There is a gap between research and the schoolroom. It can be bridged by creating a reciprocal relationship between knowledge and practice.

An article in The Conversation on 30 June by Erin Leif, which examined the use of isolation as a disciplinary strategy in schools, was thoughtful, carefully researched and entirely consistent with much of the contemporary literature on student behaviour. It argued that prolonged isolation rarely changes behaviour, that relationships matter more than punishment, that restorative approaches should be preferred wherever possible and that parents should be genuine partners in helping young people learn from mistakes.

There was much to agree with. Yet I suspect many experienced teachers read articles like this with a familiar sense of unease. The research appears sound. The recommendations are sensible. But somehow, they do not quite describe the classrooms they inhabit every day.

This is not because teachers reject evidence. Nor is it because universities misunderstand education. It is because there is a translation gap between research and practice. Research and teaching ask different questions.

Researchers necessarily simplify reality. They isolate variables, define measurable outcomes and control as many influences as possible. Without this discipline, we would understand very little about learning, behaviour or child development. Schools have benefited enormously from this work. Our understanding of trauma, attachment, executive functioning and emotional regulation owes much to careful academic research.

Teaching, however, works in the opposite direction. A classroom is not a controlled experiment. It is a complex human environment in which 30 students, each with different histories, capacities and emotional states,........

© Pearls and Irritations