{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-9d3046f8d6639b2e","slug":"2013-04-18-documenting-implementation-of-evidence-informed-teaching","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2013-04-18","last_modified_date":"2013-04-18","title":"Documenting implementation of evidence-informed teaching","summary":"Sets out the scope, decision criteria and evidential basis relevant to documenting implementation of evidence-informed teaching, including the treatment of material limitations.","category":{"code":"STANDARDS_INTERPRETATION","label":"Standards Interpretation"},"article_type":"Standards interpretation","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"Teaching quality agenda","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The teaching quality agenda provides the immediate context for evidence-informed teaching. Oversight of the assurance question should reflect the principle that interpretation should begin with the intended outcome, then identify the controls and evidence needed to show that the outcome is achieved across the declared scope. The decision should address both public impact and the responsibilities attached to entrusted educational resources. In relation to documenting implementation of evidence-informed teaching, the appropriate administrative form will depend on the jurisdiction and the allocation of lawful responsibility."]},{"heading":"Applicable scope","paragraphs":["The historical reference basis is the teaching quality agenda. Its relevance to evidence-informed teaching should be assessed against the affected jurisdiction, learner population and form of provision. Any consequential application should rest on evidence suited to the affected scope, not on the existence of an international development alone.","A proper review of the stated expectation should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators. Public information on the assurance question should state the applicable scope and limitations in terms that affected users can understand, including the basis for any later correction. A chosen approach should be justified against its context, with departures and review points under documented control.","In practical terms, the stated expectation should be reviewed against a stated method rather than general assurance. In reviewing the stated expectation, a reliable record should identify what occurred, when it occurred, who was responsible, the authority for the action and any later correction. Records should remain protected against unauthorised alteration while legitimate amendments remain visible. Decision-makers should receive an intelligible account of how the result was reached and where it should not be applied.","Assurance concerning the assurance question should state the scope examined, evidence relied upon and any condition preventing a complete conclusion. Unsupported elements should remain open. Useful records include workforce plans and vacancy information, observation and learner feedback, workload and allocation data, qualification and competence records, and support and supervision records. Documents should be reconciled with observed practice and, where relevant, the experience of affected learners. System-wide assurance cannot be inferred from a favourable case chosen after the event."]},{"heading":"Implementation and evidence","paragraphs":["The quality significance of evidence-informed teaching follows from a basic distinction between availability and effective provision. The public-interest assessment of the relevant requirement should consider access, learning, fair treatment and the reliability of information on which learners make consequential decisions.","A narrow control over the assurance question may create false assurance. In the present context, use of staff outside their competence, vacancies or turnover affecting continuity and workload that limits preparation and feedback may produce acceptable aggregate reporting while individual learners remain exposed to material disadvantage. Adverse cases should form part of the sample wherever they may reveal a material control weakness."],"bullets":["Maintain continuity arrangements before using it to determine a learner or provider outcome.","Verify competence before assignment, with responsibility, scope and timing recorded.","Protect time for preparation and feedback.","Prioritise support where learner need is greatest.","Monitor workload and turnover before it informs a consequential decision."]},{"heading":"Assessment of conformity","paragraphs":["The review method for evidence-informed teaching should be reproducible. The method for the assurance question is to specify mandatory fields, source ownership, access rights, retention and correction procedures. Test a sample from creation through use, amendment, reporting and disposal, including records created during disruption or by a delivery partner. In relation to documenting implementation of evidence-informed teaching, working papers should allow another competent reviewer to understand the evidence, judgement and treatment of material exceptions.","The final record on the control should identify the applicable expectation, the relevant scope, the evidence examined, the sampling basis, material exceptions and the reason for the conclusion. If an alternative method is accepted, the record should demonstrate that it achieves the same required outcome. No complete conclusion should be recorded while a material evidential limitation remains.","The basis and limits of any conclusion concerning the stated expectation should be explicit. Oversight of the assurance question should reflect the principle that qualifications and participation in training are inputs. Risk assessment for the assurance question should consider severity, reach, duration, recurrence and detectability, with escalation where learner impact may be material. Limitations should be prominent wherever the finding may influence a consequential decision.","The assurance record for the assurance question should retain the date of the evidence, the source responsible for it, the scope examined and the version of any instrument or definition applied. A superseded conclusion should be retained where it formed the basis of a material decision."]},{"heading":"Review and corrective action","paragraphs":["Accountability for evidence-informed teaching should follow decision-making authority.","Neither one indicator nor one control can establish the complete position on the stated expectation."]}],"word_count":759,"content_hash":"sha256-b0ab47224a7a159537432c895c544e06f0b69a645a08ef1969740a3f27611710","seo_keywords":["documenting implementation of evidence-informed teaching","education quality standards","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}