形式的数据，以表明构成“干预”的促进策略的性质，并考虑它们在实践中的工作方式。

目的

为了说明如何需要混合方法方法来证实教育干预的性质和影响程度。即，思考做和说科学（TDTS）。

样本

这里报道的项目涉及英国英格兰东南部县的 42 所学校。21 所是“实验”学校，21 所是“控制”学校。

设计和方法

该项目是一项旨在评估 TDTS 干预影响的教育捐赠基金 (EEF) RCT。

结果

定量数据显示，TDTS 对 9 岁和 10 岁儿童的学业成绩产生了至少三个月的显着影响。这里提供的各种形式的定性数据提供了证据性的见解，说明了干预如何以及为什么会对思维和成就产生影响。

结论

设计研究项目，检查对学生学习的影响的性质和程度，需要采用混合方法。这必然涉及来自实验学校和对照学校分组的定量证据的统计比较。然而，除了定量数据之外，还需要定性证据来得出干预的确切性质。这包括专业发展课程期间的观察、课程成绩单、评估问卷数据和访谈，这些都是成功的科学学习干预的特征。