Unlocking High-Quality Teaching

The education sector has been shaken in recent years. The forced online shift during COVID-19 brought to the fore essential questions such as the relational nature of teaching and learning. This episode seems now far behind, but emerging challenges have kept these questions relevant, if not even further amplified. These challenges include maintaining student engagement amid distractions from the virtual world, harnessing the potential of generative artificial intelligence (AI), and addressing the anxiety caused by a world marked by increasing economic instability, conflict, and environmental fragility (OECD, 2022[1]; OECD, 2019[2]).

Despite these disruptions, there are times when the education sector appears to be in a standstill. Education performance, as measured by large-scale international studies such as the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), suggest limited improvement in student outcomes in many countries since 2000 (OECD, 2023[3]). Furthermore, PISA also suggests that there has been little progress in terms of equity, with gaps even widening in some contexts.

Do education systems need more innovation or incremental improvements? The trends shaping education bring additional demands and opportunities when it comes to preparing young people for the future. This naturally leads to calls for fresh solutions, which can bring relevant new approaches, ideas and tools to the fore. But, the power of innovation might be overestimated compared to that of incremental improvements. An ever-growing body of evidence has emerged from decades of research on what works in education, signposting ways to enhance teaching through practices with proven impact. These small, targeted improvements hold great potential to accumulate and, ultimately, fuel substantial progress.

This report interrogates the nature and complexity of those small but powerful incremental changes in teaching. It focuses on teaching because it is the most significant determinant of student achievement that can be influenced (Hattie, 2023[4]). It is teachers who prepare students for their lives ahead in ways that enable them to grow and thrive. Much of this impact happens in the classroom, where what teachers do will not only affect what students know (Hanushek and Rivkin, 2010[5]; Rockoff, 2004[6]), but also what skills they master and the values and attitudes they develop (Jackson, 2018[7]). It is thus important to take a deeper look into teaching, take stock of what we know about high-quality teaching, and embrace the growing complexity of teaching.

This chapter starts by emphasising the importance of moving beyond simplistic teaching dichotomies to embrace the full complexity of teaching. It outlines five broad goals for quality teaching, along with 20 supporting practices that are explored in depth throughout this report. The chapter also underscores the critical role of research evidence in informing teaching practices, while acknowledging that the 'science' of teaching must be balanced with its 'art' and 'craft'. High-quality teaching is a collective endeavour, shaped by the actions of the teacher but also those of the school and system leaders, and professional judgement is considered alongside the school environment.

Understanding teaching requires a deeper, more granular examination of current pedagogies. Teaching and pedagogy are two deeply connected terms. At the minimum, pedagogy has been defined as the act of teaching, the relationship between teaching and learning (Loughran, 2013[8]) or “everything a teacher does to help students learn” (Killian, 2019[9]).

Often, however, pedagogy also carries associated values, attitudes and beliefs that influence the acts of teaching (Alexander, 2013[10]). This has, in certain subjects and contexts, led to an increased politicisation of pedagogy (Schön, 1983[11]). In turn, this has seen some pedagogical approaches set in unhelpful dichotomous opposition, often exacerbated with the emergence of new forms of communication and media, as researchers have increasingly come to draw attention to (de Jong et al., 2023[12]; Sweller et al., 2023[13]).

In parallel, new pedagogical approaches, methods and techniques have emerged resulting in an array of new terminologies. Aspects of these respond to new innovative ways of teaching. Others slightly change the conceptualisation of an existing approach. For instance, a scoping of so-called ‘active learning’ pedagogies found that there was a lack of clear definitions of specific pedagogies, with many terminologies used interchangeably (Hood Cattaneo, 2017[14]).

Overcoming these dichotomic views of teaching is important to:

• Understand the full nuances of the underlying pedagogical approaches (Schoenfeld, 2004[15]). Approaches can be reduced to a simple ‘label’, some of which are shown in Figure 1.1, and how they are commonly set in opposition to one another. These labels tend to concentrate emphasis on certain aspects of an approach but fail to capture its entire complexity. In this respect, they push pedagogical approaches artificially further apart, ignoring the way that approaches have been contextualised or qualified, or even envisioned as working alongside other approaches. While labels such as active, inquiry-based, explicit, direct, and so on can help us make sense of distinctions between different pedagogies, they also create differences, and pedagogy is vastly more complex than these dichotomies can convey. An illustrative point can be made with inquiry-based learning, which may be overly simplified to mean a student-centred inquiry process, ignoring the considerable research on the importance of, first, adopting such approaches when there is sufficient mastery from students of key concepts and procedures and, second, sustained teacher guidance, both before and during, in ensuring effective student inquiries (de Jong et al., 2023[12]).

