Evidence Team ( 2009 ) argue for a nuanced and context-sensitive understanding of
evidence that is relevant to both pre-service and in-service teachers and teaching:
...we have found that there is a difference between a culture where evidence‘drives’
decisions and a culture where evidence‘informs’decisions. The former suggests a narrow
almost empiricist focus and a linear, uncomplicated conception of the relationship between
evidence and policy/practice. On the other hand, the latter acknowledges that evidence
alone can never tell us what to do. Rather, evidence always has to be interpreted.
(Cochran-Smith and The Boston College Evidence Team 2009 , p. 466)Mindful of this caution, in what follows we offer a framework which identifies
levels of evidence that clinical teachers negotiate in supporting student learning.
The levels of evidence we have identified are as follows:
- Classroom-based evidence—the data gathered in the classroom context and as a
result of verifiable observations, and formal and informal assessments; - para-classroom evidence—data about the student’s out-of-school life that may
be impacting on their capacity to undertake tasks and meet learning outcomes; - external assessment evidence—summative assessment measures determined by
governments and fed back to school leadership and teachers; and, - research evidence—knowledge about learning acquired through refereed
research that informs teacher understandings of the efficacy of various inter-
ventions and suitability for their context.
The levels listed above start with the evidence teachers utilise that is most
closely derived from the interactions between students and teachers, and move to
the evidence that is least context dependent; to put this another way, this framework
recognises the way in which it is assessment practices (informal, formal, formative,
summative) that provide evidence, and that this evidence is both generated within
and outside a teacher’s immediate work with students. Moreover, we see distinc-
tions between the role of teacher knowledge (disciplinary/pedagogical) in working
with the different levels of evidence and data. While classroom-based evidence and
para-classroom evidence require teachers to draw on their own professional
knowledge to make sense of the data they receive, and even determine what con-
stitutes data, external assessment evidence and research evidence present packages
of data that draw on bodies of knowledge which bring other classrooms and con-
texts into teachers’and students’experiences. This is not to suggest that some forms
of evidence are more or less relevant than others, but rather that all levels and forms
are constantly in play in the work of clinical teachers. While clinical models do not
advocate a rigid framework for addressing student needs, they do highlight the need
to consider multiple variables when planning for learning; as Alter and Coggshall
( 2009 ) assert, an evidence-informed approach involves understanding the needs of
clients [students], observation, questioning, diagnostic evidence and research on
what works. Although it is most likely that classroom-based evidence will impact
on teachers’in-the-moment responses, decisions taken at the point of need are
therefore informed by the other forms of evidence that influence the clinical tea-
cher’s professional practice.
158 J. Kriewaldt et al.