Evidence-Based Isn’t the Same as Evidence-First™

In education, the term evidence-based is familiar. According to Connor and Raker (2024), evidence-based instructional practices are teaching approaches supported by empirical research demonstrating positive effects on student learning. Explicit instruction, formative assessment, retrieval practice, cooperative learning, and other approaches may be described as evidence-based when research supports their effectiveness.

But Evidence-First™ means something very different. Evidence-First is not an instructional strategy. It is a protocol for scoring classroom observations and teacher-candidate observations based on specific, observable evidence.

That distinction matters.

Evidence-Based: Is the Practice Supported by Research?

When educators describe a practice as evidence-based, they are generally referring to the research behind the instructional approach. For example, an observer might note: “The teacher used an evidence-based questioning strategy.” That statement may tell us that the strategy has research support. But it does not yet tell us enough to assign a performance rating.

What question did the teacher ask?

How did students respond?

What evidence demonstrated the level of student thinking?

Those are observation and scoring questions. That is where Evidence-First begins.

Evidence-First: What Observable Evidence Supports the Rating?

Evidence-First is a structured observation and scoring protocol. Instead of asking a rater to watch a lesson, make a broad judgment about which rubric rating “best fits” the performance, and then find evidence to support the rating, Evidence-First starts with observable evidence.

The process is straightforward:

1. Observe the classroom practice. The rater watches and listens for specific evidence of teaching and learning.

2. Select the evidence markers that were actually observed. Evidence markers describe specific, observable practices connected to the rubric being scored.

For example:

“High-level questioning strategies (e.g., clarifying questions, hypothesizing questions, analytical questions) elicit critical-thinking responses.”

The rater selects this marker only when the classroom evidence supports it.

3. Let the evidence drive the rating. Based on the combination of evidence markers selected, the Evidence-First online scoring system generates a predictive rubric score or rating for the teacher candidate or classroom teacher.

In other words, the rater does not begin with the rating and search for evidence to justify it. The rater begins with the evidence, and the evidence informs the rating. That is the fundamental idea behind Evidence-First.

Why the Distinction Matters for EPPs and K–12 Leaders

Traditional observation systems often require a supervisor or administrator to observe a lesson, review a rubric, and decide which performance level best describes the teacher or candidate.

That process places substantial responsibility and time commitment on the rater to interpret everything that occurred during the lesson and translate it into a rubric score. Evidence-First changes the sequence.

Rather than moving directly from observation to judgment, the rater first documents the specific evidence present in the lesson. The system then uses those selected evidence markers to help generate the predictive rating.

For educator preparation programs, this can make candidate observation scoring more transparent and provide supervisors and candidates with clearer evidence behind a rating.

For K–12 school systems, it can give administrators and teachers a more concrete basis for evaluation conversations, coaching, calibration, and professional growth.

Evidence-First Does Not Require a New Rubric

An important feature of Evidence-First is that organizations do not have to replace their existing observation framework (e.g., Danielson 2013, Danielson 2022, Marzano 2018). Evidence markers can be developed around an existing teacher-evaluation or candidate-observation rubric.

The rubric continues to define the professional expectations.

Evidence-First adds a structured layer beneath the rubric that answers an essential question:

What observable classroom evidence would support this rating?

That makes the scoring process more explicit without requiring an organization to abandon the framework it already uses.

Reference

Connor, M. C., & Raker, J. R. (2024). Factors associated with chemistry faculty members' cooperative adoption of evidence-based instructional practices: Results from a national survey. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25(3), 625–642. https://doi.org/10.1039/d3rp00194f