• Promote constructive pedagogical dialogue grounded in evidence. Dichotomous debates can become reductionist and personal, being taken in numerous directions that detract from the question at hand, as evidenced in a range of intra-subject debates such as the ‘maths wars’ (Schoenfeld, 2004[15]). Dichotomies can also harm teachers’ critical engagement with practice and research, leading to distrust and suspicion of different pedagogies irrespective of the evidence available, as well as trust in their own pedagogies irrespective of other evidence (Dinham, 2017[16]). This can also lead to pedagogies based on ideologies and beliefs rather than considering evidence and research, or even pedagogies characterised by rejecting evidence (Kirschner, Hendrick and Heal, 2022[17]). Critique and interrogation are important aspects of the process of advancing knowledge and practice – indeed, some have argued that education, and social sciences research more broadly, may need to hold itself to account more thoroughly (Van Damme, 2022[18]), whilst teachers need the ability to critically examine their teaching in light of changing evidence and adapt to the evolving demands of teaching. Constructive, rigorous dialogue is easier when it is grounded in a shared understanding of these pedagogies and the evidence underpinning them, freed from the rigidity of dichotomies which encourage the idea of a purely ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ side to pedagogy.

After all, research does not provide so-called ‘silver bullets’ of what pedagogical approach is most effective. There is not one single approach that is ‘better’ than the others. There are too many different goals and needs in education – due to the contextual variation of classrooms, as well as their unpredictable nature – to expect a single approach to work for every single situation. Indeed, there might be mounting or even well-established evidence on what pedagogical approaches might be more effective to teach specific learning goals, such as the teaching of literacy to students in early years and primary school settings (Education Endowment Foundation, 2017[19]; Slavin et al., 2009[20]). Yet this would not comprise an entire pedagogical approach for all educational goals.

Thus, the question is whether these pedagogies are better for what, where, why, for whom, and when. Contrasting progressive with traditional, or active with passive implies there is one approach that is better, distinct from and opposed to the other, that one approach should be adopted while another is rejected. But it is not a case of ‘either/or’ but rather ‘both/and’, which can then serve as a platform for interrogating approaches in meaningful ways.

Focusing on practices can help to look underneath these pedagogical approaches. Whilst pedagogical approaches can be understood as overarching frameworks, theories or philosophies of teaching, teaching practices, by contrast, are more granular and can be understood as the building blocks of approaches. Practices are the specific tools that teachers draw upon to achieve particular goals in response to the needs of learners. Teachers need multiple practices that they can choose from that align with the focus and purpose of their teaching (Hattie, 2023[4]; Winch, Oancea and Orchard, 2015[21]), reflecting the greater breadth of knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that schools must seek to foster (Schleicher, 2018[22]). Moreover, as the evidence grows for particular practices, so does the nuance around what these practices have an impact on and when.

Looking underneath pedagogies at specific practices can help to highlight the similarities and shared emphasis between different pedagogical approaches, potentially serving as a bridge for the use of certain approaches, perhaps previously not considered or fully understood, for particular goals or contextual needs. This can eventually open up a wider range of pedagogical choices for teachers to draw upon in the classroom.

The differences between pedagogical approaches tend to centre around the role of the teacher and students, and the structure of the activity or task. These differences invite reflection on what a teacher could learn from other approaches and adopt into their practice. For example, might the teacher choose to take a more active role in ensuring appropriate levels of challenge for students in inquiry-based and project-based approaches such as through specific success criteria that make progression clearer? Alternatively, might the teacher when using a direct instruction approach choose to think more actively about how to make use of meaningful contexts or real-world connections that are student-driven when progressing student challenge to the application of knowledge and skills? Teachers may draw from a blend of different pedagogical approaches (Box 1.1).

The lack of a shared language in teaching makes breaking down teaching into smaller pieces to further understand what factors are at play challenging (Lortie, 1975[23]; Foray and Hargreaves, 2003[24]). In recent decades, however, researchers have developed various frameworks to facilitate the observation and evaluation of teaching quality (Pianta and Hamre, 2009[25]; Pianta and Hamre, 2009[25]; Praetorius et al., 2018[26]; Taut et al., 2014[27]). By providing a shared terminology and understanding, these frameworks have opened up new opportunities to examine classroom practices in a coherent and detailed way (Grossman and McDonald, 2008[28]; Klette, 2015[29]).

Moreover, empirical studies have tested these frameworks and found general agreement that three broad teaching dimensions – classroom management, social-emotional support, and strategies for engaging and supporting learners – serve as useful perspectives for assessing classroom teaching quality (OECD, 2020[30]). The findings show considerable scope for improvement in practices related to instructional strategies and socio-emotional support, while the potential incremental gains in classroom management practices seem more limited (see Box 1.3).

The report focuses on instructional strategies and socio-emotional support. In particular, the following five teaching goals, dimensions and challenges, towards high-quality teaching are considered:

• Ensuring cognitive engagement, focused on pitching learning at the appropriate level and creating the conditions for students to put forth sustained effort in their work.

• Crafting quality of subject content, focused on building a deep understanding of subjects – from the subject’s core ideas and skills to a critical eye of how to apply these.

• Providing social-emotional support, focused on nurturing a supportive classroom climate and building positive relationships that are conducive to learning, whilst also fostering students’ social-emotional development.

• Fostering classroom interaction, focused on facilitating high-quality interactions between teachers and students, and among students.

• Using formative assessment and feedback, focused on the ongoing process of teachers carefully evaluating and guiding students’ progress.

To achieve these goals, teachers deliberately draw upon specific practices to effectively engage and support all learners to develop desired educational outcomes in the classroom. A total of 20 practices aligned with these goals are analysed in depth to provide a deeper understanding of the complexity of their implementation in the classroom( Figure 1.3). These practices are also reflected in observation frameworks and evidence reviews (see Annex 1.A).

To establish a common understanding of the practices and goals considered, the Schools+ Teaching Taxonomy was developed. This structured framework, featuring clear and precise descriptors, was refined through iterative development across a range of stakeholders. Associated terms for practices were also identified to facilitate a more shared understanding. The Taxonomy is based on the OECD’s Global Teaching InSights Observation System, which was created for an innovative video study conducted across eight countries and economies (OECD, 2020[30]). The design principles underlying the Taxonomy are detailed in Box 1.2 and in Annex A – Methodology.

Many of the practices can be used alongside each other or even simultaneously, within the same lesson or across a sequence of lessons. There are also connections between the dimensions. These connections are essential in reflecting the complex, multidimensional nature of teaching. But, a degree of compartmentalising teaching and focusing on specific practices is needed to turn it into a concrete “object of study” for either research or teachers’ professional growth (Sharples et al., 2019[31]). This is, thus, not intended to narrow discussions around teaching to just these 20 practices in isolation, but rather to provide a starting point for a deeper and richer understanding of practice.

The availability of rigorous research evidence on the impact on student outcomes was a criteria for the selection of the practices examined. However, these practices should not be treated as a set of evidence-based ‘silver bullets’; teaching is more complex than a collection of practices drawn from principles of ‘effective teaching’, ‘what works’ or ‘best practices’ can ever fully capture.

The growth in empirical evidence, both in terms of causal studies and studies of teacher effectiveness, has shed new light on effective teaching practices in recent decades. Most of the 20 practices examined have been analysed through randomised or quasi-experimental designs which aim to establish causal relationships and understand what works (Boaz et al., 2019[32]). Moreover, meta-analyses and systematic reviews are also available for some of these practices (Hattie, 2023[4]), which may also offer an indication of the generalisability of certain findings beyond the context of individual studies.

Meanwhile, effectiveness studies, drawing on large-scale student assessments and teacher surveys, have also looked into the relationships between these practices and student outcomes (Le Donné, Fraser and Bousquet, 2016[33]; Kyriakides and Creemers, 2008[34]; Wang and Degol, 2015[35]; Martin, 2013[36]). This research has also been synthesised into a range of reviews and frameworks that seek to capture the patterns across different models of effectiveness (Coe, R. et al., 2014[37]; Muijs and Reynolds, 2010[38]).

The best evidence available for each practice is presented in Chapters 2 to 6. Then, Chapter 7 takes stock of the variation in terms of the extent to which research is available, the strength of the methodologies used, and the range of contexts. Thus, it provides an indication of the extent to which there is a cumulative body of evidence on these teaching practices and the challenges in advancing towards more evidence-informed teaching.

There has also been a growth in recent decades of research methodologies that use more direct classroom measures. Direct measures can provide a deeper and more complete understanding of how the teaching and learning process unfolds than indirect measures based on questionnaires where teachers and students report on the presence or frequency of different practices. Direct measures can offer an indication on how well the practice is enacted rather than whether it is enacted. However, because of the data collection methods needed, these studies are costly and intrusive meaning few of these studies have occurred at a large and international scale.

The OECD Global Teaching InSights: A video study of teaching which was an innovative study designed to capture international variation in teaching and to investigate the relationship between different teaching practices and student learning across a range of contexts and countries (OECD, 2020[30]). To obtain direct evidence from the classroom, about 700 teachers and 17 500 students from eight countries and economies were videotaped in two lessons from the unit of quadratic equations in secondary school Mathematics. The teaching materials were also collected, and both were coded following common and standardised protocols. Before and after the unit, teachers and students filled out questionnaires on their beliefs, practices and perspectives, and students also took tests to measure their learning gains.

The findings provide an overall picture of teaching quality observed across all participating countries/economies. Within a 1 (low) to 4 (high) observation score, teachers managed the classroom well (mean scores between 3.49 and 3.81), gave students moderate levels of social and emotional support (mean scores between 2.62 and 3.26), and provided them with reasonable instructional quality (mean scores between 1.74 and 2.24).

The findings suggested that some teachers in every participating country enacted practices in what can be considered a high-quality way, but there is considerable scope for many teachers to further refine how they use certain practices. In particular, the greatest levels of variation across participating teachers were related to instructional practices.

This highlighted the potential value of moving to a more granular understanding and dialogue around the implementation of practices, as well as the need to consider the wider contextual factors that could inform processes of refinement.

