and Reader in Evidence-based Education at the University of York. She is an expert on randomised controlled trial and systematic review designs, having undertaken numerous experiments and reviews in various topics in education. She is also a literacy expert.

This article presents the results of a systematic review of methods that have been used to measure or assess metacognition in children aged 4–16 years over a 20‐year period (1992–2012). It includes an overview of the types of tool and methods used linked with the ages of the participants targeted and how metacognition and associated concepts are defined. Two thousand, seven hundred and twenty‐one records were identified through systematic searching; 525 articles or reports were full text screened, resulting in 149 included studies reporting 84 distinct tools or methods. Of these 84 distinct tools or methods, four were excluded from further analysis after appraisal for reliability, validity and replicability. The final number of methods and tools for metacognitive assessment included in the analysis is 80. The key findings of this review include: Self‐report measures (including questionnaires, surveys and tests) comprise 61% of the included tools; Observational methods that do not rely on prompting to ‘think aloud’ (Think Aloud Protocols) have only been used with students aged 9 years and under; Information about reliability and validity is not always given or given accurately for different tools and methods; The definition of metacognition in a particular study relates directly to its assessment and therefore its outcomes: this can be misaligned.

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

No abstract

This article compares and contrasts two versions of the Education Endowment Foundation's (EEF) Teaching and Learning Toolkit (‘Toolkit’), a web‐based summary of international evidence on teaching 3–18 year‐olds. The Toolkit has localised versions in six different languages in Australia, Cameroon, Chile, Jordan and Spain. The initial Toolkit, created in 2011 with funding from the Sutton Trust and updated since then with funding from EEF, drew upon over 250 meta‐analyses across 30 areas of education research. An updated version, drawing on a database of over 2500 single studies from these meta‐analyses was launched in Autumn 2021. This change was motivated by increased interest in evidence‐use in education, and a desire to engage in more rigorous synthesis of primary studies. The article presents the rationale for these changes, outlines the methods adopted to populate and analyse the Toolkit database and presents results from this analysis. Findings indicate that although the broad picture of the relative benefits of the different approaches is similar, a more fine‐grained analysis is possible. This deeper synthesis can provide more specific guidance about what has been successful in the different areas of the Toolkit in research studies and offers opportunities for further refinement and improvement. This increased specificity, however, comes at the cost of greater complexity in the findings and the implications for policy and practice, and it increases the challenge of ensuring findings are both accurate and accessible. A final section reflects on the challenges of summarising evidence from research to inform decision‐making in education.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract