Why my article on metacognition and self-regulation won’t make an Impact

Impact is the trade magazine of England’s Chartered College of Teaching. The Chartered College has had a bumpy ride so far. Despite the failure of its initial crowd-funding campaign, it was rescued by the injection of a massive five million pounds by the British government, currently controlled by The Conservatives. This has, amongst other things, allowed the College to launch Impact.

There has been a lot of criticism of the College since its inception. While teachers generally favour the establishment of a grassroots, teacher-led movement to represent them and their views, there have been questions as to whether the College is any of these things. Associate members, for instance, don’t have to be actual teachers. And teachers always fear that their institutions will be captured by the same old educational establishment that has captured all the other education bureaucracies and that has a habit of foisting performative gimmicks on them in the service of a deeper ideology.

In January, the College announced that the summer issue of Impact would be edited by Jonathan Sharples of the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) and would focus on the question-begging notion of developing effective learners. I speculated that this would centre on the EEF’s toolkit strand of ‘metacognition and self-regulation‘. In response, Sharples suggested I submit an abstract:

So I took up this offer and submitted an abstract for a perspective article, which is essentially an opinion piece.

The abstract was accepted and I was asked to write the article. This was then subjected to a peer review process involving seven reviewers. I tweeted the details earlier today:

To put it succinctly, the reviewers spotted few factual errors and the main objections were about tone and the fact the reviewers disagreed with my opinions. I don’t intend to change my opinions as a result of this process and I won’t rewrite my opinion piece so that it expresses opinions that I don’t hold.

So my article won’t appear in Impact, sadly. And I’ve spend a lot of time on this.

Hopefully, it won’t be a complete waste of effort because I will publish the piece on this blog. If I gain permission, I will also post the review comments and I will invite the reviewers to come forward and continue the conversation. If not, I will paraphrase what the reviews said.

Watch this space.


5 thoughts on “Why my article on metacognition and self-regulation won’t make an Impact

  1. Brian says:

    Is it possible that your submission might be seen as an explicit criticism of the validity of the EEF’s research. It was recently suggesting that the public shaming of a different piece of EEF research was not an appropriate forum for such an interaction.

    Is it possible that submitting for publication in this edition of Impact might leave the guest editor in a difficult position and perhaps you should look elsewhere to publish or wait for the next issue.

    You views of England’s Chartered College of Teaching seem clear from the introduction to the post above.

    You describe “Impact” as a “trade journal” and if viewed this way Impact is, I would have thought been free to print your opinion or not as it wishes. You may see it as an opportunity to quite validly question the voracity of EEF research but maybe they do not. Perhaps direct engagement with the EEF is the way to go, or perhaps even a direct approach to Nick Gibb.

    I have no beef with the EEF as I treat all of their research as simply the efforts of one organisation with a clear agenda to influence educators. Anyone who relies of EEF alone will be severely handicapped. I have no real beef with your opinion and when you publish your article I will read it and inwardly digest it. I am sure that the EEF will do likewise and those in charge at the CCoT also.

    I almost managed to get to the end without mentioning you clear, vocal and sometimes evangelical support for and involement of researchEd.

    • Chester Draws says:

      Don’t you feel weird Brian explicitly blessing an organisation that means to represent all teachers having a fixed line? The Soviets had “teacher” bodies like that, but I’m pretty sure we don’t need them.

      So yes, they can publish only what they agree with. But the should take wider view if they want to represent the whole profession.

  2. Pingback: The article that England’s Chartered College will not print – Filling the pail

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.