The findings of the Global Teaching InSights Video Study are, notably, not isolated and mirrored in other observation studies, in particular in relation to that of instructional support (Klette, 2015[29]). Hence, whilst certain practices such as feedback or metacognition have been the focus of intervention studies and seen a growing body of empirical evidence on their impact on student learning, observation studies repeatedly find that their presence is limited in day-to-day teaching in many classrooms (Blikstad-Balas, Tengberg and Klette, 2022[39]). In some cases, the foundations of practices can be seen (OECD, 2020[30]); the presence of certain practices but in less impactful formats suggests that it is also not necessarily a case of teaching in a radically different way, but rather moving towards better, more effective implementation of practices.

With the growth of research in education, increasing attention is being placed on making it accessible to schools and systematically studying the types of infrastructure and skills that can support their critical engagement with it (Rickinson et al., 2022[40]; OECD, 2022[41]) (see Chapter 7). However, ensuring that teachers are aware of the impact of these practices is unlikely on its own to be enough for these to be implemented well. It is also important to better understand what makes their implementation complex, and thus teachers’ wider professional knowledge and decision-making in the classroom.

Teaching can be viewed as a science, an art, and a craft. Teaching as a science emphasises the need to use evidence to guide what teachers do in their classrooms and the need to use data and measurement to evaluate the effectiveness of these practices. Teaching is, thus, built upon an evidence base, but it also involves creativity, intuition, flexibility to respond to the host of decisions teachers must make on a daily basis (Jackson, 1990[42]; Clough, Berg and Olson, 2008[43]). Teaching is not perfectly prescribed nor uniform. Moreover, like many crafts, teaching also develops over time; experience and reflection, coupled with feedback and discussion among colleagues, lead to a refinement in how teachers’ use professional judgement to implement pedagogies effectively (Sherin and Van Es, 2009[44]; Darling-Hammond, Hyler and Gardner, 2017[45]). Each of these views emphasises different aspects of teaching, but it is the combination of the three views that illustrates the fuller complexity of what teachers do (Winch, Oancea and Orchard, 2015[21]; Schön, 1983[11]; Brown and McIntyre, 1993[46]).

Teaching is more complex than what it might seem. Researchers categorise problems as simple, complicated, or complex (Snyder, 2013[47]; Glouberman and Zimmerman, 2002[48]). Simple problems are like following a recipe. Complicated problems involve successfully enacting multiple challenging procedures; but, once mastered, these challenging procedures can be repeated. Complex problems, on the other hand, require new solutions each time.

One aspect that the complexity of teaching hinges upon is its unpredictable nature due to its highly relational nature. After all, teaching centres on the interactions between teachers and students and among students themselves. These are highly variable and thus hard to concretely predict and prepare for (Rowan and Correnti, 2009[49]; Schweig, Kaufman and Opfer, 2020[50]). Moreover, the interactions lead to emergent behaviours, such as real-time progress or student needs, which, in turn, influence the process of teaching. Teaching is very dynamic. Thus, whilst teaching may rely on a degree of routines and norms to make the cognitive load of this complexity more manageable (e.g. norms for interacting, routines for transitions), teaching cannot be reduced to a series of steps. Some decisions can be planned for, but others arise in the moment. Similarly, some decisions will be conscious and deliberate; some will be informed by similar decisions made before, and some will be more instinctive.

A second aspect that defines the complexity of teaching is that it is highly contextual (see Chapter 8). Teaching is shaped by the resources available, curricula and assessments, as well as national or system-level policies and school-level policies and practices, including the school culture. Furthermore, as alluded to, it is also shaped by the students in the classroom, but not only their immediate behaviours and interactions; students’ wider individual needs, variations in their existing knowledge, skills and prior learning, and the collective culture of how they work and interact together are contextual factors that also shape teaching. This means that teaching is characterised not only by a large amount of decision-making, but complex decision-making (Clough, Berg and Olson, 2008[43]; Jackson, 1990[42]). Teachers’ decision-making hinges upon range of sources of information, from their immediate knowledge of students to that of the content at hand (Guerriero, 2017[51]; Seidel et al., 2011[52]; Winch, Oancea and Orchard, 2015[21]), which teachers must draw upon and balance to make real-time decisions that can drive students’ learning forward.

There is a degree of professional judgement that shapes the implementation of teaching (Sharples, 2013[53]). Even with the most well-researched practices, it is not possible to absolutely and fully prescribe what must be done in every situation that teachers encounter. Teachers make many decisions in the classroom and only a few can be informed by evidence. Research evidence can enhance teachers' knowledge, but it can never replace their experience or the unique understanding they have of their students and school environment (Nelson and Campbell, 2017[54]; Education Endowment Foundation, 2018[55]).

The feedback to be provided to students is a case in point on the importance of teachers’ professional knowledge. Research has shown that feedback can be very impactful (Wiliam et al., 2004[56]; Education Endowment Foundation, 2018[55]; Webb et al., 2021[57]), but also detrimental if implemented incorrectly (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996[58]; Wiliam, 2011[59]). A large body of high-quality research has suggested how feedback should be focused on a specific learning opportunity, offer appropriate scaffolds and challenges to bridge where learners are and need to be, and be coupled with students acting upon this feedback (Elliot et al., 2020[60]).

