Can educators trust AERO’s evidence? Sector voices say the jury’s still out

A critical new commentary published on the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) blog is raising fresh questions about the role of the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) and its influence on classroom practice.

In “AERO says educators can trust its evidence. Can they really?”, authors Rachael Dwyer, Brad Fuller and James Humberstone challenge the assumption that AERO’s resources provide a neutral or universally applicable interpretation of the evidence base.

Their article, the first in a two-part series, comes as the Federal Government commissions an independent review of AERO’s performance, led by KPMG, inviting public feedback on the national body’s value and impact. 

The authors argue that while “evidence-based teaching” has become a central tenet of policy and reform, the definition of what constitutes “evidence” remains narrow, politicised and overly prescriptive.

Drawing comparisons with the medical field, where evidence-based practice is grounded in professional judgment and individualised care, they contend that AERO’s model reduces teaching to a rigid checklist, assuming uniform solutions can apply across diverse learners, contexts and pedagogies.

“AERO presents the research as if it was black and white, ‘proven’, incontestable facts,” they write. “There is no space for professional judgment or critique.”

This approach, the authors suggest, risks undermining the professional agency of teachers by positioning them not as reflective practitioners, but as implementers of prescribed methods.

The article highlights AERO’s explainer on Managing Cognitive Load as a key example. The resource draws heavily on Sweller’s cognitive load theory and promotes explicit instruction as a strategy to avoid cognitive overload.

While the authors acknowledge that cognitive load theory is widely supported, they point to robust counter-arguments that favour inquiry-based and problem-based learning, particularly when contextual factors are considered.

These nuances, they argue, are absent from both the AERO resource and the Federal Government’s Core Content for Initial Teacher Education (ITE), which explicitly incorporates AERO’s framing into policy language. This alignment includes statements such as:

• “Independent problem-solving should not represent a large proportion of teaching and learning time.”
• “Information not directly related to the task should be excluded to reduce cognitive overload.”

These directives, the authors suggest, represent a troubling shift towards technical compliance, rather than context-aware, professional interpretation of research.

The authors close with a powerful provocation: Can teachers really trust AERO’s evidence when it is presented without room for dialogue or dissent? And perhaps more importantly, why doesn’t AERO trust teachers?

“What if AERO treated teachers not as technicians, but as thinking professionals in relationship with their students?”

They call for a version of evidence-informed practice that invites critique, values practitioner experience, and allows for complexity.

Learn about the Authors

• Rachael Dwyer is a lecturer in curriculum and pedagogy at the University of the Sunshine Coast.
• Brad Fuller is an educator and associate lecturer at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney.
• James Humberstone is a senior lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music.

Read the full commentary here: