Guidance and Development Policy Instruments Are Individually Insufficient for Instructional Change¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Guidance instruments can direct and motivate but do not help teachers develop knowledge and skills for meaningful change; professional development without incentives and organizational conditions is unlikely to promote much change. → Smylie 2006

Evidence¶

Smylie 2006¶

Smylie, Mark A., and Stacy A. Wenzel. (2006). Promoting Instructional Improvement: A Strategic Human Resource Management Perspective. Consortium on Chicago School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/promoting-instructional-improvement-strategic-human-resource-management-perspective

q2 · i? · qualitative · r1

The report reviews two types of policy instruments used to promote intellectually ambitious instruction. It argues "guidance instruments can direct, motivate, and perhaps induce compliance" but cannot build capacity alone, and professional development needs complementary incentives and conditions.

"Although guidance instruments can direct, motivate, and perhaps induce compliance with particular teaching practices, they do not help teachers develop the knowledge and skills required to change their practice in meaningful and sustainable ways."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Resource mismatch, missing incentives, and discontinuous post-training support constrain the sustainability of training transfer — related
• None of the three key organizational characteristics is individually sufficient for strong freshman course performance in CHSRI small schools — a broader claim this one bears on
• Internal organisational conditions strengthen internal social drivers promoting technological change — related