However, it is the teacher in the classroom that must decide which moment is appropriate for providing feedback depending on how learning is progressing, and what is the most suitable guidance that will serve as a bridge for students’ learning of the target content. This is not a pure science, but also the ‘art’ of teaching. To improve teaching practices, it is thus paramount not just to understand ‘what works’ but also ‘how it works’ by codifying to the extent possible this wider professional knowledge.

Teachers draw upon their ‘art’ – their wider professional knowledge – alongside the scientific evidence on teaching to effectively implement high-quality teaching. This wider professional knowledge can be seen as a more tacit type of knowledge, encompassing the intuitive, often unarticulated expertise and insights that teachers develop through experience (Ulferts, 2019[61]). It is a dynamic and evolving knowledge base (Révai and Guerriero, 2017[62]), as it is grounded in their own experiences, both positive and negative, in classrooms, as well as wider interactions with students and colleagues.

The ’art’ of effectively implementing practices has been greatly overlooked in research. The effective implementation of practices largely remains tacit knowledge because efforts to move towards greater systematic approaches to understanding and capturing it are still nascent. It is only more recently that aspects such as ‘process guidance’ have started to be given more attention (Cartwright, 2013[63]).

Similarly, approaches that are more orientated towards eliciting teachers’ perspectives and experiences, such as through participatory research and professional learning communities that may draw out professional expertise (OECD, 2023[64]; Stoll, 2015[65]), are rarely considered generalisable. There are, thus, few efforts to codify and synthesise this type of expertise, despite the proliferation in terms of numbers of such approaches and initiatives with schools (Patfield, Gore and Harris, 2022[66]).

Some aspects of the implementation process of practices that can be codified are the key teaching decisions (Zhai, 2019[67]; Grossman, Hammerness and McDonald, 2009[68]; Glisan and Donato, 2017[69]) and the signals from students that result from these practices (Santagata and Guarino, 2010[70]; Chung and van Es, 2013[71]). Chapters 2 through 6 provide insight on these decisions and signals, not to draw an exhaustive list, but to scope out the complexity of implementing practices.

The key teaching decisions (also referred to as critical components, mechanisms of change or active ingredients) are elements of a teaching intervention that have been proven effective and should not be altered during implementation (Harn, Parisi and Stoolmiller, 2013[72]; Stains and Vickrey, 2017[73]). These can be structural (e.g. materials, timing, or frequency of intervention activities) or process-based (e.g. instructional activities, teacher behaviours or student behaviours), depending on the specific teaching practice in question (Stains and Vickrey, 2017[73]).

Students furnish teachers with valuable real-time information that can inform the implementation process and allow for its refinement (Yeh and Santagata, 2014[74]). Research into how teachers observe and analyse practice, for instance, has demonstrated that teachers are attuned to the signals that they receive in the classroom as students’ behaviours respond dynamically to teachers’ decisions (Rosaen et al., 2010[75]; Star and Strickland, 2007[76]; Blomberg et al., 2013[77]). After all, teachers use practices for a specific purpose which is, overall, part of supporting students’ progress in terms of their acquisition and development of specific knowledge, skills and values and attitudes. that students share are therefore a manifestation of this progress.

Finally, teaching is not solely influenced by the teacher; the school environment also plays a significant role in shaping what happens inside the classroom (see Chapter 8). This influence can come from various sources, such as classroom spaces, teaching tools or aids, the distribution of teaching staff, the collaborative norms among staff, and the broader school ethos. The school principal and the leadership team play a major role in shaping the school environment, but also does the wider system, as well as its local community and – particularly in an increasingly digital age – the wider education community too.

The overall aim of this report is to advance the understanding of the complexity of high-quality teaching. It provides an in-depth examination of the five teaching goals and 20 practices that support high-quality teaching across ages, subjects and contexts. For each of them, the report has sought to:

• Identify the best research evidence available for those practices, and provide an indication of the respective areas of strength and limitation.

• Leverage the professional knowledge of teachers and school leaders to make key decisions and observe student responses when implementing these practices, thereby deepening understanding of their complexities.

• Explore the interplay between scientific and professional knowledge, and how school and system leaders can support teachers in refining these practices and fostering environments that promote high-quality teaching.

The methodological approach was characterised by multi-stakeholder collaboration and iterative development (see Annex A and B). It has pioneered integrating scientific research with synthesized professional knowledge. The data was sourced from:

• Over 50 participating institutions in the Schools+ Network, such as ministries of education, local authorities, teacher and school leader organisations, large school networks, evidence brokerage organisations, and entities supporting educational development like philanthropic foundations and international organisations.

• Teachers and school leaders from over 150 schools from 40 countries, chosen by Schools+ participants for their experience with research evidence and interest in innovation. They have participated in quarterly synchronous and asynchronous knowledge-sharing and synthesizing activities to develop these rich qualitative insights on the implementation process of teaching.

• 26 experts from academia and knowledge brokerage organisations that contributed to the rating exercise and review of scientific evidence on practices. An additional 17 academics and organisations provided qualitative input on the conceptualisation of practices and the scoping of their evidence. Their contributions built on background documents developed by the Informal Expert Group of the Project.

It is worth noting that this report focuses on the practices as individual tools that teachers may draw upon in their teaching to particular goals. It does not consider the sequencing of these practices and research from fields such as the science of learning of when certain practices may be most effective in students’ learning journey or for which types of learners, nor does it consider in detail the connections between practices and how they may be used in combination with each other. Yet, these are important considerations for teachers and leaders. Instances where particular caution may be exercised, such as in relation to students’ prior knowledge, are flagged where appropriate in the discussion of a practice’s implementation.

The rest of this report is structured as follows:

• Chapters 2 to 6: Provide an in-depth examination of the 20 practices that can support five teaching goals. Each practice is presented in a consistent, granular way, that outlines both the best available research evidence as well as insights from schools on key teaching decisions and observed effects on students. The final section looks outwards to the types of environmental factors that may enable or hinder effective implementation.

• Chapter 7: Outlines some of the high-level trends that have characterised the pursuit of more rigorous scientific knowledge on teaching in recent years. It presents the strength of evidence for each practice examined in this report, and some of the notable challenges that may shape research agendas going forward when it comes to fostering more evidence-informed teaching. In particular, it emphasises the need to better understand how practices are implemented, as well as their interplay with teachers’ professional knowledge.

• Chapter 8: Unpacks the complexity of teaching by considering both the different difficulties that practices present and the degree that a practice’s implementation is shaped by environmental factors. It then turns to consider ways in which schools can empower high-quality teaching by supporting teachers to grow their practice as well as providing a more supportive environment.

[10] Alexander, R. (2013), Essays on pedagogy, Routledge.

[73] Allen, D. (ed.) (2017), “Fidelity of Implementation: An Overlooked Yet Critical Construct to Establish Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Instructional Practices”, CBE—Life Sciences Education, Vol. 16/1, p. rm1, https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0113.

[39] Blikstad-Balas, M., M. Tengberg and K. Klette (2022), “Why – and How – Should We Measure Instructional Quality?”, in Ways of Analyzing Teaching Quality, Scandinavian University Press, https://doi.org/10.18261/9788215045054-2021-00.

[77] Blomberg, G. et al. (2013), “Understanding video as a tool for teacher education: investigating instructional strategies to promote reflection”, Instructional Science, Vol. 42/3, pp. 443-463, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9281-6.

[32] Boaz, A. et al. (eds.) (2019), What Works Now?, Policy Press, https://doi.org/10.51952/9781447345527.

[46] Brown, S. and D. McIntyre (1993), Making sense of teaching, Open University Pres.

[63] Cartwright, N. (2013), “Knowing what we are talking about: why evidence doesn’t always travel”, Evidence and Policy, Vol. 9/1, pp. 97-112, https://doi.org/10.1332/174426413x662581.

[71] Chung, H. and E. van Es (2013), “Pre-service teachers’ use of tools to systematically analyze teaching and learning”, Teachers and Teaching, Vol. 20/2, pp. 113-135, https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.848567.

[43] Clough, M., C. Berg and J. Olson (2008), “Promoting Effective Science Teacher Education and Science Teaching: A Framework for Teaching Decision-Making”, International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, Vol. 7/4, pp. 821-847, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-008-9146-7.

[37] Coe, R. et al. (2014), What makes great teaching?.

[82] Coe, R. et al. (2020), Great Teaching Toolkit Evidence Review, https://evidencebased.education/great-teaching-toolkit-evidence-review/ (accessed on 7 November 2024).

[81] Creemers, B. and L. Kyriakides (2013), Improving Quality in Education, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203817537.

[78] Danielson, C. (2007), Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching.

[45] Darling-Hammond, L., M. Hyler and M. Gardner (2017), Effective Teacher Professional Development.

[12] de Jong, T. et al. (2023), “Let’s talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 39, p. 100536, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100536.

[16] Dinham, S. (2017), “The lack of an evidence base for teaching and learning: fads, myths, legends, ideology and wishful thinking”, Professional Voice, Vol. 11/3, pp. 17-26.

[85] Education Endowment Foundation (2020), Teaching and Learning Toolkit, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit (accessed on 5 November 2024).

[55] Education Endowment Foundation (2018), Teacher Feedback to Improve Pupil Learning – Guidance Report, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/feedback (accessed on 8 January 2025).

[19] Education Endowment Foundation (2017), Success for All: Evaluation report and executive summary, https://d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/production/documents/projects/Success_for_All_Evaluation_Report.pdf?v=1729266741 (accessed on 13 August  2024).

[60] Elliot, V. et al. (2020), Feedback: Practice Review, Education Endowment Foundation, http://: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Evaluation/EEF_Feedback _Practice_Review.pdf.

[24] Foray, D. and D. Hargreaves (2003), “The Production of Knowledge in Different Sectors: A model and some hypotheses”, London Review of Education, Vol. 1/1, pp. 7-19, https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460306689.

[69] Glisan, E. and R. Donato (2017), Enacting the work of language instruction: High leverage teaching practices.

[48] Glouberman, S. and B. Zimmerman (2002), Complicated and Complex Systems: What Would Successful Reform of Medicare Look Like? Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada.

[68] Grossman, P., K. Hammerness and M. McDonald (2009), “Redefining teaching, re‐imagining teacher education”, Teachers and Teaching, Vol. 15/2, pp. 273-289, https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340.

[79] Grossman, P. et al. (2013), “Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers’ value-added scores”, American Journal of Education, Vol. 119/3, pp. 445-470.

[28] Grossman, P. and M. McDonald (2008), “Back to the Future: Directions for Research in Teaching and Teacher Education”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 45/1, pp. 184-205, https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312906.

[62] Guerriero, S. (ed.) (2017), Knowledge dynamics in the teaching profession, OECD Publishing.

[51] Guerriero, S. (ed.) (2017), Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270695-en.

[5] Hanushek, E. and S. Rivkin (2010), “Generalizations about Using Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality”, American Economic Review, Vol. 100/2, pp. 267-271.

[72] Harn, B., D. Parisi and M. Stoolmiller (2013), “Balancing Fidelity with Flexibility and Fit: What Do We Really Know about Fidelity of Implementation in Schools?”, Exceptional Children, Vol. 79/3, pp. 181-193, https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900204.

[4] Hattie, J. (2023), Visible Learning: The Sequel, Routledge, London, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003380542.

[87] Hill, H. et al. (2008), “Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching and the Mathematical Quality of Instruction: An Exploratory Study”, Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 26/4, pp. 430-511, https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177235.

[14] Hood Cattaneo, K. (2017), “Telling Active Learning Pedagogies Apart: from theory to practice”, Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, Vol. 6/2, pp. 144-152, https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2017.7.237.

[7] Jackson, C. (2018), “What Do Test Scores Miss? The Importance of Teacher Effects on Non–Test Score Outcomes”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 126/5, pp. 2072-2107, https://doi.org/10.1086/699018.

[42] Jackson, P. (1990), Life in Classrooms, Teachers College Press.

[9] Killian, S. (2019), Pedagogy: What it is & why matters?, https://www.evidencebasedteaching.org.au/pedagogy/ (accessed on 13 August  2024).

[17] Kirschner, P., C. Hendrick and J. Heal (2022), How teaching happens: seminal works in teaching and teacher effectiveness and what they mean in practice, Routledge.

[29] Klette, K., O. Bergem and A. Roe (eds.) (2015), Introduction: Studying interaction and instructional patterns in classrooms, Springer.

[58] Kluger, A. and A. DeNisi (1996), “The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 119/2, pp. 254-284, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.

[34] Kyriakides, L. and B. Creemers (2008), “Using a multidimensional approach to measure the impact of classroom-level factors upon student achievement: a study testing the validity of the dynamic model”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 19/2, pp. 183-205, https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450802047873.

[33] Le Donné, N., P. Fraser and G. Bousquet (2016), “Teaching Strategies for Instructional Quality: Insights from the TALIS-PISA Link Data”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 148, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jln1hlsr0lr-en.

[23] Lortie, D. (1975), School teacher. A sociological perspective, Chicago University Press.

[8] Loughran, J. (2013), “Pedagogy: Making Sense of the Complex Relationship Between Teaching and Learning”, Curriculum Inquiry, Vol. 43/1, pp. 118-141, https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12003.

[38] Muijs, D. and D. Reynolds (2010), Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice, SAGE Publications.

[54] Nelson, J. and C. Campbell (2017), “Evidence-informed practice in education: meanings and applications”, Educational Research, Vol. 59/2, pp. 127-135, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2017.1314115.

[3] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.

[64] OECD (2023), Who Really Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Developing a Culture of Research Engagement, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc641427-en.

[1] OECD (2022), Are Students Ready to Take on Environmental Challenges?, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8abe655c-en.

[41] OECD (2022), Who Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Strengthening Research Engagement, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d7ff793d-en.

[30] OECD (2020), Global Teaching InSights: A Video Study of Teaching, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/20d6f36b-en.

[2] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.

[66] Patfield, S., J. Gore and J. Harris (2022), “Scaling up effective professional development: Toward successful adaptation through attention to underlying mechanisms”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 116, p. 103756, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103756.

[86] Pianta, R., M. Cox and K. Snow (eds.) (2007), Learning opportunities in preschool and early elementary classrooms, Paul H Brookes Publishing.

[25] Pianta, R. and B. Hamre (2009), “Conceptualization, Measurement, and Improvement of Classroom Processes: Standardized Observation Can Leverage Capacity”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 38/2, pp. 109-119, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09332374.

[26] Praetorius, A. et al. (2018), “Generic dimensions of teaching quality: the German framework of Three Basic Dimensions”, ZDM – Mathematics Education, Vol. 50/3, pp. 407-426, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0918-4.

[40] Rickinson, M. et al. (2022), “A framework for understanding the quality of evidence use in education”, Educational Research, Vol. 64/2, pp. 133-158, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2022.2054452.

[6] Rockoff, J. (2004), “The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data”, American Economic Review, Vol. 94/2, pp. 247-252, https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041302244.

[75] Rosaen, C. et al. (2010), “Constructing videocases to help novices learn to facilitate discussions in science and English: how does subject matter matter?”, Teachers and Teaching, Vol. 16/4, pp. 507-524, https://doi.org/10.1080/13540601003754905.

[84] Rosenhine, B. (2012), “Principle of instruction”, American Educator, Vol. 36/1, pp. 12-20.

[49] Rowan, B. and R. Correnti (2009), “Studying Reading Instruction With Teacher Logs: Lessons From the Study of Instructional Improvement”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 38/2, pp. 120-131, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09332375.

[70] Santagata, R. and J. Guarino (2010), “Using video to teach future teachers to learn from teaching”, ZDM, Vol. 43/1, pp. 133-145, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-010-0292-3.

[22] Schleicher, A. (2018), World Class: How to Build a 21st-Century School System, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264300002-en.

[15] Schoenfeld, A. (2004), “The Math Wars”, Educational Policy, Vol. 18/1, pp. 253-286, https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904803260042.

[11] Schön, D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in action, Temple Smith.

[50] Schweig, J., J. Kaufman and V. Opfer (2020), “Day by Day: Investigating Variation in Elementary Mathematics Instruction That Supports the Common Core”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 49/3, pp. 176-187, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x20909812.

[52] Seidel, T. et al. (2011), “Teacher learning from analysis of videotaped classroom situations: Does it make a difference whether teachers observe their own teaching or that of others?”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 27/2, pp. 259-267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.009.

[53] Sharples, J. (2013), EVIDENCE FOR THE FRONTLINE A REPORT FOR THE ALLIANCE FOR USEFUL EVIDENCE, http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org.

[31] Sharples, J. et al. (2019), Putting Evidence to Work: A School’s Guide to Implementation: Guidance Report.

[44] Sherin, M. and E. Van Es (2009), “Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision”, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 60/1, pp. 20-37, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328155.

[20] Slavin, R. et al. (2009), “Effective Reading Programs for the Elementary Grades: A Best-Evidence Synthesis’”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 79/4.

[47] Snyder, S. (2013), “The Simple, the Complicated, and the Complex: Educational Reform Through the Lens of Complexity Theory”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 96, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k3txnpt1lnr-en.

[76] Star, J. and S. Strickland (2007), “Learning to observe: using video to improve preservice mathematics teachers’ ability to notice”, Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, Vol. 11/2, pp. 107-125, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9063-7.

[65] Stoll, L. (2015), Using evidence, learning and the role of professional learning, Brown, C.

[13] Sweller, J. et al. (2023), “Response to De Jong et al.’s (2023) paper “Let’s talk evidence – The case for combining inquiry-based and direct instruction””, Educational Research Review, p. 100584, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100584.

[27] Taut, S. et al. (2014), “Teacher performance and student learning: linking evidence from two national assessment programmes”, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, Vol. 23/1, pp. 53-74, https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2014.961406.

[36] TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, L. (ed.) (2013), Effective schools in reading, mathematics, and science at the fourth grade, Martin, M.; Mullis, I.

[61] Ulferts, H. (2019), “The relevance of general pedagogical knowledge for successful teaching: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the international evidence from primary to tertiary education”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 212, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ede8feb6-en.

[83] University of Michigan (n.d.), TeachingWorks University of Michigan, High Leverage Practices, https://tle.soe.umich.edu/HLP (accessed on 5 November 2024).

[18] Van Damme, D. (2022), The Power of Proofs (Much) Beyond RCTs, http://www.curriculumredesign.org (accessed on 13 August  2024).

[80] Walkington, C. et al. (2012), “Development of the UTeach observation protocol: A classroom observation instrument to evaluate mathematics and science teachers from the UTeach preparation pro”.

[35] Wang, M. and J. Degol (2015), “School Climate: a Review of the Construct, Measurement, and Impact on Student Outcomes”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 28/2, pp. 315-352, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1.

[57] Webb, N. et al. (2021), “Learning through explaining and engaging with others’ mathematical ideas”, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, Vol. 25/4, pp. 438-464, https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2021.1990744.

[59] Wiliam, D. (2011), “What is assessment for learning?”, Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 37, pp. 3-14.

[56] Wiliam, D. et al. (2004), “Teachers developing assessment for learning: impact on student achievement”, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, Vol. 11/1, pp. 49-65, https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000208994.

[21] Winch, C., A. Oancea and J. Orchard (2015), “The contribution of educational research to teachers’ professional learning: philosophical understandings”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 41/2, pp. 202-216, https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1017406.

[74] Yeh, C. and R. Santagata (2014), “Preservice Teachers’ Learning to Generate Evidence-Based Hypotheses About the Impact of Mathematics Teaching on Learning”, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 66/1, pp. 21-34, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114549470.

[67] Zhai, L. (2019), “Illuminating the Enactment of High-Leverage Teaching Practices in an Exemplary World Language Teaching Video Library”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 56/5, pp. 1681-1717, https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218824289.